Kohl fesses up, omerta in full swing...

On Oct 15, 9:45*pm, wrote:

After reading statements such as:

"The test for CERA, the new form of EPO, "is one hundred-percent
sure," the expert for blood-doping at the Lausanne, Switzerland anti-
doping lab says"

fromhttp://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/oct08/oct12news
and similar statements by Brodry, I accept that science no longer has
any bearing with current dope testing.


dumbass,

what is your concern ? false positives or false negatives ?

if you read taleb's book he describes two kinds of people, the dr.
john and the fat tony.

you are a dr. john.

if he were to say the accuracy was 99.0% or 99.90%, you could compute
from the poisson distribution the probability of a false positive
given the number of tests that are carried out yearly or whatever. the
suspected rider might even hire you as an expert witness and you would
convince yourself that there is some real possibility that he isn't
guilty.

the fat tony would realize that detecting a substance in an
electrophoresis gel isn't the same as horsekicks in the prussian army
and there isn't any reason why the substance you are looking for would
show up at some (fixed) random rate in a clean rider's sample.

Amit Ghosh wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:45 pm, wrote:
fromhttp://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/oct08/oct12news
and similar statements by Brodry, I accept that science no longer has
any bearing with current dope testing.

what is your concern ? false positives or false negatives ?

The problem is we don't even know if that is a valid question.

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:56:35 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Oct 15, 8:11Â*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"Keith" wrote in message

news
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?...oct16news&from...

So he admits the obvious, another Â*dent in the conspitacy theory
heralded by Kunich and Ilan and all the Landis groupies, but "admitted
that he doped with EPO CERA......which he undertook on his own..."

Do you really suppose that your stupid remarks make the slightest
difference? What I said and what I meant was that when it counted the TdF
had tests done that broke their own rules and those of the UCI. What's more,
they performed tests on samples obtained through illicit means and the
testers knew who those samples were supposed to belong to.

Who's samples were obtained via illicit means?

Kunich's brain samples

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Charles
wrote:

Tom is watching and cheering on Mccain presently. He is unavailable at
this time.

Oh yes, you'd expect that dumbass to be the only Palin voter in
California.

On Oct 15, 6:11Â*pm, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:


I realize that you're not a chemist and don't understand that a great deal
of the testing is INTERPRETTED and that just knowing who the samples belong
to can tip those interpretations one way or the other.


snip
Dumbass -


How dense can you get? Obviously, very.

Kohl admitted it.

Here is Kunich's line of reasoning : "Yes but AFLD shouldn't have
tested the blood samples after the fact so that poor [insert name] guy
got in fact framed"

Replace by Armstrong, Mayo, Landis, Hamilton, etc...

On Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:28:59 -0700 (PDT), Charles
wrote:

So, who provided the DOPE Bernie? Who put you in contact with that
Doctor? Sing BABY Sing

That's right, that's what the UCI needs to know !

On Oct 16, 10:59*am, Amit Ghosh wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:45*pm, wrote:

After reading statements such as:

"The test for CERA, the new form of EPO, "is one hundred-percent
sure," the expert for blood-doping at the Lausanne, Switzerland anti-
doping lab says"

fromhttp://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2008/oct08/oct12news
and similar statements by Brodry, I accept that science no longer has
any bearing with current dope testing.

dumbass,

what is your concern ? false positives or false negatives ?

if you read taleb's book he describes two kinds of people, the dr.
john and the fat tony.

you are a dr. john.

if he were to say the accuracy was 99.0% or 99.90%, you could compute
from the poisson distribution the probability of a false positive
given the number of tests that are carried out yearly or whatever. the
suspected rider might even hire you as an expert witness and you would
convince yourself that there is some real possibility that he isn't
guilty.

the fat tony would realize that detecting a substance in an
electrophoresis gel isn't the same as horsekicks in the prussian army
and there isn't any reason why the substance you are looking for would
show up at some (fixed) random rate in a clean rider's sample.

The next sentence in the article is:

"We conducted clinical studies in order to ensure that the results
that we pass on are one-hundred percent correct."

This sentence shows a total lack of understanding of clinical trials.

-ilan

"Charles" wrote in message
...

Tom is watching and cheering on Mccain presently. He is unavailable at
this time.

While you're watching and cheering on the most left voting member of the
Senate. Congratulations on pulling for a commie.

Robert Chung wrote:
Bob Schwartz wrote:
Keith wrote:
Sure, he went out and procured it on his own...Good old "omerta", if
he wants to come back he needs to serve his time and stay mum, poor
guy...
He gets two years regardless. No reason to talk.

Though if he does, it improves the chance that others who declare their
innocence are telling the truth.



No, wait! If he's telling the truth doesn't it increase the chances that
the others are LYING?

"Keith" wrote in message
...

Here is Kunich's line of reasoning : "Yes but AFLD shouldn't have
tested the blood samples after the fact so that poor [insert name] guy
got in fact framed"

Replace by Armstrong, Mayo, Landis, Hamilton, etc...

Sig Heil! Seems like your kind of world huh Keith?