Showing posts with label Cycling. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cycling. Show all posts

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Fundraiser for Injured Cyclist

On September 6 a cyclist, Colin Albright, who works at Pittsburgh Pro Bikes was savagely attacked on Pittsburgh's Southside in a road rage incident (details can be read here).  This Saturday there will be a fundraiser for him at the Over The Bar bicycle bar on the East Carson St (details are on the poster at the left).  There will be raffle prizes donated by sponsors listed.

Not specifically mentioned is whether this fundraiser is to pay for his medical expenses but it seems a safe assumption.  These kinds of fundraisers happen frequently and I encourage you all to either attend or if you cannot to donate here at the Bike Pittsburgh page.  It goes without saying that many of these fundraisers would be unnecessary if we had a comprehensive universal health care system that put patients over profits.

**Related Posts**

 

Healthy Artists Video on Bicyclists Injury

 

STOP Obamacare in Pennsylvania and the Uninsured

 

New Census Uninsured Data Out: White & Female Rates Getting Worse in PA

Friday, August 24, 2012

Lance, Issac, and Joe: Lessons of Hubris?


I've updated one of my all time most read posts with information on how Lance Armstrong has been stripped of all of his titles, including his seven tours since 1998 (just as Joe Paterno and Penn State were stripped of their wins since 1998 for the Sandusky scandal) with commentary on how mentions of the Tyler Hamilton interview changed since last year.  At least he gets to keep his three Thrift Drug Classic titles he won in the 1990's in Pittsburgh (see above video).  Would he still have been an inspiration to cancer patients if he hadn't doped?


Likewise Joe Paterno and Penn State still have their two national championships and wins before 1998 but Paterno still felt himself a failure when he was fired.  A new biography of Paterno claims that he despised Sandusky after 1998 but why did he still let him use Penn State facilities as late as 2008?  If he had retired in 1998 when some were grumbling that he should (he had a 9-3 record that year) no one would think less of him now and his statue would still be up.  The drive to win can override anyone's logic and set even the best of us up for a big fall.

Finally next week Republicans will converge on Tampa, Florida to anoint the Romney-Ryan '12 ticket for President.  At the same time hurricane Issac is moving through the Caribbean with a potential hit on Tampa on Monday (projected path is at right).  The party says that they will still hold the convention.  Climate change activists say that this is one of the things driving the frequency of hurricanes which many Republicans deny.  In my post using Barry Sanders career stats as a model for global warming I and other scientists caution not to use any one weather event as either proof or disproof of climate change.  It is better to look at the trend over many years as evidence.  The warmer gulf water can make these storms more intense and more likely to form.  It would make for quite a television spectacle if Isaac strikes the convention hall much as the Louisiana Superdome was.  Forcasting the path of these storms is still not a perfect science given the wide projected path.

Any one of the above stories could make good topics for a movie.  Just as Captain Ahab vainly pursued that white whale across the oceans in Moby Dick.  I think Joe Pesci would be great to play Joe Paterno and Christopher Walken as Jerry Sandusky.   Jake Gyllenhaal was talked about before the current cloud of suspicion to play Lance.  If this GOP convention turns out to be a weather fiasco (it might turn out to be as dull as Mitt Romney hopes) then Kyle Maclachlan should play Romney.


**Related Posts**

Titanic Perspective

 

The Civil War in a Larger International Historical Context

 

The Civil War in a Larger International Historical Context - Cinco de Mayo edition

 

2012: A 2004 Election Rerun?

 

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Lance Armstrong's Doping Claim: A Probabilistic Calculation



This Sunday CBS' 60 Minutes did an expose on 7 time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong where his former teammate and close friend Tyler Hamilton accuse him on camera (and the piece also says that teammate George Hincapie testified this under oath secretly to a grand jury) of using the performance enhancing drug erythropoietin or EPO.  Part one of the 60 minutes interview can be seen above.  This is just the latest of many accusations made against him over the years.  His response has always been that he has been tested many times but no drugs have been found.  His most recent quote on his Facebook page is "20+ year career. 500 drug controls worldwide, in and out of competition. Never a failed test. I rest my case." 



Using probability theory, it is possible to compute the chance of him never testing positive assuming that he was using EPO.  First we look at the probability of testing positive for the drug when you are really taking EPO.  This is determined by the test maker.  Finding this information is difficult.  The World Anti Doping Agency or WADA which oversees the testing of athletes does not readily provide this data on their webpage.  They do provide testing positive rates for each of their labs worldwide.  The probability equation for one test is given by:

 P(-EPO test when using EPO) = 1 - P(+EPO test when using EPO)

A group of researchers in Denmark in 2008 gave EPO to a group of eight male non athlete volunteers, put them on exercise tests, took urine and blood samples from them, sent them to two WADA labs.  Post exercise one lab had no positive tests and another had 8 positives out of 40 samples or 20%.  Using the better case scenario lab (WADA does not agree with these results) that would mean that if this probability were accurate across his 20 year career and the outcome of each test was independent of the others, the probability of testing negative on each test over this period when he was using EPO equals 

P(-EPO test when using EPO on one test)^(Number of tests)

Where ^ means raised to the power of the number of tests.  The logic is like when you toss a coin once the chance of it coming up heads is 0.5.  If you toss it twice the chance of it coming up heads twice is 
0.5 x 0.5= (0.5)^2 = 0.25 = 1/4.

Plugging the Danish probability into the equations above there is an 80% chance of him testing negative when he was using EPO on one test and the chance of him testing negative on 500 tests is (.80)^500.  You can plug that into a calculator to see that that is a really small probability of him always lying (3.50*10^-49 to be exact).

This example is of course an oversimplification.  The accuracy of screening tests does change over time as do doping drugs and masking agents.  This does not prove conclusively that Lance Armstrong never used EPO but it does illustrate how hard it would be to hide if WADA were doing an adequate job even with a test with 20% accuracy.  Part II of Hamilton's interview with 60 Minutes (abbreviated version below) can be seen here where Hamilton claims that Armstrong did fail a test in 2001 in the Tour of Switzerland. The report does raise questions about the integrity of WADA.


In the worst case scenario where there is a 0.1% chance of getting caught when doping on one test when doping and thus a 99.9% chance of not getting caught when doping on one test then there would be a 61% chance of never getting caught when doping across 500 tests.  If Tyler Hamilton is right then Lance Armstrong falls into that 39% who did get caught and had it covered up.

**Update**

The news that Armstrong has been stripped of his seven tour titles and all of his other titles dating back to 1998 shouldn't be that surprising.  The interviews that I posted last year are available in abbreviated version above (they were originally available in full format) from CBS with no mention of his alleged failed 2001 drug test.  The full transcript of the 60 Minutes interview with Hamilton can be read here.  On CBS This Morning there was a discussion of the charges also with no mention of the 2001 failed drug test.  It seems strange that there is no mention of this as this allegation should not be hard to check out.  Armstrong was cleared of criminal wrongdoing.

**Related Posts**

Ruth Institute - Making Marriage Cool (In the US but not Scandinavia) 

 

Concussions 

 

Super Bowl XLV: A Battle of Champions Who Couldn't Compete Now Without a Salary Cap

 

Global Warming, Wikileaks, and Statistics: What Barry Sanders Can Teach Us.