Quoted message said:Quoted message said:But now, with these new evidences, I believe that there is a 99% probability
that Lance was doped (at least in 99). <<
What you are saying is that (1) there is a 99% probability that, in a 6
year period, there was 100% certainty that a single urine specimen from
an athlete who had as many detractors as admirers in the country in
which the specimen was stored was 100% protected from sabotage and
there was 99% certainty of lack of laboratory error and 99.9%
specificity of the test in question (which there is NOT!), as it would
take a test 99.9% specific to produce a result which is 99% accurate,
based on Bayes' Theorem (I'm guessing that you know enough statistics
to understand my argument here).
I've worked in many laboratories, with many research freezers. I am
certain that the laboratory in question has had to store perhaps
100,000 specimens; perhaps more. They probably have well secured
"doping control" freezers and much less well secured research and
general storage freezers. Since the year 2000, there have been
numerous positive tests, providing specimens from which to obtain
"positive" materials for spiking other specimens. I am confident that
the lab in question was quite conscientious about protecting specimens
from outside contamination in a period relevant to the testing in their
"doping control" freezers. But how can we be 99% confident that a "B"
specimen from 1999 received 99% effective protection over the years,
beyond the time frame where it would have been of relevance?
The fact that someone as fair as Olivier would be immediately moved to
consider Lance "guilty" shows just how reprehensible this was (to
publish such a story).
Beyond sabotage, there's more than a 1% chance of some sort of systemic
lab screw up. And no chance that the EPO test is 99.9% specific.
The accepted standard of "guilt" is to have a specimen taken into
"protective" custody, tested _immediately_ and then, if the test is
"positive," to have the test confirmed with the second specimen. And,
all the while, to have the specimens protected from tampering. There
is a reason for these safeguards and that is because (1) there is a
very real risk of tampering and (2) there is a very real risk of
laboratory error.
The Armstrong case deviates so severely from the established standards
that it is completely reprehensible to use these findings to smear the
reputation and tarnish the achievements of someone who has no
possibility of defending himself.
I find particularly nauseating the comments of people to the effect
that "Lance needs to come forward and explain himself." What is there
to "explain?" What can he "explain?"
This is simply the most unfair doping allegation I've ever heard.
Look again. We aren't talking about a single Tour, in 1999. We are
talking about 7 in a row, during which time he became the most
scrutinized athlete in history. Look at what he did this year. Does
anyone seriously believe that he'd risk doping himself to win a 7th
Tour, instead of just retiring at 6? And if he won this year's Tour,
in such a dominating fashion, well into his thirties, at an age where
no one had ever previoiusly won a Tour, then why is it so hard to
believe that he won cleanly 7 years ago...and in each year since?
Is it more than 1% plausible that someone dumped a few drops of
contaminated urine into a single urine specimen stored in a research
freezer (not in a continuously guarded doping control freezer) during a
6 year period?
Of course it is more than 1% probable that this happened.
Way more than 1% probable.
Sufficiently more than 1% probable that it's simply outrageous to make
such accusations at this time.
- Larry W
