Kohl fesses up, omerta in full swing...

"Keith" wrote in message
...
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 !

Psst - in the European system it is available over the counter in many
counties. But by all means claim otherwise.

Fred Fredburger wrote:
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?

Perhaps, if they're lying about doping.

On Oct 16, 9:07*am, "Tom Kunich" cyclintom@yahoo. com wrote:
"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.

Hey Tom. I agree with you about the testing matters in this post, but
we don't need McCain right now.

On Oct 16, 5:23*am, Keith wrote:

Kunich's brain samples-

Now see, there you go. That's a false positive right there.

-rj

Amit Ghosh wrote:
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.

Dumbass,

There are both Type I and Type II errors.

Tom Kunich wrote:
Psst - in the European system it is available over the counter in many
counties. But by all means claim otherwise.

EPO and/or (MIR)CERA? It isn't. Or perhaps in Albania, if you want to
call that European.

wrote:
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

I think you're reading to much into it. You're putting a spin on it.
For the purposes of trying to convey an idea or concept to the public
via the media, that statement is likely sufficient. A lot of people do
not know or understand about confidence intervals, probability,
statistical distributions, etc.

Furthermore, it is possible that the people that make those statements
don't fully understand statistics themselves. And maybe they don't need
to. My CFO or President certainly don't understand the details of all
the information they disseminate. They have people that work for them
whose job it is to understand what they are dealing with and give advice
and direction on their areas of work and expertise.

Furthermore still... I don't think enough credit is giving to the people
that work in doping controls. Chances are that they are normal,
law-abiding, respectful people. Maybe there are/were/going to be a few
idiots or dishonest people. The idea that the institutions mentioned
above do not understand science and statistics, based on the examples
given above, is dubious.

Tom Kunich wrote:
Psst - in the European system it is available over the counter in many
counties. But by all means claim otherwise.

Ted van de Weteringe wrote:
EPO and/or (MIR)CERA? It isn't. Or perhaps in Albania, if you want to call
that European.

New European.

wrote:

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

What clinical trial? They conducted clinical studies ie. took samples of
blood from hospitals, some patients were receiving CERA, others not, and
they performed the test to see if they could accurately predict who was
taking CERA.

"LawBoy01" wrote in message
...

Hey Tom. I agree with you about the testing matters in this post, but
we don't need McCain right now.

While I agree with you on that subject Phil, the problem is that Obama is
FAR worse.