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
In a comment, Mr. Idiot points us all at this profound illustration on the accuracy of "eyeballing" measurements.
Your inaccuracy by category:
Average error: ---- (lower is better)
Parallelogram ---- ---- ---- Midpoint ---- ---- ---- Bisect angle ---- ---- ---- Triangle center ---- ---- ---- Circle center ---- ---- ---- Right angle ---- ---- ---- Convergence ---- ---- ----
Posted by DBrower at 10/21/2008 01:08:00 PM
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.
10 comments:
The eyeballing tests are simplty effective at keeping one's ego in check! My first total score was 16.27. Ouch! Then a significant improvement to 7.21 immediately following the first trial. After several hours at the end of the day did I really learn or retain information -- I scored a 6.50. LNDD- AFLD its your turn for disclosure.
Hmmm.
I started in the 3's somewhere. And got better from there. I improved a lot in most categories with practice. Best score was 1.9 something.
Just for fun, I tried cheating (using a piece of paper to line things up). My score definitely improved, but not a lot.
I'm just a freak of nature, I guess. Maybe I should go work for the labs...
I also got in the low 2's but I think this disqualifies me from the labs.
Would have been an interesting device to put LNDD witnesses (those that supported eyeballing or used their experience) to the test in Malibu........
7.43 Couldn't get the parallelogram (however you spell it...
One of the things that interests me about the game is the standard deviation, at least for me. I can really nail it once in a while, but then the next shape will be way off. I've done it enough to realize it has little to do with "experience." I'm just inconsistent, given the nature of the game. You know, I don't even remember what EXACTLY our friends in the lab at LNDD were "eyeballing," but I don't remember ever seeing any evidence of their eyeballing accuracy.
syi
I call this game Mongongu, like Soduku......... only different.
Nice Bill, that's funny!
syi
The eyeballing game shows you how far off you are, and that feedback at least gives you the possibility of improving your eyeballing skills.
I don't think you can say the same for eyeballing chromatograms in the lab because, unlike the game, there's no feedback. If some machine could give the correct value, they wouldn't be eyeballing the chromatograms in the first place.
Oh, my best after 4 or 5 tries was about 3.5. I improved each round but I think it was mostly because I was concentrating harder and taking more time.
Cub,
When doing manual integration, there are at least three kinds of feedback being given.
(1) visual indication on the peak;
(2) visual indication on the 2/1 trace also displayed;
(3) a current delta value displayed as you move the integration points.
There was testimony on both sides of whether the 2/1 trace is a reliable indicator for these purposes. One view is that it helps, as long as the peaks are uncontaminated -- this boils down to how good the separation chemistry was, and how appropriate the chromatographic separation was.
More troublesome is that, as we showed in the integration for idiots series, minor changes in limits can have large effects on the reported delta. If one goes into manual integration with preconceptions or inclinations about what the value should be, and one is seeing values displayed, one might easily skew the integration to achieve the expected values. We need not assign nefarious motive to this; it can be completely subconscious.
Imagine playing the eyeball game here with a "result" field displayed while you are placing the point, and it has a random error of 1.5 units in one of the four directions. Are you going to use your eyeballs on the figure, or try to get the error value zeroed? If you ignore the number, you'll probably be more accurate; if you don't, your score is likely to be 1.5 worse than you'd have gotten without the incorrect feedback.
TBV
Post a Comment