Weight Weenies

You can't go on Oprah and lie. Big mistake. This one will cost more than 75 Mill

^


You can lie to almost anyone and the people will forgive you. But if you lie to Oprah....




Listening to Tygart on 60 minutes, I don't think he was completely accurate in some respects. He seemed to not want to fully disclose just how rampant PED use was back then. But I guess that is the reality of opposing sides, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

Armstrong said on Oprah that he did not take EPO in his comeback 2009 and 2010. Tygart on 60 minutes says he has irrefutable evidence that lance did. So we'll see what happens next.

no, stella, you have that wrong. the evidence in 2009 and 2010 is not of EPO but of blood doping. Oprah specifically asked him about that and he denied using any performance enhancers including blood doping.

the biological passport data shows otherwise (check the chart posted earlier in the thread) by a statistically significant margin of -- if I remember correctly -- one in five million.

I think Tygart said 1 in a million. OK, Armstrong knows what Oprah is talking about, we know what Oprah is talking about.
There is no point in splitting hairs here. Did he or did he not cheat in 2009 and 2010?

The evidence supports the conclusion that he did cheat in '09 and '10 (see the Wiggins quote above, too) and that he lied about it on Oprah.

motorthings
Why are so many people in denial about mental disorders once exposed?
This is just another story of power and greed. A story that just keeps repeating itself with different players. Ho hum.

My prediction is that, given these latest testifying developments, that unfortunately, the UCI will somehow wallow through
this, and in the end further entrench its power and corruption.
The ball is in the racers' court, and they do not seem unified enough to go on strike globally against UCI &
compel race organizers to deal with a new body or lose it all.

Change Cycling Now seems like it was just a feeler for that, but in the end they too will give in to UCI.

stella-azzurra wrote:I think Tygart said 1 in a million.

To be fair, what scientists will say is "it is one in N probable this result would be the result of chance if taken from a randomly selected person in the population". But then there's a 1 in 100 million chance of winning the Tour de France by that standard, or whatever. Tour winners are not a representative group. They obviously have some freakishly non-normal characteristics. So if I flip a coin and it comes up heads 10 times, I can't say it's P probably it's a cheater coin, but I can say it's only 0.2% probable a noncheating coin would come up the same 10 times in a row.

That said, the data show a clear pattern of reticulocyte reduction while red blood cell count is increasing (ie mature cells appearing without any young cells). I'm no physician, but since this is the pattern we're told which you'd expect from blood doping, a practice to which he's admitted to following, the obvious conclusion is Armstrong's veins had an illegal alien problem.

Just stating what was stated in Tygart's interview on 60 minutes.

swinter wrote:The evidence supports the conclusion that he did cheat in '09 and '10 (see the Wiggins quote above, too) and that he lied about it on Oprah.

We know that why do you think I said that just like a good lawyer. Ask questions you know the answer to.

Regarding the will the UCI/McQuaid/Verbruggen confess branch of this thread:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-28/world-cycling-body-drops-armstrong-commission-seeks-truth-panel.html wrote:The International Cycling Union disbanded a commission set up to review its handling of the Lance Armstrong doping case and instead will seek to create a truth and reconciliation panel.

Pat McQuaid, president of the cycling body known by its French acronym UCI, said yesterday that the commission would not be able to succeed without cooperation from the World Anti- Doping Agency or the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

WADA and USADA officials withdrew from the commission two weeks ago over the UCI’s refusal to grant witnesses amnesty. WADA and USADA officials also questioned the independence of commission members.

“We have listened carefully to the views of WADA, USADA and cycling stakeholders and have decided that a truth and reconciliation process is the best way to examine the culture of doping in cycling in the past and to clear the air so that cycling can move forward,” McQuaid said in a UCI release.

USADA Chief Executive Travis Tygart said he remained skeptical about the UCI’s ability to independently review its conduct.

“The UCI blindfolded and handcuffed its independent commission and now hopes the world will look the other way while the UCI attempts to insert itself into the investigation into the role it played in allowing the doping culture to flourish,” Tygart said in an e-mailed statement.

“We have always fully supported a well-structured truth and reconciliation process in order to clean up the sport and protect the rights of athletes,” Tygart said, “but it is clear that the UCI cannot be allowed to script its own self-interested outcome in this effort.”

<additional stuff in full article>

OK, I'll come across as a complete nerd, but here goes. To follow up on djconnel's comment, you can separate your (subjective) beliefs from (objective) evidence.
Evidence: test result (whatever that is, positive or negative, a numerical value,...)
hypothesis 1: rider dopes (and hypothesis 2: rider doesn't dope)
your belief: probability that rider dopes

Whatever your belief is, you can revise it once you have seen the test result, and this is how.

Prob(doping given result) Prob(result if doping) Prob(doping)
---------------------- = ------------------ * -----------
Prob(no_doping given result) Prob(result if no_doping) Prob(no_doping)

(edit: this should be 3 ratios, the system collapses my neat formula; this link shows it better: http://www.stat.auckland.ac.nz/~curran/statschat/bayes.png)

The part on the right is your initial belief, given as an odds. If you think, before seeing the test, that the rider has a 50% chance of being doped, that translates as even odds (50:50), or 1.
The part in the middle is the evidence. In this case, maybe the probability of having low reticulocytes when you do blood transfusions is fairly high (eg 50%), but very low if you do not blood dope (eg 0.0001%, or 1 in a million). This ratio would be 500000.
The part on the left is what you should believe after you have seen that particular test. Now the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of the hypothesis that the rider dopes (in this example the odds are 500000, so way past 99.99%).

The nice thing is that people can disagree on the rightmost part, their prior beliefs, while agreeing on the evidence, the middle part. If your initial belief ws a near certainty that the rider does not dope (only 1 chance in 1 million), then even the damning evidence above will move the post-test odds to 1:2, or a 33% chance of doping - so now you are on the fence.

stella-azzurra wrote:Armstrong said on Oprah that he did not take EPO in his comeback 2009 and 2010. Tygart on 60 minutes says he has irrefutable evidence that lance did. So we'll see what happens next.

He did not use EPO, but used blood bags. His hematrocit at the end of the tour was almost the same as when he started the tour and that is not normal. His hematrocit should be way down of his pretour freshness values.
One can argue that injecting your own blood has nothing to do with performance enhancing drugs and that will be true. But Armstrong stated in interview that he did not use any PED's including blood transfusions. We know the truth, but it is irrelevant unless it is coming from Armstrongs mouth.

Armstrong can't be trusted with speaking the truth any longer.
We need to look to other people for that.

Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com

stella-azzurra wrote:Armstrong can't be trusted with speaking the truth any longer.
We need to look to other people for that.

I think you need to remove "any longer"