Interesting sounding article in Nature

iainf72

http://www.velonews.com/article/81414/s ... cal-muster

I think Nature is one of those mags that scientific types take seriously. Interesting stuff.

Who knew you could be an expert in biostats?

dave_1

iainf72 wrote:

http://www.velonews.com/article/81414/scientist-anti-doping-tests-don-t-pass-statistical-muster

I think Nature is one of those mags that scientific types take seriously. Interesting stuff.

Who knew you could be an expert in biostats?

muddy the waters again are we Iain...

bipedal

As a scientist, I can confirm that Nature is big news, certainly the highest profile UK general science journal... However, it is important to note that this is a commentary piece, and as such will not have been peer-reviewed, and as such only represents the opinions of the author as would a regular newspaper or magazine article

dulldave

His DNA example is absolute garbage. To give it proper comparison (assuming the same confidence levels) is like saying that one in every 10,000 tests for synthetic testosterone that have been brought about by a suspiciously high testosterone level will be inaccurate.

Suddenly those odds look a little better.

The testosterone tests he quotes just highlight that some people will get away with it. It doesn't prove anything about false positives.

You don't need to be a scientist to see holes in his argument. Opinion pieces are for PR and that's what this is. Some PR for him because he wants a job in the field probably. That's why Landis was mentioned in it.

donrhummy

dulldave wrote:

His DNA example is absolute garbage. To give it proper comparison (assuming the same confidence levels) is like saying that one in every 10,000 tests for synthetic testosterone that have been brought about by a suspiciously high testosterone level will be inaccurate.

Suddenly those odds look a little better.

The testosterone tests he quotes just highlight that some people will get away with it. It doesn't prove anything about false positives.

You don't need to be a scientist to see holes in his argument. Opinion pieces are for PR and that's what this is. Some PR for him because he wants a job in the field probably. That's why Landis was mentioned in it.

He is far from the only respected scientist to call into question the definitiveness and scientific validity of the tests used against Landis.

Also, it's not clear the DNA example is from Donald Berry. The VeloNews author does not quote him as saying that but posits that example himself. In fact, I would caution reading that article too literally as there are VERY few quotes from the Nature article. I have no idea how accurately the VeloNews author interpreted Berry's article.

bipedal

CFA have a link to the actual article

flattythehurdler

I would point out that donrhummy shouted at me on here when I suggested that it was a little odd that ricco could sprint 9k uphill at the giro without apparent effort.