tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post6764030178028910678..comments2023-10-06T03:21:26.130-07:00Comments on trust but verify: Thursday RoundupDBrowerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-50061056057963842532006-09-21T16:55:00.000-07:002006-09-21T16:55:00.000-07:00If the chance of a false positive for each metabol...If the chance of a false positive for each metabolite reference is 3.2%, then the chance of a false positive when four metabolites are independently examined is:<br /><br />1-(1-.032)^4 = .122 = 12.2%Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-66054858990391804982006-09-21T12:42:00.000-07:002006-09-21T12:42:00.000-07:00TBV,
I think you're absolutely right. I don't thi...TBV,<br /><br />I think you're absolutely right. I don't think Floyd Landis would be satisfied with a not guilty result.<br /><br />And if I were in his shoes, neither would I.<br /><br />- Rantdaniel m (a/k/a Rant)https://www.blogger.com/profile/16126545986721397012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-57438658974700545052006-09-21T08:50:00.000-07:002006-09-21T08:50:00.000-07:00For all we know at this point, the ADRB is doing w...For all we know at this point, the ADRB is doing what you suggest because they've been leaned on by WADA to get it to hearing. From one point of view, it's to deal with any open questions; another point of view is to make sure the case is in a state where Landis has the higher burden of proof. If the ADRB said dismiss, and USADA agreed, WADA would need to appeal with a very high burden of proof to say a mistake was made.<br /><br />TBVDBrowerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17718913310467614671noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31819641.post-64636893122901064322006-09-21T08:12:00.000-07:002006-09-21T08:12:00.000-07:00Clearly, there is discord somewhere. If the Revie...Clearly, there is discord somewhere. If the Review Board thought the evidence was credible, even if not airtight, why not pass the buck to USADA? You can imagine the press release, "the evidence is questionable, but there is enough to warrant a hearing, we really had no choice, don't blame us, etc" But...no.<br /><br />So, what now? Could there be some legal or political reason that the Board needs or wants to get WADA "on-board" before saying that the evidence is a fraud (sorry: innocent error)?<br /><br />Would love to hear your thoughts...the silence of Landis' attorney, after stating he expected a decision within a week, is more than puzzling.<br /><br />Someone is negotiating, somewhere?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com