In More or Less this week, presenter Andrew Dilnot and the team investigate statistical weaknesses in the testing regime for drugs in sport.
One athlete initially suspected of taking testosterone was finally cleared last week.
The cyclist Floyd Landis is also contesting the allegation that he too took testosterone to enhance his apparently winning performance in the Tour de France.
While we have no idea of Landis' guilt or innocence and would not speculate, is there anything in the argument that testosterone can reach suspicious levels for natural reasons?
What we found in our investigations was reason to concern us both about the plight of the innocent and our chances of catching the guilty.
I wrote to "More Or Less" recently: they've been asking for examples of unintended consequences, so I cited Ian Walker's recent helmet research.
Got back a very nice email from the producer, basically saying thanks and they have hopes, but not immediate plans, of doing a piece on cycle helmets some day. O well.
-- Mark, UK "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
I wrote to "More Or Less" recently: they've been asking for examples of unintended consequences, so I cited Ian Walker's recent helmet research.
Got back a very nice email from the producer, basically saying thanks and they have hopes, but not immediate plans, of doing a piece on cycle helmets some day. O well.
I wonder if the Guardian's 'Bad Science' column would like to do a piece ?
I wonder if the Guardian's 'Bad Science' column would like to do a piece ?
-adrian
I suggested this to Ben Goldacre a while ago (by email). He replied to the effect that helmet advocacy assumes that it is the responsibility for the risk of cycling lies with the cyclist. I said yes but that was not the point I was making. I repeated that pro helmet studies are Bad Science. I think that would be worthwhile someone else trying.
