Zero Tolerence a bad idea

mumu wrote:

41 participants is not enough to have a "good" test. For the medical observation there is no problem, but then (even if the observations are very good) you need to make a chi-2 test to know the sensibility of the test. And with 41 observations, it is very few.

You've completely missed the point here and as I suspected are trying to invalidate the research and researchers, which I believe would in turn invalidate the people doing the drug testing over at the UCLA lab. There are a few major problems with what you are saying mumu. I don't know what your statistical experience is, (though you didn't mention the chi-2 test, so you might fire back with a bunch of other technical mumbo-jumbo)but when you have a test where 20 of 24 participants taking a substance tested positive for something they hadn't intended to be ingesting, that is statistically significant. Dr. Catlin's research was significant to P=.006. If P=.05 or less we can conclude it is statistically significant, and in this case it is .006, which goes to show that the sample size was plenty large. If Dr. Catlin is using sample sizes that are too small to conduct his tests, which I can clearly see is not the case, that would not speak well for his credibility.

Also, if a sample size of 41 is not enough to be a valid test, how is it valid when we test just one athlete and draw conclusions from that test?

Thank you for posting this research. After reviewing this information it hit me, we are looking at the WRONG PROBLME! We should be much less concerned with testing procedures and purity of supliments and more concerned with the fact that our athletes are taking them! What ever happened to good old fashoned training to get better? This is an extention of the quick fix society we live in. Get as much as possible with as little work as possible. I realize these Olymipc athletes are pairing "supliments" with high level training but is winning that important? I know that personally I don't allow the athletes on my team to take ANY supliments. The few exceptions to this would be Iron in anemic athletes, but I don't coach at a level where testing is really a factor. I think we first need to stress the importance of natural training, not just legal training. I know it is a pipe dream, but we need to keep our athletes pure, not just legal.

Getting as much as possible with as little work as possible is what I'd call efficiency. Nikola Tesla was a huge advocate of following that principle, in fact he often criticized Edison for not applying that type of thinking to his research. Anyway, I think I know what you are saying though. However, I look at is such that one can live on water and one type of food, however they will be stronger by diversifying and living off of water and two types of food as the second type of food will provide nutrition their body craves, even if their body could live without it. Now if you take that further and further you find that certain substances increase our vitality and are difficult to find in foods, or sometimes we would have to eat an unrealistic amount of that food for it to help, so we supplement. Supplementation is not a bad thing, nor is good old fashioned training, it's just that when you combine supplementation to the good old fashioned training you can recover quick and do even more training, or possible less trainig to get the same result, which leaves time to explore other aspects of the human experience, such as raising a family, learning to play piano, etc.

I see we will have to just agree to disagree on this aspect. But I don't think we should throw out our testing procedures based on contaminated supliments. I guess this is just a risk you are taking if you chose to take supliments. One MAJOR problem I have with them is that they are completely unregulated. If the FDA would close this rediculous loophole (yes I realize cost would go up, but so would purity) these purity problems would all be solved. It is an athletes choice to take supliments, but they should be aware that contamination can happen, and they could be banned from athletics for taking what they thought to be a legal substance.

Others questions I have no answers :

That's because the test is not valid enough that they raise the level of positivity. For example, 85% for r-EPO whereas in reality, maybe no human (or 0,0...1?) can be above 75% ??

Between 65 and 85% you are "unclassable" (that's the word they use for the EPO-test), not negative. How many runners are between 65 and 85 ?

For the test, which event is statistically measured ? Positive/negative (2variables) or the level of positivity (an infinity of variables) ?

Yes, we can agree to disagree on whether or not supplementation is good or bad. However, as you pointed out, supplements are completely unregulated. The major point I was trying to make is the fact they are unregulated means an athlete could get a contaminated product and the coach tied to that athlete would be \"banned for life\", though I doubt that would be legal in a court of law. I don\'t like the fact the coach is held resposible for what the athletes put in their bodies.

I completely agree with you that the coach should not be included in the ban. A coach SHOULD be involved in every aspect of an athlete's training, which included nutrition, but I don't think they should be punished because an athlete decided to give themselves a "little extra boost". Most likely the implication that a coach was involved with a "dirty" athlete will negatively effect their career regardless, but I don't think they should be included in the ban. Unltimately, it is the athlete's choice to take the baned substance, regardless of suggestions for or against by their coach.

What is the better system?

Dropping dope into someone's drink? Are you f***ing kidding me? You're one of those people who actually believe someone spiked toothpaste. Get real. Explain a realistic scenario where an athlete will get their drink spiked.