The Panda's Thumb Legacy Archive — pandasthumb.net

Doping ID

Posted 7 August 2006 by Andrea Bottaro

Over at ID the Future, Paul Nelson has a brief post regarding the doping scandal that will likely deprive cyclist Floyd Landis of his recent Tour de France victory. For those who do not follow cycling, several tests performed after the race showed that Landis had an unusual ratio of testosterone-like hormones in his blood, and that the hormones found contained amounts of specific carbon isotopes not compatible with endogenous origin (for a thorough discussion of the tests and the reasons for Landis's failure, see this post at Jake Young's Pure Pedantry blog, as well as links and follow-ups therein). The conclusion from the anti-doping agency was that Landis had (voluntarily or not) taken artificial steroids, and therefore ought to be disqualified. Nelson extracts his own moral from the story, which is that we can scientifically detect the result of intelligent action without having to exclude every possible natural source of the hormonal imbalance, and, implicitly, that therefore ID is a viable scientific program and - ta-dah! -- those evil Darwinists who claim otherwise are just selling smoke. However, Nelson's attempt at 'roiding up ID is just as easy to spot as Landis's. Since Nelson's post is short, let me quote it in its entirety:

"...it is almost impossible to be caused by natural events. It's kind of a downer." That's how Greg LeMond responded to news that doping tests may have implicated 2006 Tour de France winner Floyd Landis [see the final paragraph of the story]. The World Anti-Doping Agency, which supervises the international standards for the licit and illicit use of hormones, defines the presence of "exogenous" (illicit) chemical agents as follows: "Exogenous" refers to a substance which is not ordinarily capable of being produced by the body naturally. We can expect that Landis will defend himself by trying to find "natural" -- non-intelligent -- causes for the anomalous ratios discovered (and now confirmed) by testing. We can also expect testing agencies to weigh those proferred explanations in terms of their plausibility. What we won't see is anyone saying that intelligent action -- in this instance, the deliberate use of intelligently-synthesized steroid compounds to gain a competitive advantage -- cannot be detected, in principle, because such inferences involve a universal negative ("natural causes cannot produce x"). It is possible to catch cheaters. Happens all the time, in fact.

There are so many issues with this argument, it's hard to know where to begin, but let's try. First, in the case of evolution we have a series of known mechanisms that bring about organismal change, and all the end results we observe today are compatible with such mechanisms (though they need not be - every organism could have a completely different genetic code, for instance). This is true also of things like "irreducible complexity" - so much so that not even Behe claims that IC is absolutely impossible to evolve, just highly improbable, in his opinion. On the other hand, in the case of Landis, we also have a series of well-known biological mechanisms (steroid biosynthesis, carbon isotope ratios in biological samples and their origin) and a result that cannot be obtained through such mechanisms (especially the isotope result). In other words, for Landis's blood data to be natural, we would need to postulate entirely new physiological mechanisms, whereas for, say, the flagellum to have evolved naturally, only known evolutionary mechanisms would have to apply. Second, it is some ID advocates, most notably Bill Dembski, who claim they have devised systems to reliably prove universal negatives - i.e. that something cannot possibly have been generated naturally - based on statistical considerations and the artificial conflation of "natural" with "by either regularity or chance alone". Indeed, one of the scientific objections to Dembski's explanatory filter is that its purported reliability in eliminating natural causes is utter nonsense. (Dembski has waffled on occasion about this, but he has repeatedly said things like: "... whenever the Explanatory Filter attributes design, it does so correctly.") Third, of course, is that in Landis's case, parsimony hugely favors a design conclusion because we have a good idea of who the "designer" could have been (Landis himself, and/or someone on his medical and training staff), and what his methods and motivations were. No need to hypothesize a violation of natural law, supernatural and/or alien interventions, or some other mysterious undescribed entity. This is even more the case in a legal proceeding such as Landis's doping evaluation, for which the applying standard is simply that of "reasonable doubt". How this all comes together becomes rather obvious with a simple thought experiment. Suppose that, instead of finding the unusual hormone features in a professional cyclist's blood, scientists had found them in a newly discovered, isolated human population deep in the Amazon jungle. Would the same inference of design now be justified? Or would scientists hypothesize and test new hypotheses of natural mechanisms causing the anomalies, before assuming purposeful doping? I don't think there's really any doubt what the answer is. (In fact, I would venture that, in such a case, even if a natural mechanism were not identified after extensive research, scientists would still be extremely reluctant to conclude purposeful doping, in the absence of a candidate doper with means and motivations to perform the deed.) So, Nelson's last paragraph is right after all: cheating can be detected, and intellectual cheating is no different. [Note: The original version of the post mentioned carbon "radioisotopes". As pointed out by a reader in the comments below, this is incorrect: the isotopes in question, C12 and C13, are both stable. The error has been corrected.]

95 Comments

Glen Davidson · 7 August 2006

How does Nelson think that "designed" tampering can be detected against a backdrop of, well, more design, which IDists claim exists? Shouldn't a philosopher, of all things, recognize that we can readily detect design added to biological systems precisely because humans are not (on the whole) actually designed?

And can't they learn anything about the specificity of design detection, that it depends upon specific facts, and not at all upon non-empirical measures of improbability?

Again, the analogy that damns ID is spun by tenacious religionists into one that supports ID.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

PS. Doesn't this also militate against Nelson's suggestion that if intelligence were responsible for the workings of the universe, that it would be undetectable? It's too stupid a claim for me to bother dissecting (and we've gone over the necessity of predictable design elements in a "science of design" ad nauseum already), but I think it is still worth pointing out how incoherent these "thinkers" are, even in their benighted conceptions about the universe.

Craig T · 7 August 2006

I would think that the Creationists would be Landis's best ally in fighting the charges. They have years of experience denying the evidence of carbon radioisotopes.

Nick ((Matzke)) · 7 August 2006

Yeah, maybe Floyd Landis was going so fast that the laws of physics changed and [cough cough cough] this changed the decay properties of the carbon isotopes and produced the unusual ratios.

[goes and reads the referenced post]

Boy, the science behind this particular doping test looks like "reasonable doubt" to me. The T/E ratio shows substantial natural variability, and the C12/C13 isotope ratio can vary based on diet etc. Evidently this is all one failed test in the middle of the race. These sorts of tests rely on some probability cutoff based on natural variability, and then we have the question of whether or not world-class bicyclers, with extreme exertion, diets, injuries, etc., are even going to match the reference population (which I guess is atheletes, but still). With hundreds of riders and hundreds of tests, you are going to have some false positives even if your cut-off is p=0.01 or lower.

I think it would be simpler to just assign observers to watch the riders constantly during down time...

GvlGeologist · 7 August 2006

A bit OT, but there have been a couple of references to radioisotopes here. Just to be perfectly clear, the issue here is not radioisotopes (i.e. radioactive 14C), but two stable isotopes of carbon, 12C and 13C. 14C ("carbon-14") is the isotope that the creationists have issues with because it can be used to date carbon-bearing materials up to about 100,000 years old.

In contrast, 12C and 13C are naturally occuring stable isotopes of carbon that are dealt with slightly differently by plants when they photosynthesize (as is pointed out in the scienceblog post). 12C is preferentially used by plants to the partial exclusion of 13C, and in different ways depending on the exact metabolic pathway.

Incidentally, this is of great use for paleoceanographers and oceanographers because when shelled organisms form their shells (CaCO3), they record the 13C/12C ratio of the seawater, which can be a useful measure of the amount of plant productivity, both globally and locally. As productivity increases, they remove more and more of the 12C in seawater, raising the 13C/12C ratio. The opposite occurs when productivity decreases. For instance, at the end of the Cretaceous (when the dinosaurs and many, many land and oceanic organisms died out) there was a huge decrease in the 13C/12C ratio in the oceans, indicating an enormous decrease in primary productivity.

GvlGeologist · 7 August 2006

Sorry, in the 3rd paragraph, that should read, "As productivity increases, plants remove more and more of the 12C in seawater, raising the 13C/12C ratio. "

Popper's ghost · 8 August 2006

We can expect that Landis will defend himself by trying to find "natural" --- non-intelligent --- causes for the anomalous ratios discovered (and now confirmed) by testing.

Not surprisingly, Nelson is confused. The original reports (released to the public by UCI contrary to their own rules, but that's another story) were of a high testosterone/epitestosterone level. Landis did indeed offer several hypotheses as to why he might have a high level (as someone innocent, or someone guilty, surely would), including having naturally high testosterone levels, having been drinking the night before, taking (approved) medicine for a thyroid condition, and taking (approved) cortisone for his dead hip. Only the first could be considered "non-intelligent" (aside from the lack of intelligence of drinking before a difficult stage, especially after bonking on the previous stage). After he offered these possible explanations, news reports came out saying that, because of the high T/E ratio, the lab had also tested for synthetic testosterone, and the test was positive. The "natural" defenses don't apply to that result. For that, hypotheses might be that the test is unreliable, the test results were misrecorded, the testers are corrupt/lying/French (well, there are people who think that explains it), the sample was contaminated, one of his other medications was contaminated, or that he accidentally ingested synthetic testosterone, possibly due to sabotage. Some of these involve intelligence and some don't.

What we won't see is anyone saying that intelligent action --- in this instance, the deliberate use of intelligently-synthesized steroid compounds to gain a competitive advantage --- cannot be detected, in principle, because such inferences involve a universal negative ("natural causes cannot produce x").

This is such a stupid strawman. The test distinguishes between two different substances, natural (meaning non-synthetic, not non-supernatural) and synthetic (not supernatural) testosterone. It does not establish deliberate use. What's the substance in biological systems that cannot be produced by non-intelligent causes and thus indicates intelligent design? Is such a substance possible? Sure it is -- suppose an elephant in the local zoo gives birth to a PC running Windows XP. That's obviously a product of intelligence and no one has or would say otherwise. But that's quite different from systems that IDiots claim cannot be produced by non-intelligent causes when those systems can be explained by an existing explanatory theory of non-intelligent causes, supported by massive evidence. The problem is not and never has been that universal negatives are outlawed -- every physical law entails universal negatives such as "entropy doesn't decrease in closed systems" and "nothing can be cooled below 0 degrees Kelvin". The problem is that there are no such laws or evidence or anything that supports the particular universal negatives that the IDiots put forth. PC running XP implies intelligent design? Yes. Flagellum implies intelligent design? No. A DNA sequence encoding the first 1000 digits of pi in unary? Yes. The blood clotting cascade? No. And so on. The reason for the no's is not because universal negatives are outlawed, but because the reasoning behind the universal negatives -- IC, CSI, etc. -- is erroneous.

Popper's ghost · 8 August 2006

Boy, the science behind this particular doping test looks like "reasonable doubt" to me. The T/E ratio shows substantial natural variability, and the C12/C13 isotope ratio can vary based on diet etc. Evidently this is all one failed test in the middle of the race. These sorts of tests rely on some probability cutoff based on natural variability, and then we have the question of whether or not world-class bicyclers, with extreme exertion, diets, injuries, etc., are even going to match the reference population (which I guess is atheletes, but still). With hundreds of riders and hundreds of tests, you are going to have some false positives even if your cut-off is p=0.01 or lower.

Indeed. Unfortunately, the public and the media aren't aware of any of this, and the anti-doping industry has a vested interest in not letting them know. The latter may sound conspiratorial, but it's based on a pattern of highly questionable behavior by anti-doping officials and labs established by the UCI (International Cycling Union)'s own independent report (http://www.velonews.com/media/report1999.pdf) on Lance Armstrong's purportedly positive EPO results from "anonymous" urine samples frozen for 7 years. Something to consider in Landis's case is that he was widely considered to be the least likely professional cyclist to be doping and even anti-doping fanatic Greg LeMond said, before the test was reported, "He was one of my favorites before the race. He's clean and, what's more, he's a great guy". Also, testosterone is normally used in a long-term regimen to build muscle, but all Landis's other tests were negative. Taking it for a single stage in the Tour de France, especially when the plan was to win the stage, which would guarantee a drug test, would be a very stupid thing to do -- which does not fit a man who, upon hearing about someone "giving 110 percent effort", responded "Well, why not 112 percent? Why not 500 percent or 1,300 percent or 38 billion percent? I mean, if he can crank it up beyond 100 percent, why not? What's stopping him, exactly?"

Bob O'H · 8 August 2006

Only the first could be considered "non-intelligent" (aside from the lack of intelligence of drinking before a difficult stage, especially after bonking on the previous stage).
Wha...? Ah, to bonk mean something different over there. Bob

Popper's ghost · 8 August 2006

hit the wall -> strike = bonk = strike -> intercourse.

Corkscrew · 8 August 2006

As far as I can tell, real people detect design in an object through two approaches: comparison of cultural indicators, and efficiency at a task.

The first works because the chances of the same set of indicators appearing twice are deemed to be fairly low. The second works because, for certain classes of object (most things on this planet that don't actually reproduce, for example) and for certain tasks, human intervention is pretty much the only known source of efficient design. The situation this article describes clearly falls into the first category.

Neither of these design detection approaches apply to living creatures - there are no obvious "made in Taiwan" labels attached to organisms, and evolution is perfectly capable of creating efficient structures. The ID movement has signally failed to discover any effective alternative approach, merely trying to formalise these existing approaches in a way that, mathematically speaking, just doesn't work.

Does that all sound plausible?

Frank J · 8 August 2006

Not surprisingly, Nelson is confused.

— Popper's ghost
This is getting tiring, but once again, it's up to me... Either he's confused (yeah, right) or he is deliberately confusing the audience, half of which checks its horoscope daily, and will continue to do so no matter how many refutations of astrology they are shown. If Nelson were some clueless cheerleader, I'd grant him a combination of confusion and wishful thinking. But he has an agenda, and this example fits neatly into that, as well as all sorts of public misconceptions. BTW, does anyone know if Nelson ever answered that simple question from ~2 years ago that he promised he'd get right back to?

Popper's ghost · 8 August 2006

Either he's confused (yeah, right) or ...

Nelson really is a YEC, therefore his mental capabilities are certainly compatible with being confused. That doesn't stop him from being a lying propagandist as well.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 8 August 2006

Over at ID the Future, Paul Nelson has a brief post regarding the doping scandal that will likely deprive cyclist Floyd Landis of his recent Tour de France victory.

Well, if THAT is the best that ID now has to offer, then ID is truly dead, dead, dead. (shrug)

Andrea Bottaro · 8 August 2006

A bit OT, but there have been a couple of references to radioisotopes here. Just to be perfectly clear, the issue here is not radioisotopes (i.e. radioactive 14C), but two stable isotopes of carbon, 12C and 13C. 14C ("carbon-14") is the isotope that the creationists have issues with because it can be used to date carbon-bearing materials up to about 100,000 years old.

Duh, of course - sorry, I'll correct that. As for the C12/13 ratio in Landis's testosterone, as I understand it, it is normalized vs his other steroids. In other words, it is not the exact ratio vis-avis a control population that matters (which is the case for the testosterone/epi ratio), but whether that C12/13 ratio is different for the testosterone in the tested sample versus "control" steroids in the same sample. If that's the case, I think it is pretty much physiologically impossible to endogenously produce testosterone with a C12/13 ratio different from other steroids, regardless of diet etc, and the chance of false positives is pretty much 0 (except of course for experimental error or tampering).

Keith Douglas · 8 August 2006

Does that all sound plausible?

— Corkscrew
I don't know, but it seems to me that there is a psychology project there for someone who wants one. There are already is a fairly large literature on concepts and classification, including (interesting for the purpose here) how people classify and understand organisms vs. artifacts. (It seems, for example, that people are essentialists about organisms and not about artifacts.)

Ginger Yellow · 8 August 2006

"Shouldn't a philosopher, of all things, recognize that we can readily detect design added to biological systems precisely because humans are not (on the whole) actually designed?"

You'd think so, wouldn't you, but that didn't stop Paley from using an analogy where the clear distinction between a designed watch and an undesigned natural background was meant to prove the designedness of nature.

Whatever · 8 August 2006

How about that? We *can* detect *human* interference in well defined and well characterized systems. Now, when have Behe, Dembski or Wells performed a thorough analysis on the historical origins of a biochemical system that would allow us to examine the relative plausibility of possible mechanisms? Has Dembski's explanatory filter ever been reliably applied to the flagellum? I think not.

elbogz · 8 August 2006

Authors of Intelligent design always look towards those pesky irreducible complex systems as proof of an intelligent designer. My question is why aren't these same features found in a raindrop, or a rock in a stream, or a blade of grass? If there is proof of a designer in the universe, why isn't that proof stamped on every living and non living thing? Where are the simple designs? Why aren't the simple designs as easy to see as the irreducibly complex?

Gerard Harbison · 8 August 2006

Nelson wrotes:

What we won't see is anyone saying that intelligent action -- in this instance, the deliberate use of intelligently-synthesized steroid compounds to gain a competitive advantage -- cannot be detected, in principle, because such inferences involve a universal negative ("natural causes cannot produce x").

Alas for Nelson, testosterone is produce syntheticially from plant sterols, and the isotope ratio does not reflect human synthetic reactions, but the combination of exogenous 13C/12C isotope ratios and enzyme isotope fractionation in the plants that synthesized the phytosterols. So what we're actually detecting is not 'intelligent action', it's geographic and biological differences in isotope chemistry between two living organisms; Landis, and the yams that biosynthesized the steroid nucleus of the testosterone Landis took. IDers' biggest pitfall continues to be that they just don't know the science.

elbogz · 8 August 2006

Authors of Intelligent design always look towards those pesky irreducible complex systems as proof of an intelligent designer. My question today is why aren't these same features found in a raindrop, or a rock in a stream, or a blade of grass? If there is proof of a designer in the universe, why isn't that proof stamped on every living and non living things? Where are the simple designs? Why aren't the simple designs easier to see than the irreducibly complex?

wamba · 8 August 2006

Authors of Intelligent design always look towards those pesky irreducible complex systems as proof of an intelligent designer. My question today is why aren't these same features found in a raindrop, or a rock in a stream, or a blade of grass? If there is proof of a designer in the universe, why isn't that proof stamped on every living and non living things? Where are the simple designs? Why aren't the simple designs easier to see than the irreducibly complex?

And how could they prove something isn't designed? Maybe the Intelligent Designer, about whom we know nothing with respect to identity, methods or motive, put that seemingly random pile of rocks over there just so. If we cannot reliably detect non-design, then how could we possibly differentiate between design and non-design?

Flint · 8 August 2006

Not quite on topic, but someone here probably knows...

Let's say that Landis, discouraged by his poor showing the day before, decided to spike his performance artificially one time and take his chances with the inevitable testing if it worked. DOES this work? Is epitestosterone or whatever he took capable of producing an immediate one-time boost like that? I'm admittedly assuming here that Landis was very well aware of the nature and dymanics of every available performance enhancer. If anyone understands these things, it's a bicycle racer.

steve s · 8 August 2006

Comment #117756 Posted by Craig T on August 7, 2006 09:25 PM (e) | kill I would think that the Creationists would be Landis's best ally in fighting the charges. They have years of experience denying the evidence of carbon radioisotopes.

Exactly. Hey Paul Nelson--you need to call the International Cycling Union. Here's their website: http://www.uci.ch/ You need to tell them that your boy is being Railroaded by these stupid 'scientists' with their bogus isotope ratios. You know that carbon dating is wrong! Don't let them ruin an innocent man's career with their Darwinism!

steve s · 8 August 2006

Comment #117893 Posted by Ginger Yellow on August 8, 2006 08:43 AM (e) | kill "Shouldn't a philosopher, of all things, recognize that we can readily detect design added to biological systems precisely because humans are not (on the whole) actually designed?" You'd think so, wouldn't you, but that didn't stop Paley from using an analogy where the clear distinction between a designed watch and an undesigned natural background was meant to prove the designedness of nature.

I love that bit. That is a delicacy.

Anonymous_Coward · 8 August 2006

Exactly. Hey Paul Nelson---you need to call the International Cycling Union. Here's their website: http://www.uci.ch/ You need to tell them that your boy is being Railroaded by these stupid 'scientists' with their bogus isotope ratios. You know that carbon dating is wrong! Don't let them ruin an innocent man's career with their Darwinism!

Apparently, the discovery that Landis is 10,000 years old further proves the fact that he is using performance enhancing steroids.

creeky belly · 8 August 2006

Let's say that Landis, discouraged by his poor showing the day before, decided to spike his performance artificially one time and take his chances with the inevitable testing if it worked. DOES this work?

— Flint
From what I heard from a doctor discussing on ESPN, it's really only effective if taken over a long period of time, ie the short term effects are negligible. That's what makes it bizarre, why would you take something that won't help you in the short run near the end of the race?

k.e. · 8 August 2006

Well Landis seems to have had help from g_ ...er I mean.... the designer, probably located in a lab somewhere synthesizing epitestosterone for a little old lady with 'sexual dysfunction' married to Tim Montgommery (and Syrian hamsters ..don't ask) by an ex employees of BALCO.

The question on everyones lips is, if the designer is so smart, why isn't it a lay down Misère

k.e. · 8 August 2006

That's what makes it bizarre, why would you take something that won't help you in the short run near the end of the race?

What is probably happening is that the doses got out of sync or some other process not yet tested for was being used and has inadvertantly shown up.

Epitestosterone is a masking agent for steroids so my guess is the chemists blew it.

He may still get off but it is unlikely since the test has revealed a synthetic compond has been taken. To make things worse his 'alibi's' have changed a few times and he has not yet explained how the drug got into his system. Expect more 'explanations'.

Popper's ghost · 8 August 2006

DOES this work? Is epitestosterone or whatever he took capable of producing an immediate one-time boost like that?

No. Some people claim that it can aid in recovery, but the evidence doesn't seem to support that. According to the Jake Young link at the top of this page,

I guess I would speculate that considering the typical time scale for testosterones action, it is unlikely that measurable effects would be observable that quickly. All the other studies with testosterone show effects over the course of several (10ish) weeks.

Of course, for a cyclist to dope, it doesn't matter whether it does work, but whether it is believed to work. But on the matter of Landis's actual performance on stage 17, testosterone doping doesn't explain it.

I'm admittedly assuming here that Landis was very well aware of the nature and dymanics of every available performance enhancer. If anyone understands these things, it's a bicycle racer.

Why? None of the bicycle racers I know are biochemists or have any special knowledge about biochemistry. You might cut the question begging and suggest that doping bicycle racers understand these things, but there's no reason to think so, any more than cancer patients understand the nature and dynamics of every available cancer treatment if anyone does.

Popper's ghost · 8 August 2006

What is probably happening is that the doses got out of sync or some other process not yet tested for was being used and has inadvertantly shown up.

What is probably happening is that people with no knowledge are offering up ungrounded speculation because we all abhor a vacuum of explanation (which is in large part why religion rises).

Popper's ghost · 8 August 2006

He may still get off but it is unlikely since the test has revealed a synthetic compond has been taken.

Even if he can prove that synthetic testosterone got into his system without his knowledge (and it's hard to imagine how he could prove that), he will almost certainly be stripped of his title because he was doped at the time he rode and thus had an unfair advantage (with the necessary formal assumption that those not demonstrated to have been doped weren't doped).

To make things worse his 'alibi's' have changed a few times and he has not yet explained how the drug got into his system. Expect more 'explanations'.

Why does that make things worse? That's exactly the behavior one would expect of someone who in fact did not knowingly or intentionally dope. It seems to me that someone who was guilty of exogenous doping would have been more hesitant to offer endogenous explanations for why his T/E ratio was out of whack if he knew that the exogenous test would show otherwise -- offering those explanations made him look bad in the eyes of shallow thinkers, which is most of the world. Which is why he is now saying that he made a mistake in reacting to the early reports of his T/E ratio -- reports that were released against all rules and protocols. His behavior is exactly what one expect of someone caught off guard by a false charge, trying to defend himself in front of the cameras before having obtained legal counsel. But perhaps he's a genius psychologist and strategist and it's all a brilliant plan to make hime merely look innocent -- except that it obviously isn't working, because the strategy only works if you're actually bright enough to think about the implications.

Popper's ghost · 8 August 2006

Epitestosterone is a masking agent for steroids so my guess is the chemists blew it.

Why are you talking about epitestosterone? Is that because you think he took epitestosterone, based on Flint's "Is epitestosterone or whatever he took"? The only place epitestosterone comes into the story is the 11:1 testosterone to epitestosterone ratio -- which indicates a low level of epitestosterone relative to testosterone. See, it's not just the IDists who form their opinions based on ignorance.

k.e. · 9 August 2006

Well.... I'm honored 3 posts from the Ghost who Blogs, for yours truly. As you probably realize Ghostly I'm only here ,unlike you, to gratify my ego so lets see if I can stay awake long enough to do your considerable effort, justice...yawn. For your pleasure I will attempt to adopt 3 different personae to not only fisk and reverse fisk your polemic of my polemic but indulge myself in a little self gratuitous rhetoric as well..in no particular order. On your marks. //Post Modernist (any non-fact or fiction is valid and reality means nothing) Creationist. Mere pesky details I've made up mind and any so-called 'facts' you bring up I'll answer with my so-called facts I believe 'gut feelings' make for better trvthiness than any gas chromatograph and 87.9% of bloggers agree with me. //Pedantic Philosopher. Blah blah blah return to line above. //sarcastic mixed.

What is probably happening is that the doses got out of sync or some other process not yet tested for was being used and has inadvertently shown up.

What is probably happening is that people with no knowledge are offering up ungrounded speculation because we all abhor a vacuum of explanation (which is in large part why religion rises). Yeah nature (and the minds of men) abhors a vacuum, which may explain the vacuousness of some men's minds. Think about it ...I don't. Read the word 'probably' means my speculative opinion..that's like an opinion, not an assumption,assertion or validation an attempt to read the criminal mind who, whether the Ghost who Blogs likes it or not, toil away while you sleep, it's the one thing that separates us from the animals ...except my 'ex' pet rabbit and a litany of working dogs which could read my mind...a very easy way to get food granted, but they enjoy company too. It would take a LOT more money to make me even more devious, something I'm sure you would consider , rightly, to be a sin.

Epitestosterone is a masking agent for steroids so my guess is the chemists blew it.

Why are you talking about epitestosterone?Is that because you think he took epitestosterone, based on Flint's "Is epitestosterone or whatever he took" I'm not THAT stupid. Did you look up Epitestosterone masking? Is it just me, or are you asleep at the wheel? The chemists blew it or he/they missed the vein or the cleaner spiked his cornflakes .......get real. Either that or he is a statistical freak and that will be their defense in the sports pseudo court. Are the sporting public ready for cold hard facts or will hope rule over experience?

To make things worse his 'alibi's' have changed a few times and he has not yet explained how the drug got into his system. Expect more 'explanations'.

Why does that make things worse? That's exactly the behavior one would expect of someone who in fact did not knowingly or intentionally dope. It seems to me that someone who was guilty of exogenous doping would have been more hesitant to offer endogenous explanations for why his T/E ratio was out of whack if he knew that the exogenous test would show otherwise --- offering those explanations made him look bad in the eyes of shallow thinkers, which is most of the world. Which is why he is now saying that he made a mistake in reacting to the early reports of his T/E ratio --- reports that were released against all rules and protocols. His behavior is exactly what one expect of someone caught off guard by a false charge, trying to defend himself in front of the cameras before having obtained legal counsel. But perhaps he's a genius psychologist and strategist and it's all a brilliant plan to make him merely look innocent --- except that it obviously isn't working, because the strategy only works if you're actually bright enough to think about the implications. . Or a liar caught out with a simple initial bluff. Man I'm sure you would make a great poker player , but remember an Aussie beat a Yank for the 10 Mil. 'International' Poker Championship in Las Vegas last year and there is only one reason , he was a better liar, the country was settled by thieves remember. And good for you on nationalistic naivety ...two rah's for you, my view is if one beer didn't send them off the scent then how about a few whiskeys, which he forgot, but ...then ...ah remembered not to mention a veritable cocktail of 'vitamins' for every ailment under the sun? IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT RACE OF HIS LIFE. Where if it was me, I would remember every single detail down to the last second. And still no explanation for the synthetics, such as ....hey what about that syringe ..er I mean food supplement I took just before breakfast ...duh.... maybe someone doped it. You can't sniff a lawyers input..fair enough.

He may still get off but it is unlikely since the test has revealed a synthetic compound has been taken.

Even if he can prove that synthetic testosterone got into his system without his knowledge (and it's hard to imagine how he could prove that), he will almost certainly be stripped of his title because he was doped at the time he rode and thus had an unfair advantage (with the necessary formal assumption that those not demonstrated to have been doped weren't doped). So we agree...by whatever means the results prove SOMEONE cheated. Thus someone is hiding the trvth.

L · 9 August 2006

It is possible to catch cheaters.

Therefore, the Intelligent Designers are cheaters.

Donald M · 9 August 2006

First Andrea writes:
On the other hand, in the case of Landis, we also have a series of well-known biological mechanisms (steroid biosynthesis, carbon isotope ratios in biological samples and their origin) and a result that cannot be obtained through such mechanisms (especially the isotope result). In other words, for Landis's blood data to be natural, we would need to postulate entirely new physiological mechanisms,...
And then in his thought experiment he says:
I don't think there's really any doubt what the answer is. (In fact, I would venture that, in such a case, even if a natural mechanism were not identified after extensive research, scientists would still be extremely reluctant to conclude purposeful doping, in the absence of a candidate doper with means and motivations to perform the deed.)
So, faced with exact same data in both circumstances, it is perfectly okay to infer design in the first case, that of Landis, but not in the second. Why? The data is exactly the same in both instances. If the scientific team in the thought experiment were to hypothesize and later discover some entirely new mechanism to account for the observation, then there wouldn't be any reason to think Landis's case is necessarily the result of design. On the other hand, in the absence of any new discovery, and facing the exact same data, the inference to design in the case of the thought experiment is completely out of bounds, according to Andrea, because there isn't an apparent candidate doper. So what? Suppose, Andrea, that you and I travelled to Venus as the first humans to ever go there and were to discover on the surface of Venus an arrangement of stones that spelled out "Andrea, Welcome to Venus!" Knowing that no human had ever been there, would you be "extremely reluctant" to infer intelligent cause, even though you had not the slightest idea who or what that intelligence might be? Or would you hold out for some as yet to be discovered undirected natural cause? To quote you, "I don't think there's really any doubt what the answer is." You would have no problem inferring intelligent cause, even though you had no candidate rock arranger. It is not necessary to know who or what the intelligence is in order to legitimately infer design.

Steviepinhead · 9 August 2006

Gosh, can it really have been a month since Donald-troll's last drive-by?

How the time flies!

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 9 August 2006

Hey Donald, I have a few questions for you. Ya know, the same ones you ran away without answering the LAST two dozen times you've done your monthly hit-and-run:

Here, Donald, let me repeat my questions for you once more:

What, again, did you say the scientific theory of ID is? How, again, did you say this scientific theory of ID explains these problems? What, again, did you say the designer did? What mechanisms, again, did you say it used to do whatever the heck you think it did? Where, again, did you say we can see the designer using these mechanisms to do ... well . . anything?

Or is "POOF!! God --- uh, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer --- dunnit!!!!" the extent of your, uh, scientific theory of ID .... ?

How does "evolution can't explain X Y or Z, therefore goddidit" differ from plain old ordinary run-of-the-mill "god of the gaps?

Here's *another* question for you to not answer, Donald: Suppose in ten years, we DO come up with a specific mutation by mutation explanation for how X Y or Z appeared. What then? Does that mean (1) the designer USED to produce those things, but stopped all of a sudden when we came up with another mechanisms? or (2) the designer was using that mechanism the entire time, or (3) there never was any designer there to begin with.

Which is it, Donald? 1, 2 or 3?

Oh, and if ID isn't about religion, Donald, then why do you spend so much time bitching and moaning about "philosophical materialism"?

(sound of crickets chirping)

You are a liar, Donald. A bare, bald-faced, deceptive, deceitful, deliberate liar, with malice aforethought. Still.

Darth Robo · 9 August 2006

Lenny has this response saved to his computer. :-P

Andrea Bottaro · 9 August 2006

So, faced with exact same data in both circumstances, it is perfectly okay to infer design in the first case, that of Landis, but not in the second. Why? The data is exactly the same in both instances. [snip] Suppose, Andrea, that you and I travelled to Venus as the first humans to ever go there and were to discover on the surface of Venus an arrangement of stones that spelled out "Andrea, Welcome to Venus!" Knowing that no human had ever been there, would you be "extremely reluctant" to infer intelligent cause, even though you had not the slightest idea who or what that intelligence might be? Or would you hold out for some as yet to be discovered undirected natural cause? To quote you, "I don't think there's really any doubt what the answer is." You would have no problem inferring intelligent cause, even though you had no candidate rock arranger. It is not necessary to know who or what the intelligence is in order to legitimately infer design.

In Judge Jones's immortal words:

In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. (23:61-73 (Behe)). Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe)). Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District, p.81

Where you are wrong, DonaldM, is that the data is most definitely NOT the same in both instances. In one, you have independent evidence of a designer, and in the second you don't. This doesn't mean, of course, that in certain, extreme circumstances (like your Venusian example) a design hypothesis in the absence of a known designer may not be reasonable (although, of course, the first and far more likely working hypothesis would be that some earthling, and not some mysterious "unknown designer", made it to Venus before me). But such circumstances require such far-fetched sets of events (another ID favorite is, if I remember correctly, finding a backhoe on Jupiter), that they really tell us nothing at all about things we normally experience.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

As you probably realize Ghostly I'm only here ,unlike you, to gratify my ego so lets see if I can stay awake long enough to do your considerable effort, justice...yawn.

I usually appreciate your crypto-poetic impressionistic stream of thought writing, k.e., but it doesn't work so well when you've got a huge chip on your shoulder. You may have said something worthwhile in there somewhere, but frankly I can't be bothered to try to parse it this time.

k.e. · 10 August 2006

OK Ghostly one, I'm just not as trusting of mega-corp sports (or mega corp religion for that matter) as you seem to be. As long as there are vast sums of money at stake the demand for a better way to beat the testers is practically insatiable.

The amusing thing is that even though testing can reveal cheating in sport (and in Italy it is now a criminal offense, no other country to my knowledge takes it that seriously) if the same tests for were applied to religion for the quantities their boosters claim exist, there would be a long sorry line priests, parsons, rabbis etc looking for new sponsors.

So just as a matter of interest where do you think the BALCO types might be heading with masking and other such synthetic 'physiological improvements'?

As for chip...well its ALL projection isn't it. Don't worry too much about parsing the last post the half sequitur was deliberate.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

OK Ghostly one, I'm just not as trusting of mega-corp sports (or mega corp religion for that matter) as you seem to be.

Typical ad hominem crap. I expressed no trust of anyone, certainly not of "mega-corp sports". All my statements were cautious, qualified, and accompanied by justification -- just the opposite of the conclusion-jumping and ignorance that I see all over the web. It was interesting seeing Jay Leno "interview" (more like talk over) Floyd Landis last night -- like most who comment on this case, he had most of the facts wrong in some way or the other.

k.e. · 10 August 2006

Yeah ....would you like salt on that chip?

Choosing to allow the court of mass media judge the case if his PR skills are a little underdeveloped was probably a mistake.

Innocent until proven guilty of course, let him be judged fairly by a jury of 12 good men and true ...from sports marketing, TV channels and sugar water companies .....the US Cycling Association.

As for leaked results and prejudicing his case, shades of Farfarman there, still I'm sure his lawyers will try to make it look like every one except Floyd is at fault.

Are we any closer to an explanation for synthetic compounds?

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

Suppose, Andrea, that you and I travelled to Venus as the first humans to ever go there and were to discover on the surface of Venus an arrangement of stones that spelled out "Andrea, Welcome to Venus!"

How is this any different than finding it in your backyard? It might be humans or aliens who put it there. But what's the point? The best explanation of such an arrangement is that it was done by someone who speaks English and knows that Andrea will see the arrangement, and the best explanation of earthly biological systems is that they evolved. It's all a matter of inference to the best explanation from the entirety of our knowledge. "it looks designed to me so it must be designed" is a lousy explanation based on ignoring the evidence and inferential reasoning and substituting rationalization of religious dogma.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

As for leaked results and prejudicing his case, shades of Farfarman there, still I'm sure his lawyers will try to make it look like every one except Floyd is at fault.

The shades of Fafarman is in how your pre-judice dominates your thinking and drips off your every word.

k.e. · 10 August 2006

hehe

The shades of Fafarman is in how your pre-judice dominates your thinking and drips off your every word.

Oh so he's innocent ..got it. Are we any closer to an explanation for synthetic compounds? Or even shock horror ....speculation?

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

Oh so he's innocent ..got it.

I got that you're an effing moron.

k.e. · 10 August 2006

OK PG on a score out 10 for insults I'll give that a 0.25

Oh and your mother's fat.

k.e. · 10 August 2006

Have a look at this

Testosterone, Carbon Isotopes, and Floyd Landis

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

It's not an insult, it's a fact. The opposite of "he's certainly guilty" is "it's not certain that he's guilty"; anyone who writes "Oh so he's innocent ..got it" is a moron. And my mother, aside from being irrelevant, is dead.

Ole Eichhorn · 10 August 2006

I have a real question about the Floyd Landis case, and I wonder if others have it too.

In stage 15 (L'Alpe D'Huez), Floyd took back the yellow jersey. The leader is always tested, so he was tested. And he was negative. Testosterone ratio was less than 4:1, no exogenous testosterone. In stage 16, Floyd bonked. He wasn't in yellow and didn't win, so he wasn't tested. In stage 17 Floyd made his incredible comeback. Since he won the stage, he was tested, and his testosterone ratio was 11:1, and exogenous testosterone was found in both A and B samples. Stage 18 was flat, nothing changed, and since Floyd was not in yellow, he was not tested. Stage 19 was the time trial, which put him back in yellow, so he was tested again. And he was negative again. Testosterone ratio was less than 4:1, no exogenous testosterone.

Those are the facts, nobody denies these, including Floyd.

So here's my question --- is it really possible for someone to be negative, then two days later be that positive, then two days later be negative again?

It doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see any way to explain this physiologically. If he was doping, he would have been positive in all three tests. Even if he only started doping on stage 17 --- which would be ridiculous, but even if --- he would still have been positive on stage 19.

So set aside the fact that Testosterone doesn't help GC riders, set aside the illogic of taking Testosterone when you know you're going to be tested for it, and set aside Floyd's denials, which I want to believe but hey, people lie.

There is just no way to explain the facts if Floyd was doping. The only explanation I can see which fits the facts is that someone tampered with the stage 17 samples.

What do you think?

Anton Mates · 10 August 2006

So, faced with exact same data in both circumstances, it is perfectly okay to infer design in the first case, that of Landis, but not in the second. Why? The data is exactly the same in both instances.

— Donald M
Of course it isn't. The known existence of doping in the professional biking world, and the known reasons why a professional biker would dope himself or get doped by someone near him, are data. Data that don't apply to an isolated tribe in the Amazon.

Suppose, Andrea, that you and I travelled to Venus as the first humans to ever go there and were to discover on the surface of Venus an arrangement of stones that spelled out "Andrea, Welcome to Venus!" Knowing that no human had ever been there, would you be "extremely reluctant" to infer intelligent cause, even though you had not the slightest idea who or what that intelligence might be? Or would you hold out for some as yet to be discovered undirected natural cause?

There probably is an arrangement of stones spelling that out on Venus, in several Earth languages. Big planet, probably got a lot of rocks.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

Testosterone, Carbon Isotopes, and Floyd Landis

There's nothing new there (including the numerous reasons raised in the comments as to why this case is "fishy"). You ask for an explanation for synthetic compounds. I have already stated that it's hard to imagine how Landis can prove that synthetic compounds entered his system without his knowledge, and he will almost certainly be stripped of his title and suspended from the sport. I of course don't know anything about the source of synthetic compounds, whether he intentionally injected or consumed them or not, and your continuing to ask and talking about "speculation" further establishes what a moron you are. You seem to consider your own critical views of "mega-corp sports" as evidence in this case, which further establishes what a moron you are. And you take Landis's various attempts to explain the results, which are neutral in regard to his guilt, since both innocent and guilty people would do so, as evidence of his guilt, which further establishes what a moron you are. The known evidence is not sufficient to conclude either that Landis is guilty of intentional doping or that he is not, something that any non-moron should be able to grasp.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

So here's my question --- is it really possible for someone to be negative, then two days later be that positive, then two days later be negative again?

A number of people have asked this critical question -- see for instance the comments on the page that k.e. linked -- and I have yet to see an answer to it. Yet intellectually dishonest folks like k.e. who are certain that Landis is guilty ignore the issue.

The only explanation I can see which fits the facts is that someone tampered with the stage 17 samples.

The same view was offered on the page k.e. linked: http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2006/08/01/testosterone_carbon_isotopes_and_floyd_landis.php#132111

How long does synthetic testosterone stay in the system? Landis was tested 3 or 4 times after the 17th stage, all were negative. How could his testosterone ratio be 2-1/2 times the permisable ratio after the 17th stage, but ok a day or two later? By all accounts, synthetic testosterone takes weeks not hours to provide any performance enhancement. Why would Landis take a banded subtance following the 16th stage that would provide no benifit for weeks? It just doesn't make sense, he takes one hit of testosterone during the tour with no positives before or after? Some have suggested that Landis must have been slipped a mickey. But after the 16th stage, he was not considered a threat to win the tour by anyone. Why would conspiring powers slip him a banded substance when he was no longer a threat to win the tour? The positive sample was taken after the 17th stage, but testing was not performed and results released until after what some have called the greatest comeback in tour history. So we have the wrong drug to bolster near-term performance sandwiched between numerous clean tests before and after the 17th stage. In my opinion, everything points to a tampered urine sample. At some point after the 17th stage comeback, but before the labratory testing, synthetic testosterone was added to his urine sample. I would take a long, hard look at chain-of-custody proceedures for that sample, who handled it, or had access to it prior to testing?

I don't know that a tampered sample is the only or best explanation, but the physiological question of how Landis could have tested T/E = 11:1 after stage 17 and T/E < 4:1 on his next test needs to be answered.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

T/E = 11:1 after stage 17 and T/E 4:1 on his next test

That was supposed to be "... T/E less than 4:1 ..."

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

Another point is that Landis is either someone who is learning about this as he goes along or he doing an excellent job of pretending to be such a person -- but such a pretense does not work in his favor. This sort of evidence is invisible to autistics, but for those capable of perceiving it, it needs to be taken into account.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

Suppose that, instead of finding the unusual hormone features in a professional cyclist's blood, scientists had found them in a newly discovered, isolated human population deep in the Amazon jungle. Would the same inference of design now be justified? Or would scientists hypothesize and test new hypotheses of natural mechanisms causing the anomalies, before assuming purposeful doping? I don't think there's really any doubt what the answer is. (In fact, I would venture that, in such a case, even if a natural mechanism were not identified after extensive research, scientists would still be extremely reluctant to conclude purposeful doping, in the absence of a candidate doper with means and motivations to perform the deed.)

This isn't a very good argument; in fact, it's a very bad one. If the population consistently showed the same results as Landis's test, the most obvious hypothesis is that they intentionally consume something in their environment that contains testosterone or is metabolized into testosterone. Hypothesizing "natural mechanisms" to explain C12/C13 ratios would be absurd. OTOH, if a single test of one Amazonian out of a series of such tests showed a wacky T/E ratio and exogenous testosterone, the first thing to verify would be that the test equipment was working correctly, the results had been recorded correctly, the sample wasn't contaminated, and so on. Once that was established, it would be appropriate to determine why that one Amazonian might have ingested exogenous testosterone on that one occasion, to seek out the source of that exogenous testosterone, etc. At no point would it be sensible to hypothesize "a natural mechanism" for a C12/C13 ratio that is very well established as indicating an exogenous source.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

BTW, Landis is a Mennonite, which is a rather isolated community, FWIW.

Flint · 10 August 2006

From all this discussion, it appears that Landis would have had a very difficult if not impossible task generating the reported ratios even if he'd tried as hard as he could. The body simply doesn't respond to the reactions measured fast enough. Just possibly some other drug might provide a one-day major boost and be indetectable the next, but not the drug (or metabolic side-effects of the drug?) measured. But these results would probably not be reproducible even if someone gave Landis a mickey.

Not to mention that even if it were possible, it's stunningly stupid. I'm not trying to say bicycle racers are biochemists, I'm saying they know what drugs are out there, what those drugs do, and what the tests measure. The drug the French lab said was found in Armstrong's 7-year-old sample just happened to be a drug the tests of that day were not capable of detecting.

And despite Donald M's selective choice of available data, I think it's significant that the French media, cycling administrators, and labs have been almost openly hostile to the idea of an American champion. They have a history of carefully orchestrated leaks, behind-the-back exchange of documents, allegations not quite attributable to anyone in particular (wink wink), etc. How trustworthy are they? They seem to be increasingly capable of finding problems in the urine of American Tour winners.

Finally, I find Landis's reactions entirely plausible. Knowing he was in position to win for most of the race (including the time when the sample was allegedly positive), knowing he would be tested after every successful race, one would expect him to be most meticulously careful of everything he ate, drank, even breathed. For one single sample, out of many, to turn up WAY positive places Landis in an impossible position. The single (and in my opinion far) most likely explanation is that the French doctored the sample. In which case, Landis is hosed beyond recovery.

Andrea Bottaro · 10 August 2006

First - k.e. and PG, cut the bickering please. You can both make your points without sounding like third graders. Most importantly, however, the issue of whether Landis is guilty or not is entirely irrelevant here. Whether he doped or was framed, we all agree that the evidence indicates that the testosterone in his sample was intentionally altered ("designed") by someone. Second,

Popper's Ghost wrote: If the population consistently showed the same results as Landis's test, the most obvious hypothesis is that they intentionally consume something in their environment that contains testosterone or is metabolized into testosterone. Hypothesizing "natural mechanisms" to explain C12/C13 ratios would be absurd.

I agree with the first sentence, but not the second. Since I presume the isolated tribe would have no knowledge of testosterone, its effects, or even biochemistry in general, it is certainly possible they consume something that contains testosterone, but it's extremely unlikely they would do that to intentionally raise their testosterone levels. If the tribe enjoyed feasting on, say, certain slugs which happened to contain high levels of testosterone, and based on the slugs' diet that testosterone happened to have a particularly odd C12/13 ratio, I would count that as a natural mechanism by which the anomalous results were generated (i.e., not "designed", not doping). Indeed, if it turned out that Landis just happened to have acquired a taste for the same slugs during a previous Tour de l'Amazone, being completely unaware of their effects on his testosterone levels, he may still lose his title (because of the slugs' effect on his metabolism), but I doubt he would be accused of intentional, "designed" doping.

Flint · 10 August 2006

Since I presume the isolated tribe would have no knowledge of testosterone, its effects, or even biochemistry in general, it is certainly possible they consume something that contains testosterone, but it's extremely unlikely they would do that to intentionally raise their testosterone levels.

On the contrary, this is almost surely the reason they would consume it. Clearly, raising testosterone levels has medium-term benefits (you can hit 73 homers in a season, for example), and given short lifespans, this may be viewed as a Good Thing. These jungle tribes are very knowledgeable within their narrow focus - they know the metabolic effects (if not the detailed biochemistry) of everything they eat. Bottaro may as well say that they may drink a lot of homebrew, but it's "extremely unlikely they would do this to intentionally" become intoxicated. So I think Andrea Bottaro's point fails. This hypothetical tribe, if typical of such tribes, would be deliberately doping themselves, knowing they were doing it, in order to achieve the known, and (to them) desirable effects. The design inference would be fully justified. And probably easy to check, with a couple of interviews.

k.e. · 10 August 2006

Andrea Bottaro said:

Indeed, if it turned out that Landis just happened to have acquired a taste for the same slugs during a previous Tour de l'Amazone

Oh...very funny. Wouldn't that make him go slower? Next we'll have doped l'escargots winning the Tour de Fromage. OK I'll stop now ...just consider youself lucky PG. Grrrrrr.

Andrea Bottaro · 10 August 2006

On the contrary, this is almost surely the reason they would consume it. Clearly, raising testosterone levels has medium-term benefits (you can hit 73 homers in a season, for example), and given short lifespans, this may be viewed as a Good Thing. These jungle tribes are very knowledgeable within their narrow focus - they know the metabolic effects (if not the detailed biochemistry) of everything they eat. Bottaro may as well say that they may drink a lot of homebrew, but it's "extremely unlikely they would do this to intentionally" become intoxicated. So I think Andrea Bottaro's point fails. This hypothetical tribe, if typical of such tribes, would be deliberately doping themselves, knowing they were doing it, in order to achieve the known, and (to them) desirable effects. The design inference would be fully justified. And probably easy to check, with a couple of interviews.

Mmmm... that's the problem with thought experiments, as soon as you start nit-picking, you get lost in meaningless detail. First of all, from all I understand about testosterone abuse, its effects are long term and not immediately physiologically detectable. I don't think you feel better, stronger or more energetic because you took testosterone once at lunch, or the day before, or last week. It's not like having a beer, or eating peyotes. And assuming the feasting on slugs occurred seldom enough, it would probably not even have any detectable effect on the tribesfolks' long-term muscle mass, physical performance, batting average etc. And even if what I just wrote is not technically correct, it doesn't matter - let's pretend it IS. Let's assume that the tribe consumes enough slugs once in a while to sensibly change their testosterone parameters to sophisticated biochemical tests, but not enough to be physiologically detectable to the tribesfolks who do the slug-eating. (Isn't that what people say about Landis's levels, anyway?) It's my analogy, after all - damn. ;-)

Flint · 10 August 2006

It's my analogy, after all - damn. ;-)

Yes, I know what you're driving at; I just don't think you used the proper control population. I personally would choose Landis's closest relatives as the controls. But there can of course be problems here as well. So it's surely sufficient to say that the design inference is justified as the initial working hypothesis, because enough of this sort of testing has been done on enough different people to say that this has never been shown to be a natural result. I think we have enough of a baseline to say that it is *always* artificially (i.e. externally) introduced. I think you *almost* had it - if we discovered any populations with this hormone, we'd assume it was from an external source *even if we could not find that source*. So we're back to the "best-fit, most probable" explanation - that somewhere in the chain of custody and/or reporting, this hormone got added into the mix. In other words, sometime between the act of Landis's digestion producing the urine, and the French testing organization announding the results, the offending hormone got introduced. Which is to say, the hypotheses that the urine got spiked, or that someone else's got substituted, or that the measuring equipment got diddled, or that the report of the violation was liberally edited, are ALL more likely than any natural explanation.

k.e. · 10 August 2006

Which of course would explain his remarkable recovery (which for some reason, makes me very suspicious) his changing story to explain away the; by all accounts out of the ordinary results from testing, an association with a trainer who has been implicated in the BALCO scandal (can't find the reference sorry, caught it on a sound bite from my normally reliable 'serious' sports program). And a motive.

None of which are proof, however in the game of life impressions for the most part are everything. Once this all plays out we could have another O.J.Simpson moment, political lines are drawn and no matter what the result of various tests are, depending on which side of the fence one is, someone is going to be disappointed.

Sport like religion is all about passion, loyalty and blind faith and mere facts are a distraction, in my view an interesting parallel.

Glen Davidson · 10 August 2006

Should I add that taking steroids is in fact a "natural explanation" in the most general scientific sense of that term? In the Landis case the "natural explanation" would be contrasted with the "hormones by design" explanation, but that's just a convenience that we use in such contexts. It's in the ID world that intelligence is not a "natural explanation" in any sense of the term, and so it is an end, not something which itself needs explanation.

And of course that is exactly one of the dangers of ID, it doesn't ask how we achieved intelligence (short answer--evolution). Call the product of evolution the source of organismic form, and you've neatly voided the crucial questions of what intelligence is and how it has appeared on earth.

Design, like other cognitive effects, is a question to us, one having a partial answer in evolution. They, by contrast, do not ask questions contrary to their faith, so they must and do close off any number of avenues to discovery. This leads to Nelson's reductionism of the discovery process to its apparent result of "design" being behind it, which legally and scientifically is about as uninteresting and useless a conclusion as anyone could reach from this matter.

Is Nelson interested in the actual science? No, he only wants the conclusion that "we have detected design", not the theory and practice that actually connect cause and effect to produce the relevant conclusions.

Indeed, what really ought to be concluded when observing how "design was detected" (not itself a very good characterization of the results) is that design is detected when there are entirely plausible causal connections between putative cause and the effect, namely high testosterone levels. Nelson cannot provide any such connections for his "designer", hence he dwells upon the generalities and avoids the crucial details.

And of course he exploits the ambiguities in the meaning of "natural" to make a wholly unwarranted analogy between "natural intelligence" and the putative "intelligence" that oddly produced life to appear evolutionarily derived.

Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

k.e. · 10 August 2006

Has anyone considered a vengeful massage therapist rubbing over sexed Amazonian slugs onto Floyd's hip? ....smirk.

Flint · 10 August 2006

k.e.

Yes, you've got a point. He was either framed (obviously you don't accept this) or he's got to be the dumbest cheater ever known. But look on the bright side: If Landis in fact HAS stumbled on a substance that will make a cyclist the fastest in the world for one day, and be indetectable the next day, he'll probably get rich. But the next guy will be very careful not to win that stage or the yellow on the day he cheats.

Donald M · 10 August 2006

Andrea writes:
Where you are wrong, DonaldM, is that the data is most definitely NOT the same in both instances. In one, you have independent evidence of a designer, and in the second you don't. This doesn't mean, of course, that in certain, extreme circumstances (like your Venusian example) a design hypothesis in the absence of a known designer may not be reasonable (although, of course, the first and far more likely working hypothesis would be that some earthling, and not some mysterious "unknown designer", made it to Venus before me). But such circumstances require such far-fetched sets of events (another ID favorite is, if I remember correctly, finding a backhoe on Jupiter), that they really tell us nothing at all about things we normally experience.
Thanks for your response, Andrea. Obviously, I beg to differ and believe you have missed the point. The data in both instances is exactly the same. What you seem to be saying is that design can only be inferred in the Landis case because we have the added knowledge of a candidate designer. But that additional fact alone doesn't change the data (i.e. the blood or urine test) one iota. And that is my point. In the thought experiment you provided, we have the very same data with respect to a blood or urine test. But, you want to say that given that data, but not having the added knowledge of any candidate designer, one could never infer design. This amounts to little more than ruling out a legitimate, possible explanation a priori on philosophical, as opposed to scientific, grounds. Going back to the Venus trip I mentioned, suppose we knew beyond the shadow of any doubt that no human ever had been to Venus before us, are you seriously suggesting that you would then be reluctant to infer design, given the message in the rocks? Of course not. Again, the only point here is that one does not need a candidate designer to infer design. Examples such as hackhoes on Jupiter or messages written with stones on Venus serve to highlight this point. You have not really given any reason why this is not so.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

it's extremely unlikely they would do that to intentionally raise their testosterone levels

What a lovely strawman. The issue was your claim about natural causes, not whether their ingestion of exogenous testosterone was for the purpose of raising their testosterone levels; it would indeed most likely be for some other reason, but still intentional.

If the tribe enjoyed feasting on, say, certain slugs which happened to contain high levels of testosterone, and based on the slugs' diet that testosterone happened to have a particularly odd C12/13 ratio, I would count that as a natural mechanism by which the anomalous results were generated (i.e., not "designed", not doping).

Thereby redefining "natural processes" just so as to avoid having been wrong -- have you been taking lessons from the IDiots? In the context, "natural processes" refers to metabolic processes in the body of the person taking the test. If eating slugs is "natural", then so is drinking a beverage that contains a chemical that, unknown to you, will raise your testosterone level. After all, everything that happens in the physical world is "natural". You're not one to characterize people as third graders when you play such silly games.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

we all agree that the evidence indicates that the testosterone in his sample was intentionally altered ("designed") by someone.

No, we do not all agree to that. What we all agree to is that the test results, if accurate, indicate the presence of exogenous testosterone in Landis's system. Period. Beyond that, there is plenty of room for speculation and debate.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

Indeed, if it turned out that Landis just happened to have acquired a taste for the same slugs during a previous Tour de l'Amazone, being completely unaware of their effects on his testosterone levels, he may still lose his title (because of the slugs' effect on his metabolism), but I doubt he would be accused of intentional, "designed" doping.

How could it "turn out" that way, other than from a gods eye POV? Even if it were true, Landis would still be accused of intentional doping because there is no way that he could prove that that was the cause of his exogenous testosterone to his accusers. Even if the evidence were overwhelming that he had such a taste and was consuming those slugs regularly, he would not be able to convince many accusers that that was the cause in this instance -- many people assumed he was guilty of doping before the test results were already known; many people assumed he was guilty of doping before he even performed well on stage 17. Many people assume that all pro cyclists take drugs and could not possibly perform as well as they do otherwise, and will never believe otherwise.

Paul Flocken · 10 August 2006

Flint,

You may find something of what you are looking for in these two articles.
http://outside.away.com/outside/bodywork/200311/200311_drug_test_1.html
http://www.rajeun.net/bicycle.html

Sincerely,

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

Mmmm... that's the problem with thought experiments, as soon as you start nit-picking, you get lost in meaningless detail....And even if what I just wrote is not technically correct, it doesn't matter - let's pretend it IS.

This is ridiculous. I didn't say that the conclusion that you wanted to arrive at is invalid, what I said was that your argument was bad. It won't do to wave your arms and say "let's just pretend that my argument is a good one". You asked "Would the same inference of design now be justified? Or would scientists hypothesize and test new hypotheses of natural mechanisms causing the anomalies, before assuming purposeful doping?" The answer to the first question is "Yes" -- the inference that the population was intentionally ingesting some substance that raised their testosterone levels would be justified, but would warrant further investigation before being accepted. The answer to the second question is "no" -- scientists would not hypothesize and test new hypotheses of natural mechanisms causing the anomalies -- ingesting a substance occurring naturally in the Amazonian habitat is not a "new" "natural mechanism" by any stretch of an honest person's imagination.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

I think you *almost* had it - if we discovered any populations with this hormone, we'd assume it was from an external source *even if we could not find that source*.

I don't think Andrea had it at all. As you say, any population. It doesn't matter whether it's pro cyclists or isolated Amazonians, the inference from the C12/C13 ratio is exactly the same -- that it indicates exogenous testosterone. The difference in population is no reason to "test new hypotheses of natural mechanisms". This is an argument that some Landis defenders have actually tried to use -- that because he's from an isolated in-bred community, baseline results may not be valid. This might be an argument in regard to the T/E ratio -- if it weren't for the fact that all his other tests showed normal levels -- but it fails miserably for the C12/C13 ratio.

Coin · 10 August 2006

What you seem to be saying is that design can only be inferred in the Landis case because we have the added knowledge of a candidate designer. But that additional fact alone doesn't change the data (i.e. the blood or urine test) one iota. And that is my point. In the thought experiment you provided, we have the very same data with respect to a blood or urine test. But, you want to say that given that data, but not having the added knowledge of any candidate designer, one could never infer design.

— Donald M
Well, yes, that's correct. Because the thing is, we don't infer "design" in the Landis case. We infer one of a series of candidate explanations, some of which are designers (i.e., Landis and/or someone else with the ability to covertly drug him). If Landis weren't a candidate designer (like, let's say he'd been in a coma for 30 years on the day on which the blood test was taken), he'd be removed from the pool of possible explanations. The thing is, there's no way to infer "design". "Design" simply doesn't have any properties unto itself. We can only infer some specific designer, ever, because "design" is neither meaningful, nor recognizable, in isolation. Even in the case that we think somebody doped Landis but we're not sure who, or in the case of Popper's Ghost suspecting that the hypothetical testosterone-heavy tribe makes some kind of slug-based herbal steroids, we're still not inferring "design"; we're inferring a human designer. This distinction matters because even if we don't know who that human designer was yet, we have a good idea of the capabilities and likely motives of humans, making inference or dismissal of the "some human did it" hypothesis possible. But we can't infer or dismiss hypotheses based on many of the numerous categories that design by itself includes (such as tribal gods or aliens) so we don't take into consideration those hypotheses for sources of high blood testosterone.

Going back to the Venus trip I mentioned, suppose we knew beyond the shadow of any doubt that no human ever had been to Venus before us, are you seriously suggesting that you would then be reluctant to infer design, given the message in the rocks?

Well, pretty much yes, becuase "design" isn't something that can be inferred by itself. In such a situation a few would come to mind, two of which seem the most plausible: 1. Maybe there is nonhuman life on Venus. 2. Perhaps, even though I think I know beyond the shadow of any doubt that no human had ever been to Venus before me, I'm wrong and humans have been to Venus before me. Both of these hypotheses are more useful than a hypothesis of naked "design", because once I've identified these designer candidates I can investigate for their presence or absense. (2) would be the hypothesis I'd favor initially, because if there's life on Venus, then how did it know I was coming, why does it know English, and why had it never attempted to contact us? If I continued to explore Venus and found zero further signs of life, then (2) would become progressively more and more attractive. Maybe China's space program is playing some kind of incredibly elaborate prank. In either case, both as-yet-undiscovered Venetian life with hidden satellite dishes, and China's space program, would be examples of things subject to natural law, and I would work under the assumption that methodological naturalism could be used to uncover the signs of these things. Among the things I would not do are say "say, maybe those stones were put there by an unknown, unnamed Designer which exists outside the bounds of natural law in an unknown way"; or say "say, maybe the Christian God put those stones there"; and then shrug at the inscrutability of the Designer/God and make no further attempt to explore where those stones might have come from.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

his changing story to explain away the;

Despite both Flint and I pointing out that this is consistent with innocence. That you keep repeating a fact that doesn't support your position as if it did shows that your position is not the result of rational consideration.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

What we all agree to is that the test results, if accurate, indicate the presence of exogenous testosterone in Landis's system. Period.

Sorry, I meant to say "in Landis's sample". I've been exposed to so much conclusion-leaping that I'm starting to do it myself.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

But, you want to say that given that data, but not having the added knowledge of any candidate designer, one could never infer design.

If anyone is saying that, they shouldn't. The problem with ID is that the inference is invalid based on the actual evidence, not that the inference could never be possible for any given evidence. Find a rabbit that is normal except for having a plastic heart, and an inference that its heart was designed by an intelligent agent would be justified. But it still would not be evidence against the theory of evolution or common descent, even for that rabbit. Find rabbits with plastic hearts that give birth to rabbits with plastic hearts and we've got some serious explaining to do, but these offspring don't strengthen the design hypothesis, if anything they weaken it. This is a major problem with ID -- while one might find an instance for which one can argue intelligent design, it's very hard to extend it to other instances. ToE, OTOH, predicts and explains the similarities we see in biological systems, and the ID blather about "common plans" is pure ad hocery.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 10 August 2006

Still winning friends and influencing people, eh Popper?

(snicker) (giggle)

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

suppose we knew beyond the shadow of any doubt that no human ever had been to Venus before us

Why not go all the way and suppose that we know beyond a shadow of any doubt that God left the message? Your basic problem is epistemological confusion. We don't "know" empirical claims, we infer them -- and all inferences are fallible. All we can do is infer the best explanation from the evidence. And the best inference is overwhelmingly that life on Earth evolved. One can certainly infer otherwise, but it wouldn't be a good inference. And it's possible for there to be evidence that space aliens had a hand in it -- perhaps SETI-like encodings in the genome -- but there's nothing like any such evidence. And "it looks designed to me" or "it looks too complex to me to have evolved" is not evidence of anything other than ignorance and intellectual dishonesty.

Andrea Bottaro · 10 August 2006

I guess we don't even agree about what "designed" means, then. To me, it means something that is planned and implemented for a specific purpose. For instance:

In the context, "natural processes" refers to metabolic processes in the body of the person taking the test. If eating slugs is "natural", then so is drinking a beverage that contains a chemical that, unknown to you, will raise your testosterone level. After all, everything that happens in the physical world is "natural".

doesn't make any sense at all in my opinion. If the purpose of that beverage was to raise testosterone levels (because whoever prepared it - regardless if it was the drinker or someone else - meant it to raise testosterone levels), then the raise in testosterone was a product of design. If it wasn't meant to raise testosterone levels, but it happened to do so via some unintended pharmacological effect, then it seems to me that the testosterone levels weren't the product of design. The difference is not whether the anomalous testosterone levels were "exogenously" or "endogenously" generated, but whether they were generated intentionally or not. That's what "design" is about to me. If eating slugs increases your testosterone to Landis levels, but you don't know it or expect it, then your slug-induced Landis-like testosterone levels are NOT designed.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

I guess we don't even agree about what "designed" means, then. To me, it means something that is planned and implemented for a specific purpose.

I suggest that you read Coin's post.

doesn't make any sense at all in my opinion.

What you quoted is about "natural processes", not "design". As in the past, I have trouble telling where your false dichotomies and reinterpretations for the sake of rescuing your bogus arguments is designed by you or simply a result of your "natural" state, sigh.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

To clarify my point: whether or not something should be considered a "natural mechanism" does not and cannot hinge on intent. One can either call eating slugs that raise testosterone "a natural mechanism" or not (I think most people would say "not", especially when it's in the context of "new hypotheses of natural mechanisms"), but sliding between whether to call it that or not depending upon the intent of the ingester to raise their testosterone levels is not intellectually honest.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

The difference is not whether the anomalous testosterone levels were "exogenously" or "endogenously" generated, but whether they were generated intentionally or not. That's what "design" is about to me. If eating slugs increases your testosterone to Landis levels, but you don't know it or expect it, then your slug-induced Landis-like testosterone levels are NOT designed.

And finally, this is one big honkin' strawman. Your bad argument was about scientists doing something different in the case of Amazonian tribes as they do with Landis. It was based on a false dichotomy: "Would the same inference of design now be justified? Or would scientists hypothesize and test new hypotheses of natural mechanisms causing the anomalies, before assuming purposeful doping?" The alternative to purposeful action is non-purposeful action; the alternative to "new hypotheses of natural mechanisms" is old hypotheses, or non-natural mechanisms -- whatever those are. Just because one doesn't suspect intent is no reason to go looking for "new hypotheses of natural mechanisms". In the case of the C12/C13 ratio, we know all about the mechanism, which is the introduction of exogenous sources of testosterone. That is quite independent of intent, which is a matter of psychology, motive, and a number of other matters that have nothing to do with biochemistry.

Andrea Bottaro · 10 August 2006

Popper's Ghost, let me repeat what I think I said once before: you may even make reasonable points, but when you make them with that tone, you just sound like a complete jerk and a troll, and your points completely get lost. As for what I meant by "natural mechanism", I just send you back to the original post:

Or would scientists hypothesize and test new hypotheses of natural mechanisms causing the anomalies, before assuming purposeful doping?

which clearly shows that I contrasted non-purposeful "natural mechanisms" with purposeful "doping", and that my meaning has not changed a bit since then. Since most of us here frankly couldn't care less whether Landis is guilty of doping or not, or consider it worthy of lenghty discussions whether he or some cunning Frenchman slipped the drugs in his nightcap, the point of this thread is not whether his testosterone levels were "endogenous" or "exogenous", which seems already pretty much established beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether they were purposefully altered, justifying what Nelson would call a "design" inference, or not. Now, please try to stick to the topic, and to a civil tone, or I am afraid I will have to start moving your posts, and those of people who engage you in off-topic and off-tone "conversation", to the Bathroom Wall. Thanks.

Steviepinhead · 10 August 2006

Sharp argumentation is NOT incivility.

Defend your position or don't.

Steviepinhead · 10 August 2006

And while, with all due respect, as long as I'm treading close to the line with one of our honorable contributors, let me also add--in an admitted fit of frustration:

Dan;t ANYONE in administration on this prize-winning board do
ANYTHING AT ALL about the increasingly-kludgy mechanical workings of this board? Or at least admit that there's a problem? If money needs to be thrown at the problem, tell us that, we'll take up a collection. It shouldn't require eight or nine attempts to get one frickin' comment to post...as happens regularly here but not on Phryngula or any of the other widely-visited science blogs. Clicking on the latest comment on a thread should not--as happens regularly here but not, etc.--shut down one's browser.

I mean, c'mon: are we PTers or are we like those other folks at UD, where comments appear, disappear, appaar only after enormous effort and waste of time and energy, never appear in the first place, all at the whim of invisible designers, gremlins, or what have you?

Steviepinhead · 10 August 2006

First word of my bolded plea above should've been "Won't" instead of whatever gobbledygook my frustrated fingers fumbled out...

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

Sharp argumentation is NOT incivility. Defend your position or don't.

It's certainly hypocritical to respond to my sharp argumentation with a slew of ad hominems and threats. Bottaro repeats his statement Or would scientists hypothesize and test new hypotheses of natural mechanisms causing the anomalies, before assuming purposeful doping? which, as I noted, is a false dichotomy -- assuming purposeful doping is in no way an alternative to new hypotheses of natural mechanisms; intent and mechanism are in two different realms. To then say which clearly shows that I contrasted non-purposeful "natural mechanisms" with purposeful "doping" is just ridiculous -- it carries a double unwarranted assumption, that the occurrence of natural mechanisms (e.g., eating and digesting slugs) is non-purposeful, and that "doping" is purposeful. As I noted, Landis will lose his title because he was doped, and thus had an advantage; it doesn't matter whether he was doped purposefully; it wouldn't matter if the testosterone got into his body by eating Amazonian escargot; he still was doped. Perhaps Bottaro just doesn't understand the concept of a false dichotomy. In any case, his argumentation is of a very poor quality, and have already been rebutted.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

whether they were purposefully altered, justifying what Nelson would call a "design" inference, or not.

One more point -- talk of "intent" plays into the IDiot's hands. Intent is a legal concept but is not a part of any scientific theory. Regardless of whether the laws of physics or sequence of mutations or the outcome was "intended", the theory of evolution is still the best -- and only -- scientific explanation of biodiversity and the nature and structure of biological organisms. Blather about "design inference", whether in regard to evolution or pro cycling or Amazonian tribes, has nothing to do with science. The science establishes that the C12/C13 ratios in Landis's sample indicates exogenous testosterone; it establishes no more than that. Determinations of intent will be done by quasi-legal bodies after a hearing and presentation of evidence. Scientists will contribute evidence but will not make the determination. And in the Amazon, any competent scientist, upon discovering C12/C13 ratios which, according to established science, indicate an exogenous source, would attempt to determine that source, starting by interviewing the tribespeople and examining their diet and habits. They would not presume intent or lack of it, and they would not "hypothesize and test new hypotheses of natural mechanisms" -- that's what cranks who don't understand the power and value of Occam's Razor. Scientists explain phenomena in terms of mechanisms -- the fewer the better, and one should always exhaust the old ones before attempting to dream up new ones, and new hypotheses must flow from the evidence, the gathering of which happens before any hypothesis formation, when science is done properly.

Popper's ghost · 10 August 2006

whether his testosterone levels were "endogenous" or "exogenous", which seems already pretty much established beyond a reasonable doubt

And then there is this, sigh. As I noted in my correction of my own statement, this is conclusion-jumping. At least two people in this thread have said they think the most likely explanation is that the sample was spiked. There is no claim about "his testosterone levels" that has been established beyond a reasonable doubt. This Landis affair illustrates how much unscientific thinking is done even by scientists, who share the same prejudices, extra-scientific assumptions, and cognitive failures as the population at large.

Flint · 11 August 2006

popper's ghost:

While I find your efforts a bit strenuous, I agree with your points. Intent is not relevant. If it were relevant, we'd have to raise issues far beyond the scope of the original point (which I agree with you was incorrect, and which failed). It might be interesting (though not relevant) to wonder where and why these lines are drawn; many acts improve one's performance. Diet (carefully monitored, but definitely stringent), physical exercises, training and practice, equipment quality, etc. All of these performance enhancement mechanisms are available to all contestents. Presumably, performance enhancing drugs are also available to all contestants.

So why say that the drugs are "unfair" but the extra practice opportunities some contestants can afford (compared to others) are "fair", or the physical gifts not meted out equally are still "fair"? My reading indicates that in football, for example, both the benefits and deleterious side-effects of steroids were understood. The attitude was, use at your own risk. If you think a starting job for 3-4 years is worth a (much shorter) lifetime of injury and ill health, that's your call. It's "fair" because these same options are equally open to everyone. So when we get into the area of intent, we're dealing with moral issues and not scientific issues.

As for the Amazonian slugs, I think a couple of interviews would reveal that everyone in the tribe knows that eating them allows one to run after game so persistently that the game falls from exhaustion before the tribesman. Which would satisfy Andrea Bottaro's question as to whether these tribesmen were doping themselves on purpose for the benefits doping provides. The answer is yes. No different in principle from cyclists.

I *think* Bottaro was assuming that these tribesmens' metabolisms were synthesizing the offending homones, because (unstated) they had no access to the same chemicals the cyclists use; and (unstated) even if they did, they'd have no reason to use them. Not to mention that (unstated) the offending test results couldn't come from any other external source. But I think these assumptions would not be adopted by investigators, who'd almost surely focus on whether these folks were eating booka-bookas during mating season.

Popper's ghost · 11 August 2006

So why say that the drugs are "unfair"

Well, it's unfair for someone to take them when there are rules against taking them. Your real question, I think, is about why we have those rules. Rather than try to answer that directly, I will note that pro cycling also has stringent rules about the weight and configuration of bicycles; there's a lot of tradition and concern for "purity", which may be a rather elusive goal. Particularly relevant is that the cycling authorities are talking about banning the use of oxygen tents, which increase the cyclist's ability to utilize oxygen much as injecting EPO does. Of course, such a ban would benefit those who live at higher altitudes or can afford to go to places with higher altitudes to train.

Which would satisfy Andrea Bottaro's question as to whether these tribesmen were doping themselves on purpose for the benefits doping provides.

Ah, but that wasn't his question. It was whether these tribesmen were doping themselves in order to raise their testosterone levels -- and the difference matters, because he argued that the tribesmen wouldn't be doping in order to raise their testosterone levels because they wouldn't know about testosterone. I think that reflects the same sort of flawed reasoning as with the confusion between "natural" and "unintentional", and between "system" and "sample" (the latter confusion being one I made and Bottaro then repeated) ... it's a matter of substituting A for B where B sometimes, but does not always, imply A. Athletes don't dope in order to raise their testosterone levels either, they do so in order to increase performance, the same reason of the tribesmen, most likely, as you point out.

Popper's ghost · 11 August 2006

it's a matter of substituting A for B where B sometimes, but does not always, imply A.

I should have said substituting B for A (or A with B). If B always implies A, then replacing A with B is ok; for instance, what is true of dogs (A) is true of poodles (B), so we can replace "dog" with "poodle" in statements like "dogs (and thus poodles) have four legs", "dogs (and thus poodles) are closely related to wolves", and so on. But it doesn't necessarily work the other way around, e.g., "poodles (and thus dogs) have curly hair" is wrong.