QUOTE OF THE DAY
Seems like the only people that benefit from this whole ruckus are the media. (link)The QoD is true -- you have to have had some exposure to the news business to understand the voracious need for new, attention grabbing content. I'm feeling it here just doing this roundup!
The judgement of Simeoni, from Daily Peloton: Team managers, doctors need to take responsibility. It was a level playing field with EPO -- now doping is a rich rider's tool.
Riduculing Excuses at Cincinnati Enquirer.
It's about the money, says NJ paper about sponsorship.
What a difference a few months make, says Idaho paper.
Merckx doctor, friend deplores media treadment, from Jul 28.
Looong discussion on topix forum, ongoing from Jul 27 to now,
and another. There doesn't appear to be a way to link into the interesting ones to separate them from the dross. Where there are links to other interesting stuff, I'll do so below.
Position paper on T abuse, from amstat.org, ref'd by above;
False Positive rate matters, Floyd examples, from a blogger, with example pictures of CIR output, ref'd by above.
WADA EPO test is fake science, reports Medical News Today, which questions the integrity of the agencies and labs. From Feb 06.
WADA Guideline on reporting TE results, from WADA, ref'd by above;
Paolo Pezza cleared from false positive turned up by the same lab in '98, ditto;
Do labs understand statistics? (possibly a re-link).
Cartoon from Jul 28, another from Aug 1.
That phony careerist and human necktie Dick Pound should promptly remove himself from public life and quit trying to enlarge his reputation by wrecking the reputations of others.Writes Sally Jenkins in this Aug 2004 Washington Post article.
Encylopedia of Doping, from CyclingWeekly.
Very interesting thoughts about possible defenses; conspiracy doesn't fly, according to this Aug 9 post on daily peloton forum.
Get off the announcement problems; it doesn't matter, and it was a lose-lose for everyone once the A came up positive, notes this rational blogger on Aug 10.
Cool graphic of IRMS, ref'd by above discussion. I wish I knew what it meant. I think it shows how a baseline was obtained from a sample set, showing variation.
Article about Arbitration for Doping cases, from a law school journal. Reviews Tori Edwards case, which was a "too bad, you lose" decision; basically pro-CAS, anti-athlete.
DopingJournal, a source new to me to be mined as I have time. The first article I stumbled into was about Hamilton's chimera claims.