I'd like to propose a few questions:An interesting set of questions, indeed.
Under what category would it fall if you proved that with a certain labs interperatation the false positive rate increased from 1 in 3 millinon, to 4 in 1 hundred? Would that be arguing the science or the interperatation of the provided science?
How would you see the "metabolites" issue if you knew that the 2004 WADA document said metabolite[s], and the 2006 document said metabolites? Wouldn't it seem that the issue had been considered and the conclusion reached that it was "all"? Also, what would you say if you learned that some labs, who have done the research and understand the metabolic pathways, required all of the metabolites to be above a different cutoff than WADA?
One last hypothetical. What would be your oppinion if you looked through all of the research and could not find an example, wheather it be in the control group or other, where the deltas were that far apart in any given pair of metabolites (leaving open the possibility that if the two were near the cutoff that it is possible for one to be above and one to be below within margin of error)? Would you then decide that the test is unexplainable and therefore inconclusive or would you accept that some rule had been broken even though it is not possible to know what had transpired?
PJ likens the Quarterly Report to cramming for finals. The idea that reading it will help you chat up members of the appropriate sex at the Halloween Party seems far-fetched.
(TBV also advises against wearing an Amish straw hat with your Phonak jersey to go as Floyd Landis.)
Rant wonders if the mirror effect will lead someone to seven years bad luck.
Racejunkie swipes at Floyd and Phonak for what's happened to other members of the team.
DigitalAgency chimes in positively on the Net defense strategy.