[wildeone]

rational head -- thank you for the concise explanation. i've passed it on to others (not in this forum) who think i'm a wee bit obsessed

Pelotonium -- great link!

[susie b]

Dear Rational Head - PLEASE keep going. Just remember to KISSS - Keep It Simple for we Scientifically Stupids...

I must say I am so impressed by Rational Head, One Mint Julich, Thomas A. Fine, dbrower (TBV) & others who have analyzed the lab documents on this site. Of course, before you go getting swelled heads, you should know this accolade is from someone who grunts/screams/cries/hits head against wall when trying to understand them herself. At this point, not only am I suspicious how I graduated magna cum laude from college, but wonder how I ever made it out of high school... I emailed someone earlier that apparently countless lives have been saved because I did NOT go into medicine or scientific research.


What I am really hoping for is that a "mainstream" media person will look at all of your analysis & start writing/talking about Floyd in a GOOD way. Like it or not, these people have alot of impact on getting the "word" out. I admit I'm not objective - Ive been a Floyd fan since 2002. ( I started reading his rider diaries & interviews on cylingnews & liked him from the start. What sealed the deal was when I read he was "hard headed" - as I've been described the same, simpatico!)

PLease keep explaining the tests & why they don't support the position of Floyd using T. In this particular thread, do NOT worry about being condescending. I don't think it is possible to "dumb it down" TOO much for we scientifically challenged.

[amifan]

Steve, thanks for expanding on the procedure. Far more involved than I ever imagined.

[wildeone]

a6) The -ADA representative must watch you pee in the cup. The whole process must be witnessed. You must be bare from knees to sternum so that you cannot fake the sample.

thank you for your detailed description of the complex process of peeing into a cup! you seriously (really!) answered questions i never knew i had

in reference to the above quote, anybody ever get performance anxiety?

[Pelotonium]

I'm going to expand point 1, from an athlete's perspective.
...

That's great stuff, Steve. Excellent athlete's perspective!

[jr.]

I will go ask them elsewhere, but I really wanted a science for dummies answer, in that I took one year of chemistry in high school which unfortunately was also about 35 years ago. So anybody that answers needs to not assume I know why all the numbers the experts discuss come out the way they do on the graphs and I have only vaguely grasped that one part of the numbers is time, I am still unsure what the other numbers mean. I certainly have no idea where and at what times the different metabolites are expected to appear or how to measure the differences between what appeared and the standards or blank urines they were compared to. I do understand calculating the area under a curve because I did take three semesters of calculus in college (though I don't remember how to do it) despite managing to never take a core science such as chemistry, biology or physics.

[cycling newbee]

We had a lot of discussion on the legal/technical interpretation of the pertinent WADA document in these threads.
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...?showtopic=1525
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...?showtopic=1538
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...?showtopic=1530
http://www.dailypelotonforums.com/main/ind...?showtopic=1569

Thanks for those links.

[cycling newbee]

A note for Cycling newbee and ALL forumites on "dummies" threads

In the mean time, to facilitate your searches and to help us organize the forum for everyone we'd like to suggest few friendly points:

I contemplated where to post my question about the WADA rules. Especially considering the fact that I was the one to start the Legal Analysis thread in the 1st place. However, my question was in response to your post, so it belonged here IMHO. I was responding to your post from this thread directly, based on language used in your post. If I put it on the Legal Analysis thread, it very likely would have gotten lost over there. I would have needed to provide the background of this thread on that thread in order to get the answer I was looking for. So, in that instance, there would have been cross-over either route I took.

My point is that I appreciate the moderators' efforts to keep this organized and I believe you all have done a phenomenol job in doing so. Hats off to each of you. However, this is a very complicated matter and, as such, not everything can be cleanly pigeon-holed into one category or another. As people are trying to process the information, legal issues do cross over into scientific issues, etc. There's just no way around that IMHO.

That said, obviously if I feel further discussion needs to ensue on the language in the WADA policy, I would post that on the Legal Analysis thread. Here, I was simply asking for the link or cite, in response to your post explaining the process, not discussion or debate on the topic.

Thank you again for your insight.

[sverrefehn]

Digested.
Ready for the next installment.

Steve

ps- another thanks for taking the time to write these posts.

[cycling newbee]

Bring it on and ditto the thanks.

[amifan]

Would it be possible for one of you clever scientist types to nutshell-up the current status of your deliberations on Floyd's predicament?
Spell it out real slow-like. ....

Floyd's hearing starts in 3 month. I suggest that we methodically cover the ground since we have plenty of time. .... Later, we can ...jump into issues like data variability and the sources of equipment errors, how sample contamination is likely to play out, and how Floyd should defend and WHY he should do so and so..

Jane, I'm definitely more in your camp but I think what Rational is trying to say is there is no simple answer and everything depends on how you look at it - in this case, how you look at the science. But I consider it a good sign that these brainy types are troubling to dive into the technical details. Either that or they are seriously underchallenged by their jobs

Rational, thank you for troubling to explain everything in what seems to you to be simple terms. I am finally starting to grasp a bit what these wierd sounding number and letter combinations are all about. Well done and I appreiciate it... I think...

(if this stuff is for dummies my intelligence must be dishearteningly close to the undetectable range )

[cycling newbee]

You're awesome RH. Floyd's team should hire you to break it down for the arbitrators.

[rational head]

You're awesome RH. Floyd's team should hire you to break it down for the arbitrators.

Thanks newbe...I think they are already with us in this forum

[cycling newbee]

Thanks newbe...I think they are already with us in this forum

Yeah, but I meant to hire you for your presentation skills. Of course, I haven't seen your verbal presentation skills, but you sure look good through cyberspace.

[SeanL]

I always considered myself a rather intelligent fellow, but after reading the Landis documents I'm not so sure. Thanks for breaking it down for us "dummies"...even if I still don't know what it means for Landis' defense.

[johna]

I always considered myself a rather intelligent fellow, but after reading the Landis documents I'm not so sure. Thanks for breaking it down for us "dummies"...even if I still don't know what it means for Landis' defense.

Yeah, I'm thinking I might need the Floyd's test digested for dummies (for dummies)...

[crazyjane]

I will continue with what I started here and what is obviously appreciated by most posters above. Love. RH.

Dear RH,

Your efforts are appreciated by me as well! I hope I haven't given you the impression that they are not! It's only that I really just wonder if there is some way to nutshell-up the current status vis-a-vis the thing we all want to know: will Floyd be back in 2007 to kick some ass on a bike and bring down the UCI? And, if so, will the fireworks begin in January? Or, will he live forever under the ignominious cloud of having further soiled sporting glory as we cycling fans know it? I mean, I know no one here has the answer to that question, but whither swings the pendulum, man?

Finally, I think it should be clear to you that what this post is really about is that patience is a virtue I don't posses.

Love Always,
Jane

[strbuk]

Jane you know that we love you and your refreshing posts!

But I still can not give you a "point for point" answer you expect and feel comfortable that I finally reached you and did not drop others...it's just endless the way I see it.

So, I'm going to leave your questions to other experts and to your own efforts. I just don't know how to honestly answer "Is there anything that all of you agree ISN'T a good argument?

May be we should start a separate "summary thread for dummies", may be we should keep everything here I'll let others speak to you.

But I will continue with what I started here and what is obviously appreciated by most posters above. Love. RH.

Please add me to the list of people who appreciate all that you are trying to do with this thread. And might I add that patience is a word not found in my personal lexicon either.


Paula

[cycling newbee]

RH, I think you know that I truly appreciate your efforts on this thread and I am of the type that wants to get all the background before drawing my own conclusions. So, I would greatly appreciate your continuing on with this thread. However, I also think that it would be helpful to start another thread where you and the other handful of regulars on the power point analysis thread weigh in as to your personal analyses and opinions at this point. Just a brief conclusary summation of sorts. Over two weeks has gone by since the release of documents and I speculate that a lot of people are still as in the dark about this topic as they were before the document release. To them, these threads are written in a foreign language just like the original 370 pages of documents and they are still awaiting translation. Before they just give up and lose interest altogether (like some already might have), it might be time to give them a synopses. Otherwise, these people will just continue to be in the dark on the matter and draw their own conclusions on nothing but whatever they happen to hear in passing through the media, the web or whatever. Just something to think about if the idea here is to try and get information out to the public based on evidence presented to date (as opposed to speculation, hearsay, etc.) , no matter which side of the fence you fall on.

It likely will be that there cannot be a concensus from the "scientists", but that's okay. Actually, I think that's to be expected. They just want to hear all the experts weigh in on their opinions so that they can begin to process the information themselves. I picture something of a round-table web discussion, similar to when various legal analysts weigh in regarding their thoughts on a particular trial that is being covered on Court TV. Just one post from each of you summarizing your personal opinions AT THIS POINT IN TIME, and an analysis in layman's terms as to how you came to your personal conclusions. Then, after each of you weighs in, I'm sure it would likely prompt questions from other people as they try and process the "scientists" analyses in order to attempt to come to their own conclusions.

Thanks again for all your hard work and patience. I look forward to reading more on this thread because I am getting something out of it. (On that note, I'm waiting on pins and needles for the next installment).

[amifan]

Installment 4, part 1
...
16. I'm getting tired of your generalities. ..Can you cut to the point?
...
Testosterone is just one of those steroid hormones. It's made from cholesterol in the testes or the ovaries in women (6-10 mg/day in healthy guys and 10% of that in women).

What!!! I'm devastated I thought we had at least 50%

Great installment Rational! The easiest one to read so far thumbs up!!!

This post has been edited by amifan: 29 October 2006 - 10:00 PM