News:

When one conveys certain things, particularly of such gravity, should one not then appropriately cite sources, authorities...

Main Menu

Ye Gods!

Started by En_Route, July 31, 2012, 06:39:37 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

En_Route

Quote from: markmcdaniel on August 02, 2012, 07:04:36 AM
While there are reasons enough to be suspicious I would like to see some real evidence before I jump on this particular bandwagon. Proof, in fact, requires evidence not just interesting supposition and innuendo.

There is enough evidence to form a view of the probabilities, but not enough to prove the matter reasonably beyond doubt. But as I've already said there is no onus on anyone to prove anything. Why shouldn't we just assess the probability based on what we do know? Nobody can  prove she didn' t cheat either, so why should there be a default assumption she is innocent? Nobody is denying that there are procedures which can't be detected or that out- of- competition doping is virtually impossible to detect , especially if the integrity of the national doping agency is suspect. It is telling that blood samples are being retained for 8 years in case new detection techniques can retrospectively detect abuse.

Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
There is enough evidence to form a view of the probabilities, but not enough to prove the matter reasonably beyond doubt.

Evidence seems pretty skimpy to me, she has swum well, better than a man in one leg of a medley and she comes from China.  I see more evidence of racial and gender bias than anything else.

QuoteDenis Cotterell, the former coach of Olympic gold medallist Grant Hackett, has trained Ye and other top Chinese swimmers.

He said he was "100 per cent certain" Ye was clean and said the questions over doping had been raised by people who do not understand the sport.

"You have to have a look at the improvements in Beijing," he told PM.

"If people do their homework and you have a look at some of the world records ... the margins that they have been dropped by some of the extremely talented swimmers that have applied themselves over the past – it is a combination of their talent and their work ethic."

Cotterell said Ye's five-second improvement to her personal best time was not a one-off.

"[There have] been great achievements by people in the sport, it's part of the history ... and talent comes along and makes a good drop and shocks a few people but we generally seem to have accepted it," he said.

"But for some reason in this case now, it's not, because of the Chinese [history]."

"Ian Thorpe, no one questioned, Michael Phelps, no one questioned. And having worked with the girl and seeing how hard she works and the talent she is, it is disappointing that the kid is in the media conference on her own with 100 journalists having to defend herself."

He said Ye's performance was all the more impressive considering the allegations against her and the high-pressure nature of the Games.

"It's very sad that she's having to go through that," he said.

"This Olympics is a very, very tough meet and it makes what she has been doing even more amazing under the microscope that she's been placed under and the allegations."

"You just have to look and see what the pressure of competition does to a lot of swimmers, including our own James Magnusson."

And he described Ye's critics as "quite ignorant".

"If it was your own daughter and you had seen what she had sacrificed over a large number of years, then to finally make this achievement they have seen what she has been through and now, instead of acknowledging the result, there are allegations and questions."

He said Ye, who is also the 200m medley world champion, always had gold medal potential.

"She came back after working with us. She dropped her time another three seconds and another year of work on and she has moved her times forward again," he said.

"She was a great world-ranked swimmer at 14, she won the world title at 15. You would like to think there was room for improvement."

"[The Chinese swimmers are] brilliant workers and they apply themselves like most other people do not."

En_Route

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 02, 2012, 11:53:27 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
There is enough evidence to form a view of the probabilities, but not enough to prove the matter reasonably beyond doubt.

Evidence seems pretty skimpy to me, she has swum well, better than a man in one leg of a medley and she comes from China.  I see more evidence of racial and gender bias than anything else.

QuoteDenis Cotterell, the former coach of Olympic gold medallist Grant Hackett, has trained Ye and other top Chinese swimmers.

He said he was "100 per cent certain" Ye was clean and said the questions over doping had been raised by people who do not understand the sport.

"You have to have a look at the improvements in Beijing," he told PM.

"If people do their homework and you have a look at some of the world records ... the margins that they have been dropped by some of the extremely talented swimmers that have applied themselves over the past – it is a combination of their talent and their work ethic."

Cotterell said Ye's five-second improvement to her personal best time was not a one-off.

"[There have] been great achievements by people in the sport, it's part of the history ... and talent comes along and makes a good drop and shocks a few people but we generally seem to have accepted it," he said.

"But for some reason in this case now, it's not, because of the Chinese [history]."

"Ian Thorpe, no one questioned, Michael Phelps, no one questioned. And having worked with the girl and seeing how hard she works and the talent she is, it is disappointing that the kid is in the media conference on her own with 100 journalists having to defend herself."

He said Ye's performance was all the more impressive considering the allegations against her and the high-pressure nature of the Games.

"It's very sad that she's having to go through that," he said.

"This Olympics is a very, very tough meet and it makes what she has been doing even more amazing under the microscope that she's been placed under and the allegations."

"You just have to look and see what the pressure of competition does to a lot of swimmers, including our own James Magnusson."

And he described Ye's critics as "quite ignorant".

"If it was your own daughter and you had seen what she had sacrificed over a large number of years, then to finally make this achievement they have seen what she has been through and now, instead of acknowledging the result, there are allegations and questions."

He said Ye, who is also the 200m medley world champion, always had gold medal potential.

"She came back after working with us. She dropped her time another three seconds and another year of work on and she has moved her times forward again," he said.

"She was a great world-ranked swimmer at 14, she won the world title at 15. You would like to think there was room for improvement."

"[The Chinese swimmers are] brilliant workers and they apply themselves like most other people do not."

There's a turn up for the (record)books- one of her trainers states she is clean.
As everyone has an ethnic origin and a gender, the racism/sexism card is an easy play. 
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

Recusant

#18
The well known history of China engaging in doping its swimmers means that this was pretty much inevitable. I think that it's a bit feeble for her supporters to use allegations of racism and sexism, given this reality. She may very well be completely clean; just an extraordinary, and extraordinarily hard-working young woman, but she is the product of a system with a shady (and that, relatively recent) history, thus the suspicion is understandable.
"Religion is fundamentally opposed to everything I hold in veneration — courage, clear thinking, honesty, fairness, and above all, love of the truth."
— H. L. Mencken


Stevil

Quote from: En_Route on August 01, 2012, 10:43:27 AM
Quote from: Stevil on August 01, 2012, 07:40:17 AM
Making public claims to the media without any evidence what-so-ever should be slander. These people should be sued.

I think there is evidence though it is not conclusive. She comes from a country  with a history of doping. There is apparently very little to stop her from using illegal methods prior to participation in the games.Her results are verging on the superhuman. To my mind, the balance of probabilities weigh very heavily In favour of her having used illegal substances.
That's not evidence.
If you were a cop would you pull over a person driving a rolls royce, because he was black?
There is a history of black people stealing cars right? Only a verging on superhuman black person would be deriving a rolls right?

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
Why shouldn't we just assess the probability based on what we do know?

Because what you know might not be enough? A bunch of circumstantial 'evidence' might not be enough, it could all be just a highly unlikely fluke and the fact is that she's clean. Or not. I'm not pointing fingers one way or the other.

Like those people on they talk about in 'Superhumans'. They physically test off the charts, and all the experts in their fields wouldn't believe they do what they do till they see them. Turns out most of it's the result of a different physical or genetic makeup. A skinny guy with more fast-contracting muscle fibers than a weightlifting strongman can exert more force and bend iron rods or fold iron pans much more easily than a strongman can. The vast majority of statistics and probabilities would suggest that this shouldn't happen, and experts don't believe it when told.

It's much less likely that she's superhuman, made more so by specialised training, but it's possible. Voicing suspicions as if fact based just on the probablities just seems wrong.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Crow

#21
Quote from: En_Route on August 01, 2012, 09:42:24 PM
Quote from: Crow on August 01, 2012, 07:45:17 PM

I want to see an athletic event where all the competitors are doping.

Turn on your TV and the chances are good your wish will come true.

That's true but its not encouraged, I want to see the human equivalent of belgian blues, all consensual of course. I would just like to see how the extremes of science can be pushed under the name of competition.

Edit: not the belgian blues they are the same as selective dog breeding, but hopefully that still kind of stands for a metaphor rather than a literal version.
Retired member.

markmcdaniel

Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
Quote from: markmcdaniel on August 02, 2012, 07:04:36 AM
While there are reasons enough to be suspicious I would like to see some real evidence before I jump on this particular bandwagon. Proof, in fact, requires evidence not just interesting supposition and innuendo.

There is enough evidence to form a view of the probabilities, but not enough to prove the matter reasonably beyond doubt. But as I've already said there is no onus on anyone to prove anything. Why shouldn't we just assess the probability based on what we do know? Nobody can  prove she didn' t cheat either, so why should there be a default assumption she is innocent? Nobody is denying that there are procedures which can't be detected or that out- of- competition doping is virtually impossible to detect , especially if the integrity of the national doping agency is suspect. It is telling that blood samples are being retained for 8 years in case new detection techniques can retrospectively detect abuse.


You are quite correct in saying that it cannot be proved that she did not cheat. This is because it is impossible to prove a negative. As to why there must be a presumption of innocence this presumption protects all of us from the consequences of unfounded accusations.
It appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public; and freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men's minds which follows from the advance of science - Charles Darwin

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the object of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a god, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. - Albert Einstein

Religion is a by product of fear. For much of human history, it may have been a necessary evil, but why was it more evil than necessary? Isn't killing people in the name of God a pretty good definition of insanity. - Arther C. Clarke

Faith means not wanting to know what is true. - Friedrich Nietzsche

En_Route

#23
Quote from: markmcdaniel on August 02, 2012, 10:15:58 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
Quote from: markmcdaniel on August 02, 2012, 07:04:36 AM
While there are reasons enough to be suspicious I would like to see some real evidence before I jump on this particular bandwagon. Proof, in fact, requires evidence not just interesting supposition and innuendo.

There is enough evidence to form a view of the probabilities, but not enough to prove the matter reasonably beyond doubt. But as I've already said there is no onus on anyone to prove anything. Why shouldn't we just assess the probability based on what we do know? Nobody can  prove she didn' t cheat either, so why should there be a default assumption she is innocent? Nobody is denying that there are procedures which can't be detected or that out- of- competition doping is virtually impossible to detect , especially if the integrity of the national doping agency is suspect. It is telling that blood samples are being retained for 8 years in case new detection techniques can retrospectively detect abuse.


You are quite correct in saying that it cannot be proved that she did not cheat. This is because it is impossible to prove a negative. As to why there must be a presumption of innocence this presumption protects all of us from the consequences of unfounded accusations.

If the tests were rigorous  and advanced enough, you could  show that she was highly unlikely to have taken  illegal substances. The retrospective testing procedure may yet hold the key.  A test can certainly show that specified substances were not used within a definite period prior to the test. You are also taking the presumption of innocence way  out out of context; it applies in criminal courts. It does not apply in civil matters and it has no relevance here anyway where one is simply talking about the probability of an event having taken place. There is no reason why people shouldn't form an opinion.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

En_Route

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2012, 09:50:13 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
Why shouldn't we just assess the probability based on what we do know?

Because what you know might not be enough? A bunch of circumstantial 'evidence' might not be enough, it could all be just a highly unlikely fluke and the fact is that she's clean. Or not. I'm not pointing fingers one way or the other.

Like those people on they talk about in 'Superhumans'. They physically test off the charts, and all the experts in their fields wouldn't believe they do what they do till they see them. Turns out most of it's the result of a different physical or genetic makeup. A skinny guy with more fast-contracting muscle fibers than a weightlifting strongman can exert more force and bend iron rods or fold iron pans much more easily than a strongman can. The vast majority of statistics and probabilities would suggest that this shouldn't happen, and experts don't believe it when told.

It's much less likely that she's superhuman, made more so by specialised training, but it's possible. Voicing suspicions as if fact based just on the probablities just seems wrong.


You can talk of the probabilities while recognising that is all they are.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 11:53:43 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2012, 09:50:13 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
Why shouldn't we just assess the probability based on what we do know?

Because what you know might not be enough? A bunch of circumstantial 'evidence' might not be enough, it could all be just a highly unlikely fluke and the fact is that she's clean. Or not. I'm not pointing fingers one way or the other.

Like those people on they talk about in 'Superhumans'. They physically test off the charts, and all the experts in their fields wouldn't believe they do what they do till they see them. Turns out most of it's the result of a different physical or genetic makeup. A skinny guy with more fast-contracting muscle fibers than a weightlifting strongman can exert more force and bend iron rods or fold iron pans much more easily than a strongman can. The vast majority of statistics and probabilities would suggest that this shouldn't happen, and experts don't believe it when told.

It's much less likely that she's superhuman, made more so by specialised training, but it's possible. Voicing suspicions as if fact based just on the probablities just seems wrong.


You can talk of the probabilities while recognising that is all they are.

Sure, and you might even be right that she did take something. I just feel a bit defensive of the whole innocent until proven guilty idea.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


En_Route

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 03, 2012, 12:06:09 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 11:53:43 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on August 02, 2012, 09:50:13 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
Why shouldn't we just assess the probability based on what we do know?

Because what you know might not be enough? A bunch of circumstantial 'evidence' might not be enough, it could all be just a highly unlikely fluke and the fact is that she's clean. Or not. I'm not pointing fingers one way or the other.

Like those people on they talk about in 'Superhumans'. They physically test off the charts, and all the experts in their fields wouldn't believe they do what they do till they see them. Turns out most of it's the result of a different physical or genetic makeup. A skinny guy with more fast-contracting muscle fibers than a weightlifting strongman can exert more force and bend iron rods or fold iron pans much more easily than a strongman can. The vast majority of statistics and probabilities would suggest that this shouldn't happen, and experts don't believe it when told.

It's much less likely that she's superhuman, made more so by specialised training, but it's possible. Voicing suspicions as if fact based just on the probablities just seems wrong.


You can talk of the probabilities while recognising that is all they are.

Sure, and you might even be right that she did take something. I just feel a bit defensive of the whole innocent until proven guilty idea.

I'm not saying she absolutely did but I'd rank the probability very high. Others  might well rank the probabilities differently. I find the fact that people invoke the notion of innocence until guilt is proven understandable but also fascinating. In part, I think  this may be down to our inbuilt bias towards  taking what we are told at face value, in part maybe a natural sense of fairness which it is open for the unscrupulous to exploit.

Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).

The Magic Pudding

#27
Quote from: Recusant on August 02, 2012, 06:49:00 PM
The well known history of China engaging in doping its swimmers means that this was pretty much inevitable. I think that it's a bit feeble for her supporters to use allegations of racism and sexism, given this reality. She may very well be completely clean; just an extraordinary, and extraordinarily hard-working young woman, but she is the product of a system with a shady (and that, relatively recent) history, thus the suspicion is understandable.

Ye suspicion is understandable.
I still think conclusions are questionable.
There's this fact and there's that, they cheated, nuthen I wouldn't have expected, no surprises they've done it again.
Asians are by nature weak and weedy, what's with them taken part in elite sport?
Communist laboratories, that's what's at the route of it all.

Sandra Craft

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 02, 2012, 11:53:27 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
There is enough evidence to form a view of the probabilities, but not enough to prove the matter reasonably beyond doubt.

Evidence seems pretty skimpy to me, she has swum well, better than a man in one leg of a medley and she comes from China.  I see more evidence of racial and gender bias than anything else.


I missed it if this has already been covered, but aren't there tests for this sort of thing?  I thought Olympic athletes got tested for drugs and gender even before they hit their events, after all the hubbub in the past about athletes on steroids, or female athletes being genetically male.
Sandy

  

"Life is short, and it is up to you to make it sweet."  Sarah Louise Delany

En_Route

Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on August 05, 2012, 06:17:56 PM
Quote from: The Magic Pudding on August 02, 2012, 11:53:27 AM
Quote from: En_Route on August 02, 2012, 11:25:11 AM
There is enough evidence to form a view of the probabilities, but not enough to prove the matter reasonably beyond doubt.

Evidence seems pretty skimpy to me, she has swum well, better than a man in one leg of a medley and she comes from China.  I see more evidence of racial and gender bias than anything else.


I missed it if this has already been covered, but aren't there tests for this sort of thing?  I thought Olympic athletes got tested for drugs and gender even before they hit their events, after all the hubbub in the past about athletes on steroids, or female athletes being genetically male.


The tests lag behind the technology. The fact that samples are being retained for 8 years  to allow a catch- up by the testers is an open admission that this is the reality.
Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them (Orwell).