Or: Brevity, Thy Name Is Not Rant
One of the things I like to do from time to time is to look at the reports for this blog and see who’s linking here. I saw an interesting link last night, while I was catching up after being out of town for a couple of days.
Buried at comment #218 or so on Testosterone, Carbon Isotopes and Floyd Landis at In The Pipeline was a comment citing my “Of Isotopes and Isomers” post from last week by a person calling himself “Jim Thorpe” (not sure if this is a real name or a nom de web) which said that although he’s inclined to think Floyd Landis is guilty, after reading the article he might allow for the possibility that Landis could be telling the truth.
Thanks, JT … or whatever your real name is. Another person who calls himself “Realist” said something to the effect that “yeah, well they’ll find anything to get him off.” And a lively discussion ensued. Realist sniped that it took me 20 paragraphs to make my point (21, actually). Well, Realist, here’s the thing about this blog: I don’t assume that people know all the gory details of the science stuff, so I try to explain it clearly when I get into the technical nitty-gritty. I don’t know how well I did on that particular rant, but that’s part of the reason for the length of the post.
The name of this site isn’t “Brevity is Beautiful” or “Rant Yourself Briefly,” after all. My wife and I came up with the site’s name because I tend to get a bit long-winded; to rant (well, maybe not the textbook definition, as Peloton Jim noted) even.
Since I don’t have any restriction on word length, I can fully develop my ideas. At least, I hope I do, because I’d hate to think I’ve left something unclear or muddled. Sometimes I may keep things simple and don’t go too far into the specifics because I’m trying to keep a balance between making the overall point and causing the reader’s eyes to glaze over. (Tom Fine makes a good addition to the Iso/Iso post in his comment.)
Moving on. It was an interesting Sunday, that’s for sure. Right when I was stuck at O’Hare waiting to catch my flight home, came the news that our Mr. Ferret had unmasked himself to reveal that he’s really … Floyd Landis!
And also over the weekend came news that Landis will be releasing the whole lab report on his web site this coming Thursday. So Landis will be putting the whole package out there for us to look at and decipher and make up our own minds about what really happened. I think it’s safe to say that his legal team wouldn’t be allowing this if they thought they had a weak case. Kudos to Floyd for having the guts to put it out there.
The folks at the UCI, WADA and the lab have had access to this data for some time now, longer even than Landis, so I’m sure that they know the ins and outs of what’s there and are already planning their case accordingly. I’d venture a guess that their case isn’t, “Oops, we made a mistake. Sorry Floyd.”
What I’ve been saying all along is that before we know the story (or get “the best obtainable version of the truth” as Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein would say), we need to see the data. The T/E ratio is meaningless without the values that produced the ratio, and now we’ve seen that the documents themselves show what Landis said at the beginning of this mess (normal T, abnormally low E) appears to be true.
What’s been missing in the media and in any number of discussions is some good, clear, critical thinking. By that I mean taking a look at the data, understanding what it means, and then forming an opinion or explanation for how it came to be. We all form opinions based on the “facts” we know or hear. The media basically shirked their duty to delve further than the limited information that has been released up to now. And that means many have formed their opinions on less-than-complete information.
It’s not the first time the media’s goofed, and I would bet it won’t be the last. Consider the Iraq War. If the media had been more thorough in their coverage and analysis of the case the Administration made for invading Iraq — if they’d done a bit of critical thinking and analysis — don’t you think it’s possible that we might not have done so? Or if we had, perhaps the tough questioning would have changed some of the assumptions and planning? (Side note: I met Josh Rushing over the weekend, and he has quite a few interesting comments about the planning and execution of the war. More in a future rant.) What good is a watchdog if it turns out to be the government’s lapdog, instead?
Good science demands critical thinking. Just because one group can run an experiment doesn’t make the outcome scientific fact. Back in the 1980s a concept called “cold fusion” was a hot topic in the physics and the broader scientific world. Imagine being able to build a reactor that runs on the same process as the sun, produces amazing amounts of energy and does it cleanly — using water or hydrogen as its fuel, rather than uranium or plutonium. Nuclear power without all the hazardous waste. Green nuclear power, if you will.
At one point a group in Utah published a paper claiming that they’d successfully started and maintained a cold fusion reaction, albeit on a very small scale. And they showed data that they were able to repeat their results.
On close inspection, however, the results looked suspicious. Many physicists (my dad, who was working at Los Alamos at the time, included) were very sceptical of the claims. And when other labs tried to repeat the process, they couldn’t do so. After a while, the generally accepted conclusion was that the Utah group had some inherent flaws in their experimental design that influenced the data and the outcome. Bottom line: Cold fusion hasn’t happened, yet (except as a web programming language).
This is how the scientific process works. One scientist discovers something and publishes his/her results, others try to replicate the results. If the results can be replicated, then the discovery is acknowledged as something new. If not, then the original results are discredited. Behind it all: critical thinking.
Circling back to the Landis case, good critical thinking is needed when interpreting the results. Up to now we have had only the barebones info, very likely on purpose, which creates a certain impression. And that, of course, is that Landis is guilty. Some folks are convinced — adamant even — that he’s guilty. And some are convinced — adamant — that he’s innocent. Until the Ferret documents surfaced, the only numbers out there looked pretty bad for Floyd. Now we see that he may actually have a strong defense.
To apply critical thinking to this case, questions need to be addressed, such as:
- What causes an abnormally low epitestosterone level? Alcohol may have played a part, and fortunately, there’s a test for alcohol that could verify Landis’ claim that he’d been out drinking the night before. More about that test in an upcoming post.
- What mitigating factors could affect the CIR/IRMS test?
- How long do the metabolites of cortisone stay in the system, and could metabolites of synthetic cortisone influence the result? As mentioned in “Of Isotopes and Isomers,” it turns out the reference hormone in the CIR test is a metabolite of cortisone and Landis had a TUE for cortisone. Synthetic cortisone may well have been in his system at the time of the test on Stage 17.
- How long before that fateful test did Floyd get a cortisone shot?
Some people, perhaps Realist is among them, will hold to their belief that Landis is guilty. Some people, perhaps Jim Thorpe is among those, will be able to look at all the data and see that Landis is innocent, or at least not clearly guilty.
I don’t know how many people will change their minds, because limited “facts” came out early on in the trial by media phase and a large number of people have already formed some strong opinions. But the release of the lab report on Thursday will provide some greater insight into who’s really telling the truth here. We’ll have the full context. And as I said when I started this blog, when taken out of context, numbers lie. And Realist, if you’re reading this post, it was 19 grafs. 😉
Another nice post, Rant, though you might try to get out of the 21-paragraph rut. [Editors note: Two paragraphs were edited out after Marc left this comment.]
I think I’d be careful about raising expectations in one regard, however. What you say–“I think it’s safe to say that his legal team wouldn’t be allowing this if they thought they had a weak case”–is probably true. If the case was manifestly weak, why risk the humiliation of everyone pointing that out? But the opposite–that they feel the have a very strong case–is not likely to be true. In my experience, when attorneys think they have a case all wrapped up, they keep their mouths closed until they walk into court, so as not to tip their cards, then they let it rip and wipe their opponents out.
What I think must be happening here is something characteristic of this and similar cases where, as you’ve pointed out before, image plays such an important–and often destructive–role. I think Floyd’s lawyers think they have a good case, BUT are worried either that they won’t get a fair hearing for it at the disciplinary proceedings or that they’ll win their case in the disciplinary proceedings but the general public will go on believing Floyd is guilty since that’s been the tone of the discussion for so long. Publishing the findings allows the blogosphere to weigh in, either generating pressure on the UCI to give Floyd’s case fair consideration, or generating a broad consensus about his innocence which could overcome the negative publicity that’s been out there so far, and allow him to resume his career without a cloud hanging over him.
That, of course, assumes that we will all conclude he is innocent after reviewing the report. So I, too, am eagerly awaiting its publication.
Keep up the good work. (Have you thought of fewer, longer paragraphs? or of shorter, more numerous ones?)
Marc
I’ve been reading you for a while through Trust but Verify and really resonate with your blogs. Personally, LIFE requires critical thinking, whether it’s politics, science, the comics, cooking or whatever. I feel knowing the why gives you the joy.