Fifth, which is the one I oppose the most. The author quotes Tucks and implies that a drug test can not rule out the possibility of doping. Is this kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to educate its readers? By that standard I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered the theory works to a degree, and that should warrant a publication, until a counterexample is found. I could imagine that the author has a skeptical mind which is critical to scientific thinking, but that would be put into better use if he can write a real peer-reviewed paper that discusses the odds of Ye doping on a highly advanced non-detectable drug that the Chinese has come up within the last 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not to use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation. This paper, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are doping, and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a hearing by FINA to determine if Ye has doped. To ask the question that if it is possible to false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is, other than the drug that the test is not designed to detect, anyone who has taken Quantum 101 will tell you that everything is probabilistic in nature, and there is a probability for the drug in an athlete's system to tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight change as it may be, should we disregard all test results because of it? Let?￠a??a?￠s be practical and reasonable. And accept WADA is competent at its job. Her urine sample is stored for 8 years following the contest for future testing as technology advances. Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't it be?
写的真他妈的好啊. 有理有据, 有引用有排比
已经被无耻的nature 作者 删除了!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109
幸亏我从昨天一直开着网页想学习一下论文语法,才有幸保存了下来.
俺真是脸红啊,我博士毕业论文憋了半年,也没他这么严谨有气势啊.
It was written by Lai Jiang. Great job Lai Jiang!
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/3 10:21:53编辑过]
It is a shame to see Nature, which nearly all scientists, including
myself, regard as the one of the most prestigious and influential
physical science magazines to publish a thinly-veiled biased article
like this. Granted, this is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and
did not go through the scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a
channel for the general populous to be in touch with and appreciate
sciences, the authors and editors should at least present the readers
with facts within proper context, which they failed to do blatantly.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/3 10:00:46编辑过]
First, to compare a player's performance increase, the author used
Ye's 400m IM time and her performance at the World championship 2011,
which are 4:28.43 and 4:35.15 respectively, and reached the conclusion
that she has got an "anomalous" increase by ~7 sec (6.72 sec). In fact
she's previous personal best was 4:33.79 at Asian Games 20101. This
leads to a 5.38 sec increase. In a sport event that 0.1 sec can be the
difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason that
5.38 sec can be treated as 7 sec.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/3 10:01:37编辑过]
Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her
body is still developing. Bettering oneself by 5 sec over two years
may seem impossible for an adult swimmer, but certainly happens among
youngsters. Ian Thorpe's interview revealed that his 400m freestyle
time increased 5 sec between the age of 15 and 162. For regular people
including the author it may be hard to imagine what an elite swimmer
can achieve as he or she matures, combined with scientific and
persistent training. But jumping to a conclusion that it is
"anomalous" based on "Oh that's so tough I can not imagine it is real"
is hardly sound.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/3 10:05:04编辑过]
Third, to compare Ryan Lochte's last 50m to Ye's is a textbook example
of what we call to cherry pick your data. Yes, Lochte is slower than
Ye in the last 50m, but (as pointed out by Zhenxi) Lochte has a huge
lead in the first 300m so that he chose to not push himself too hard
to conserve energy for latter events (whether this conforms to the
Olympic spirit and the "use one's best efforts to win a match"
requirement that the BWF has recently invoked to disqualify four
badminton pairs is another topic worth discussing, probably not in
Nature, though). On the contrary, Ye is trailing behind after the
first 300m and relies on freestyle, which she has an edge, to win the
game. Failing to mention this strategic difference, as well as the
fact that Lochte is 23.25 sec faster (4:05.18) over all than Ye
creates the illusion that a woman swam faster than the best man in the
same sport, which sounds impossible. Put aside the gender argument, I
believe this is still a leading question that implies the reader that
something fishy is going on.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/3 10:05:24编辑过]
Fourth, another example of cherry picking. In the same event there are
four male swimmers that swam faster than both Lochter (29.10 sec)3 and
Ye (28.93 sec)4: Hagino (28.52 sec), Phelps (28.44 sec), Horihata
(27.87 sec) and Fraser-Holmes (28.35 sec). As it turns out if we are
just talking about the last 50m in a 400m IM, Lochter would not have
been the example to use if I were the author. What kind of scientific
rigorousness that author is trying to demonstrate here? Is it logical
that if Lochter is the champion, we should assume he leads in every
split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science
works.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/3 10:05:54编辑过]
Fifth, which is the one I oppose the most. The author quotes Tucks and
implies that a drug test can not rule out the possibility of doping.
Is this kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to educate its
readers? By that standard I estimate that at least half of the
peer-reviewed scientific papers in Nature should be retracted. How can
one convince the editors and reviewers that their proposed theory
works for every possible case? One cannot. One chooses to apply the
theory to typical examples and demonstrate that in (hopefully) all
scenarios considered the theory works to a degree, and that should
warrant a publication, until a counterexample is found. I could
imagine that the author has a skeptical mind which is critical to
scientific thinking, but that would be put into better use if he can
write a real peer-reviewed paper that discusses the odds of Ye doping
on a highly advanced non-detectable drug that the Chinese has come up
within the last 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing,
otherwise why not to use it and woo the audience at home?), based on
data and rational derivation. This paper, however, can be interpreted
as saying that all athletes are doping, and the authorities are just
not good enough to catch them. That may be true, logically, but
definitely will not make the case if there is ever a hearing by FINA
to determine if Ye has doped. To ask the question that if it is
possible to false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question
to me. Of course it is, other than the drug that the test is not
designed to detect, anyone who has taken Quantum 101 will tell you
that everything is probabilistic in nature, and there is a probability
for the drug in an athlete's system to tunnel out right at the moment
of the test. A slight change as it may be, should we disregard all
test results because of it? Let?￠a??a?￠s be practical and reasonable.
And accept WADA is competent at its job. Her urine sample is stored
for 8 years following the contest for future testing as technology
advances. Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn't it be?
Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the
out-of-competition drug test is already in effect, which the author
failed to mention. Per WADA president?￠a??a?￠s press release5, drug
testing for olympians began at least 6 months prior to the opening of
the London Olympic. Furthermore there are 107 athletes who are banned
from this Olympic for doping. That maybe the reason that
?￠a???“everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in
competition testing?￠a??? ? Because those who did dope are already
sanctioned? The author is free to suggest that a player could have
doped beforehand and fool the test at the game, but this possibility
certainly is ruled out for Ye.
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/3 10:06:15编辑过]
Over all, even though the author did not falsify any data, he did
(intentionally or not) cherry pick data that is far too suggestive to
be fair and unbiased, in my view. If you want to cover a story of a
suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and
provide all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to
your interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your
piece, explicitly or otherwise, but only showing evidences which favor
your argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in
a journal like Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific
research or report should be done.
1http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=1241
2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4
3http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/men-400m-individual-medley/phase=swm054100/index.html
4http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-400m-individual-medley/phase=sww054100/index.html
5http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference
[此贴子已经被作者于2012/8/3 10:06:35编辑过]
★ Sent from iPhone App: i-Reader Huaren Lite 7.56
膜拜
牛人！必须顶～～～～
这个应该顶上各大网站，包括英国美国的媒体网站。
Zhenniu...........