Twilight is teh Sux

I don't just hate Randian wannabe's who think they are so awesome they should be able to collect the benefits of society without paying for them. I also hate Twilight.

Your betters

The biggest problem I have with GOP Daddies and our Glibertarian/Tea Party betters is their fixation on the Randian/Calvinist conceit that being filthy rich is your reward for taking risks and being innovative. Most filthy rich people either inherited their money or made it through gambling with other peoples money with minimal actual risk to themselves. Take Carly Fiorini for example. Rich beyond belief, but only because she took a huge risk at Lucent and succeeded. If, by succeeded, you mean transferring all the risk of her shady deals onto the employees and investors while she was CEO.

As far as I can tell Randian / Glibertarian ideals are founded on misunderstanding basic market economy concepts like supply & demand (let alone the slightely more complicated stuff)* so I it doesn't surprise me that they also fail to understand that in a true market economy most of our Galtian overlords (including themselves) would have been wiped out when their schemes collapsed. Of course, it's always nice to believe that the taking someone else's billions and turning it into millions for yourself while leaving them broke is Teh Awesome.

*Another major concept they don't get is that there are no profits in perfect markets; profits come from friction like location (think choosing a store that more expensive but close to you) or asymmetry of information (think finance or IP).

The 411

One goal of Project: The Serve Masters (it's a cookbook dude!) is to increase the incentive of the other teams to, well, build teams. Our goal was to be a team that individuals couldn't beat; you need to work together. So, how is that working? Who has put together a group of guys dedicated to making me haz sads?

I call Bullsh*t

In a previous post I speculated that Alberto Contador was screwed because of the new test for plasticizers. The inventor of the test and head of the Barcelona WADA-accredited lab, Dr. Segura, stated that the test was "robust" and "technically applicable" heavily implying it was scientifically validated and that the only reason it wasn't officially approved was administrative. Since he's a scientist and understands what scientific validation means I suggested this was highly suggestive that the test works and Alberto is done.

I did qualify this by stating that it's possible that the test is not scientifically validated yet but if that is the case then the inventor is a lying scum sucking piece of crap who is knowingly deceiving people.

Well guess what? Looks like he is an untrustworthy liar.

Rabin said that the test for plasticizers can be used as an indication of possible doping, but said it is not yet validated. "To validate a drug test, it must be confirmed by scientific literature and groups of experts, and it must be usable in all [WADA-accredited] laboratories," he said. "Extensive research is underway involving populations of athletes and samples from the general population, but we can not predict their outcome.

According to WADA the test has not been scientifically validated and the explicitly state what needs to be done. Contrast that with Dr. Jordi Segura's previous statement:

Segura said that although the test for di-phthalate plasticizers has yet to be formally sanctioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the method is valid.

"It's totally good and robust, and it's one of the most important anti-doping advances in recent years because it's the only way of knowing if somebody has undergone an autologous blood transfusion," Segura explained, before outlining how the test works.

"Plastic bags have components that we call plasticizers, which retain the properties of red blood cells during storage. As these residues are also found in common items, the sample must demonstrate a very high level of detection and quantity in order to be considered positive."

Segura admitted that the test may not be legally binding, given that it has yet to be formally validated. "That would be a question for WADA," he said. "In legal terms, you may need more tests to support it, as often happens with such discoveries. But in technical terms, I can say now that it's a categorical method that is perfectly applicable."

Let's be clear: Segura knows what Scientific Validation means. He implies it was scientifically validated by stating how robust it is and it's technical applicability, both of which are what the scientific validation process determines and by stating it isn't validated in the legal sense. At the time I noted that while he didn't explicitly state it had been scientifically validated if it wasn't he had to be intentionally misleading.

I understand the desire to catch the cheaters but it's not ok to plant evidence just because you think Contador is guilty.

I've never been gone

I apologize for my lack of Masters racing trash talking. I really got nothing cause there are only so many times I can claim I am going to personally make everyone cry before I get bored and want to race. Plus, I may not make you cry and then I just look silly. My skillset is more along the lines of mocking everyone (including me!) for the stupid stuff we do in bike races.

Nevertheless I will do my best:

Greetings, Master's Cycling. I.. am... PruDog. Don't bother flicking your infernal keyboards, I've taken over your intertubes. Now, I trust you're all comfy on your tacky sofas from 'rooms to go', lots of nibbles close at hand. Well, tuck in and why not smoke between gobbles. Yes, go for the gusto, Masters Cyclists. Live like there's no tomorrow because as far as you squalored lot are concerned there very much isn't. Behold, the instrument of your doom...(scene cuts away to show a massive, ominous looking Keller Rohrback Masters squad and then cuts back) I call us.. the Annihilatrixes! and when we are completed, a million gigatons of thrust will propel our bikes directly into the Sun... so look upon my work ye mighty and despair..

Was that over the top? I can never tell.

Uh, didn't they burn down the house?

For anyone thinking of voting Republican I want to remind you that the economy crashed under their watch and the deficit they so suddenly care so much about is mostly from their years in power. So yah, the Democrats be building you a lame ass shack to replace you house, but it's the republicans that burned your house down to begin with.

PS: If you don't think the Dems are to blame for the crash, then you really just want to vote Republican and it has nothing to do with the economy or spending.

PSS: If you want less Government, well that's not an option. The Republicans are the ones who run up debt (Nixon, Reagan, W) by increasing spending. They just do it on Defence and "privatized" contracts. It's been the Dems (LBJ, Clinton) who balance budgets and cut spending in to pay for new programs.

PSSS: If you just want lower taxes and don't care about spending then you are just an asshole.

Doping in Sports

On the one hand, it is very frustrating that cycling keeps having doping scandals. It is, however, hard to take attacks on cycling by mainstream sports pundits seriously when 16% of major league baseball players tested positive for drugs banned by WADA last year and football refers to doping positives as "violations of the leagues banned substance policy".

I don't see any evidence that cycling is dirtier than any other professional sport and pundits who bash cycling while ignoring problems* elsewhere or even writing about the plight of the unapologetic cheater are hypocritical assholes.

2011 Prediction

I want to get this in now before the economy officially tanks again. I predict in 2011:

Unemployment will exceed 10%
We will officially enter a double dip recession
We will officially have deflation

I also predict the the Fresh-water types will continue to demand austerity and warn of hyper inflation while going to great lengths to explain why Paul Krugman is wrong and the are totally not Neo-Classicists because SHUT UP THAT'S WHY!

Now this may be something

It's hard to know what to think of the plasticizer test that the lab in Cologne conducted on Contador's samples because it hasn't been officially validated yet. That's important; when scientists talk about a procedure being validated for a specific use they usually mean that it has been peer reviewed, the finding confirmed and the results published in major journals for further peer review. In the case of doping tests this includes studies on false positives: cases where a procedure may show doping when none occurred. That should include the likelihood that a controlled substance will show up when it isn't there and when a controlled substance will show up due to involuntary exposure, i.e. food contamination.

Reading the latest, it appears that Segura is saying that the procedure has, in fact, been scientifically validated. The missing "validation" that is referred to is administrative in nature, meaning that WADA just hasn't decided whether to use the test yet and what results it considers a positive.

Segura said that although the test for di-phthalate plasticizers has yet to be formally sanctioned by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the method is valid.

"It's totally good and robust, and it's one of the most important anti-doping advances in recent years because it's the only way of knowing if somebody has undergone an autologous blood transfusion," Segura explained, before outlining how the test works.

"Plastic bags have components that we call plasticizers, which retain the properties of red blood cells during storage. As these residues are also found in common items, the sample must demonstrate a very high level of detection and quantity in order to be considered positive."

Segura admitted that the test may not be legally binding, given that it has yet to be formally validated. "That would be a question for WADA," he said. "In legal terms, you may need more tests to support it, as often happens with such discoveries. But in technical terms, I can say now that it's a categorical method that is perfectly applicable."

There are no good guys here..

Watching Clen-gate unfold I can't help but feel a certain deja vu with the Flandis Affair. I have a lot of very specific thoughts on the situation, none of which fit well into a short blog post and I am tempted to do a Nate Silver live 5-part series.

The bottom line for me is that, while Contador is likely guilty of doping, it does not appear that the test he failed is evidence of this. Rather, there seems to be a reasonable chance that trace amounts of Clen can occur in a persons system through environmental contamination. Without studies that identify the risk from food contamination we don't know what the effective false positive rate (defined here to include both positives where no Clen is present and positives where the athelete did not intentionally ingest the drug) is nor do athletes know where the contamination may be coming from. While it is the athletes responsibility to know what goes in there body it does not seem that an athlete can reasonable avoid consuming food that may be contaminated.

I have to repeat, none of this is to say that Contador is innocent. I think the point is that the test itself appears to be inconclusive and doesn't really add any additional evidence beyond our own certainty that all athletes (except those from your home country of course!) dope. And it's always dangerous to decide someone is guilty just because we "know" he is and then look for confirming evidence with an uncritical eye because.. well.. turns out human certainty isn't really all the reliable.