Igivegoodleadout, you ignorant slut

In response to my post suggesting that everyone who is up in arms at the Flandis Arbitration panel should instead aim their ire at WADA IGiveGoodLeadOut (forevermore referred to herein as IGive) came out swinging.

Among many things s/he said:

It would be really nice if people formed their opinions off of informative information versus what they read off of the Velonews mailbag. Here are some actual facts...

At first, I wasn't sure if that criticism was levelled at me or the letter writers I quoted. It seems like it was me, but that would mean IGive didn't actually read my post or do any research by looking at the previous posts on the subject of dope testing I've made. That seemed unlikely since IGive just admonished someone (me?) for not making informed opinions "based on facts" or "informative information".

It's further seems odd, since my post was titled "Part Deux", which implies there was a part 1. But maybe IGive doesn't understand French. Or maybe Deux isn't French. I don't know, I just know it was the second Hot Shot movie. So for his benefit here's a link to part 1 and the money quote:

I have read the reports of the Flandis verdict and also the opinions, both majority and minority. I will caveat the following by noting that neither PPuppy V1 or V2 particularly care about my need to read this information so I may have missed an important point or 2.

I won't go back and link all my dopage related posts cause, well frankly I don't have the time to sift through my blog. But if you do you will find some "informative information" such as:

I have read nearly the entire WADA website.
I have read the Vervoken-hooky report.
I have read the publicly released portions of the Tyler Hamilton arbitration case.
I have read many interviews by Dick Pound and Hien Verburghenhousen were they explicitly state that the threshold for a dope test is preponderance of the evidence
My issue with the dope testing is WADA's presentation of tests as scientifically validated for use as a dope test when they are not.
I actually know what it means to be scientifically validated.
I have a hard time spelling names.
I may in fact be a trained Ninja.

But then again, IGive also said the following:

1. The one dissenting arbitrator in the case was chosen by the Landis team. Same guy chosen by Tyler which was also a 2-1 ruling. USADA chose an arbitrator, and those two chose the third. The one picked by Landis was chosen because he has a history to dissent in these cases.
2. The techniques used are completely scientifically valid, and one could argue is the least subjective of all the tests done (MS/MS(steroids) versus FACS(homologous blood transfusion) versus WB(EPO)).
3. An independent lab tested 7 other Landis samples from the tour and found exogenous testosterone (ie not from your own organism) in 4 of those.
4. People are saying that there were not enough parameters positive to call it a positive, which again, is not true. They based the positive off of multiple metabolites of testosterone to prove that it was indeed a positive test.
5. There are arguments that his testosterone numbers were regular and that it was his epitestosterone numbers that were low. Again this is wrong, there is no way to determine a "normal" concentration because this test is done on urine and not blood plasma levels. That is why the use the T/E ratio, which has been completely characterized. I will go as far as saying that a 4:1 T/E ratio is probably too much leeway for a test and is contributing to the abuse of testosterone.

Which is odd since I know a smart commenter like IGive would actually read the arbitration report and know that there were 2 tests ruled on^[1]
and that the panel decided to toss the first test's results for protocol errors^[2] but to allow the 2nd test^[3]. Thus, the panel ruled 2-1 that there was enough evidence based on the 2nd test for the adverse analytic finding to stand. He would also know they did not rule on the validity of the techniques, instead it referred to several UCI verdicts as precedence for accepting the 2nd test as a valid dope test. The panel did not, as IGive's comment seems to imply, find that the tests were scientifically valid and that both tests were allowed to stand by a 2-1 vote.

Despite my absolute confidence in IGive's research skills, here's another linky to the report plus the money quote from velonews' coverage:

The majority of the panel found that while the initial testosterone-epitestosterone test was not "established in accordance with the WADA International Standard for Laboratories," the more precise and expensive carbon-isotope ratio analysis (IRMS), performed as a follow-up was accurate. As a result, "an anti-doping rule violation is established," said the majority.

Now it could also be true that IGive knows the panel ruled on 2 different tests and just wasn't clear in comments. But someone who would sarcastically call me a "genius" because I couldn't get a link to work properly wouldn't set themselves up for ridicule by making an in your face argument that wasn't perfectly written would they?

But then again, I would assume that someone coming out guns ablazin' at your dear blogger would not say something like:

2. The techniques used are completely scientifically valid, and one could argue is the least subjective of all the tests done (MS/MS(steroids) versus FACS(homologous blood transfusion) versus WB(EPO)).

were
1. The first statement is substantiated by link to a search result for studies by Catlin and specifying the the abstracts of 2 which,not surprisingly, do not in total meet the standard of independently replicable results since Catlin is a researcher in both them^[4].
and
2 The second statement is both meaningless (one could also argue it's not, so what's the point?)and irrelevant Association Fallacy. Scientific Validity is not based on a grade curve.


Anyway, I could go on, following Strangelover's dictum that the best use of the internet is to insult people. But rather I'll stop, since probably 1 person will even read this far and present my actual point.

I am perfectly up for having a real discussion about the issue's of dope testing. However, that discussion needs to be in good faith and based on a willingness to question ones own beliefs. I am not up for someone questoning my intelligence (the "genius" comment) or my analytic abilities (the "It would be really nice if people formed their opinions off of informative information" graph) when they can't even meet the same standard of analysis they are demanding of me (see above).

Assuming that's what IGive meant. If not, well then move along. Nothing to see here.



^[1]Page 47, Paragraph 145

^[2] Page 53, Paragraph 172

^[3] Page 53, Paragraph 173

^[4] Note that the link was to a search that does not always return the results in the same order. So rather than pick apart the relevance of the study it seemed easiest to point out the obvious failing in the basic search.. they are all studies involving Catlin and therefore relevant only as 1 study, not as replication of results required to be considered valid. On my own I was able to find 4 other studies, 2 by WADA accredited agencies and therefore also of questionable relevance in terms of replication, none of which were detailed enough in the abstract to determine provided validation to the test.