News, Research and Commentary about the Floyd Landis doping allegations.
CLOSED 31-DEC-2008
.
.
.
One of TBV's sons gives Landis a "thumbs up" at the Tour of California, February 21, 2006 -- before things got complicated.
full size image/full image
During testimony about whether linearity was important, Dr. Brenna made the statement that "it's ensuring the yardstick measures the same at six-inches as it does at six-feet"
Which I thought illuminating-- six feet is rather off-scale for a yardstick.
Posted by DBrower at 5/24/2007 02:04:00 PM
Labels: science
What was a daily roundup became an "irregular report" of links with specific Landis interest, with brief comment. We avoided bashing, gushing, or gross stupidity. Unless it was funny.
We're still around for mail, but don't expect much or quick response. Thanks!
Comments are welcome, but may be edited/moderated or deleted for propriety and relevance. The decision of the judges is final. Your milage may vary, taxes and license additional.
"As always, Trust but Verify has the best coverage, if you want to delve into it." (Doucheblog)
"Floyd Landis: Blog on Landis Doping Allegations" (LA Times [better than nothing])
Total Poindexter Website Prize: to the fabulous geniuses over at trustbutverify, who not only are perhaps the most impassioned defenders of Floyd Landis' virtue beyond only the boy himself, but actually seem to understand the detailed scientific arguments they put out that the rest of us (well, me) are too stupid to even coherently summarize. Floyd, you better be innocent, or you owe these folks a *major* freakin' apology! (racejunkie)
"TalkingpointsBeforeVeracity " (Will@topix, our #1 fan)
"For another solid synopsis of the latest developments check out the always trenchant Trust But Verify site." (JohnnyBaseball)"For more in-depth daily coverage, go to trustbut.blogspot.com)." (Martin Dugard, author of Chasing Lance)
"Who does awards for blogs? I sense a nomination is in order." (Carlton Reid, of BikeBiz)
"Hands-down champion of full-and I mean full-coverage of this hearing is the blog Trust But Verify. You'll have to have excellent background knowledge of the issues, and wade through page after page of detail to get to anything interesting, but it's raw and unfiltered and all there. The guy who runs the site, a cycling fan from Northern California, began casually providing a clearinghouse for Landis case news nearly 10 months ago, and now he has the haunted look of a man whose life has been hijacked and wants it back. (Loren Mooney, co-author of Positively False, at Bicycling)"thank you for you balanced look at what is happening with floyd." (Michael Farrington. Green Mountain Cyclery, Ephata, PA.)
"This genuine Floyd basher would like to thank you for the hard work you put into this great resource." (Spinopsys Phil)
" Trust but Verify, the essential clearinghouse blog about the Landis case" (Mark McClusky of Wired magazine)
"if you want the latest news on the Floyd Landis case, Trust but Verify is the go-to site. The author is biased in favor of Floyd (so am I) but the reporting is neutral and comprehensive." (12string musings)"Great blog. You're tagged. " (BikingBis. Great, more work)
[More...]Thanks to Free Floyd for the idea, and Groklaw for some inspiration.
PK/Strbuk is similarly inclined.Bill Hue is a passionate about fairness and justice, and is relatively indifferent to Landis' guilt or innocence
Marc is an American living in Paris.
If someone who leans towards guilt would like to contribute directly, please inform us.
Sharing a diversity of viewpoints is the best way we know of to arrive at the truth.
12 comments:
Was waiting to find a place to plug this in. I was somewhat pleased to learn that the French are like most American males. regarding the lifting rings: apparently there is a (probably male) gene that tells us that we don't need to read the instructions when setting up a tool/device/anything with parts.
pcrosby
Almost as off the scale as the retention times...
"it's ensuring the yardstick measures the same at six-inches as it does at six-feet"
Would that make 6 inches = 3 inches? Or 36 inches = 2 yds.??
I think he was talking about linearity being accurate, repeatable and definable. The yardstick metaphor was just clumsy way of saying a ruler measures the same whether you're six inches away or six feet away.
3:16,
What I think was being pointed out a bit tongue in cheek, was that the "6 feet" distance selected could not be measured with a single yardstick...which is similar to FL's experts saying that the IRMS relative retention times were similarly off the scale.
Don't forget the French use the metric system - they may not know what a yardstick is anyway. ;-)
I wonder if they know what a Dick Pound converts to in metric.
Anon 3:16
That's a mischaracterization....
Those were his words, under oath.
Its on record that he didnt know what he was talking about.
He risks perjury if he says otherwise.
The linearity issue, as I hear it in the differences between Dr's Davis and Brenna:
Davis says must verify linearity frequently as the machine is not stable and drifts in and out of linearity (normally!). Add to this the improper setup and use of the machines!!! Pointing to the correct way to verify linearity for use during the tests thus relying on the .2s, etc. This is the documented, industry standard way, that all of Landis tech witnesses seemed to expect as a prereq for good and proper work.
Brenna (and his ISL!!!) seemed to be attempting to accomodate non-linearity with there attempts to calibrate the machines performance for particular measurments to make relative retention times useful using the (in house?) method of peak patterns. I have heard nothing that suggests this is an acceptable method. It certainly seems to not the the manufacturers specified procedure! The need for this accomodation seems to suggest the systemic improper setup of the machine at LNDD.
The result of Brenna's method would then be a rubber yardstick that is only made useful by comparing a small portion to a small steel six inch ruler.
That is my guess anyway, I am not an expert.
Great JOB TBV !!! Thanks,
Russ
A few further comments on my previous post:
Davis (standard) method yields directly identifiable peaks based on the time relative to start (a linear progressive time measure).
Brenna method requires the dubious visual identification of peak patterns in both gc and irms that, according to experience are in a possibly suitably linear portion of the rubber yardstick (deemed suitable by LNDD ISL of unknown basis).
Thanks,
Russ
Essentially what he's saying is that by ensuring linearity the margin of error is reduced. I.E. if you use a 250ml flask to measure out 1 L and the margin of error on that flask is 0.5 ml, then your margin of error is 2ml. If you use a 1 L flask to do the same measurement with a margin of error of .5ml, then your margin of error is .5ml. A much more accurate measurement.
This is Russ again,
That is an reasonable explanation of one benefit of linearity from the viewpoint of accuracy but that isn't really what I am getting at. In fact, on that point. I think the Brenna method (using the machine in a broken configuration per Davis) only maybe semi-validates the 'linearity' in a portion of the machines operating range, perhaps just enough to make relative peak positions useful for identification. The misuse of the machine can only degrade from it's potential accuracy and linearity.
Linearity implies two things with these measurements when used per manufacturer.... one is that quantity measurements are repeatable and accurate to within, I think it was 1% (and that would be throughout the instruments measurement range) and .2 seconds, again through out the instruments range.
If the machine is used properly, no leaks, validated to be currently linear, then the peaks should be well separated and accurately measurable for quantity to within 1%.
The method used by Brenna seems to only arguably establish some basis for claiming, lets call it measure-ability, in a sub-portion of the machines range that are anticipated to be of interest based on the selection of mix-cal fed into the machine. The issue of difficulty of then analyzing a complex urine sample compared to 'shooting fish in a barrel' when analyzing the mix-cal which has no hopefully no surprise contaminants would seem to be more daunting under this misuse of the machine I say more daunting as Dr Davis indicated that the urine analysis was difficult with a properly operating machine.
thanks,
Russ
Post a Comment