Ye Shiwen's feats at the Olympics strike me as either constituting the miracle we have all dreaded which requires an urgent rewrite of the atheist's handbook, or else a triumph of modern pharmaceutical ingenuity. The probability of her being a genuine lupus naturae seem to me to be vanishingly small.
Or the outcome of human selection.
I don't know if she is guilty or not, don't even know what she looks like. People judging others with a lack of evidence is a problem, though I suppose we all do it occasionally. I don't like elitist sport and the constant news of doping brought to me by loathsome sport officials. Activity which you enjoy and is good for you should be encouraged, those who seek an audience usually just bore me.
Making public claims to the media without any evidence what-so-ever should be slander. These people should be sued.
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.
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.
I don't really mind to be honest if she was cracked up to the eye balls, well if she was she would probably drown. But its fun and exciting to watch. Maybe her team has found a better way of training, just look at the mens gymnastics and how the Japanese use to rule the roost, the second the Chinese adopted their training methods they ended up with all the golds, the UK team adopted the style between Beijing and London and are now a medal worthy team rather than the rubbish they use to be.
Quote from: Crow on August 01, 2012, 11:11:40 AM
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.
I don't really mind to be honest if she was cracked up to the eye balls, well if she was she would probably drown. But its fun and exciting to watch. Maybe her team has found a better way of training, just look at the mens gymnastics and how the Japanese use to rule the roost, the second the Chinese adopted their training methods they ended up with all the golds, the UK team adopted the style between Beijing and London and are now a medal worthy team rather than the rubbish they use to be.
It's one thing to adopt improved training regimes and haul yourself up,from mediocrity, quite another for a top woman swimmer to outpace a top male swimmer at any point in a race. For this phenomenon to occur without the assistance of illegal substances or procedures is as near a miracle as we will ever witness on this
Planet. And my tolerance for miracles or near- miracles is rather low.
Quote from: En_Route on August 01, 2012, 01:49:57 PM
It's one thing to adopt improved training regimes and haul yourself up,from mediocrity, quite another for a top woman swimmer to outpace a top male swimmer at any point in a race. For this phenomenon to occur without the assistance of illegal substances or procedures is as near a miracle as we will ever witness on this
Planet. And my tolerance for miracles or near- miracles is rather low.
Maybe she's is part fish, maybe we will start seeing a new breed of women that are capable of competing alongside men, maybe she likes her chemistry set, maybe Michael Phelps is getting paid by the Chinese to dress in drag, or maybe she had an inboard jet installed. I just think it's a bit wrong to point fingers without any evidence.
Quote from: Crow on August 01, 2012, 06:56:36 PM
Quote from: En_Route on August 01, 2012, 01:49:57 PM
It's one thing to adopt improved training regimes and haul yourself up,from mediocrity, quite another for a top woman swimmer to outpace a top male swimmer at any point in a race. For this phenomenon to occur without the assistance of illegal substances or procedures is as near a miracle as we will ever witness on this
Planet. And my tolerance for miracles or near- miracles is rather low.
Maybe she's is part fish, maybe we will start seeing a new breed of women that are capable of competing alongside men, maybe she likes her chemistry set, maybe Michael Phelps is getting paid by the Chinese to dress in drag, or maybe she had an inboard jet installed. I just think it's a bit wrong to point fingers without any evidence.
The question is whether or not you favour one of two possibilities- a quasi- miracle or cheating. If a magician turned up at your house and apparently turned water into wine and then left before you could deconstruct how he might have done it, would you therefore feel obliged to take his feat at face value?
Quote from: CrowI just think it's a bit wrong to point fingers without any evidence.
OK, but there is already some strong evidence here, albeit circumstantial:
1. The times achieved are universally assessed by the experts as impossible in the natural way.
2. The Chinese have an appalling record of doping.
So is it really unjust to express suspicion?
Quote from: En_Route on August 01, 2012, 07:12:11 PM
The question is whether or not you favour one of two possibilities- a quasi- miracle or cheating. If a magician turned up at your house and apparently turned water into wine and then left before you could deconstruct how he might have done it, would you therefore feel obliged to take his feat at face value?
I don't favor either really, just because it's unheard of I wouldn't take it as a miracle. There are no laws in nature that say it is impossible without the help of drugs. She may just have the right type of genetic make-up that is closer to that of the male competitors rather than her female competitors. There are more alternatives than a) miracle, b) doping.
Quote from: OldGit on August 01, 2012, 07:23:06 PM
So is it really unjust to express suspicion?
There is a difference between suspicion and accusation. When Bolt smashed the record everyone congratulated him, sure there were suspicions but that wasn't even the focus. This lass does amazing and the media just focus on the opinions of a few, prove it first before you start screaming witch. If it is true then scream all you like. Because something hasn't happened before doesn't mean its unnatural, in fact there are no laws of nature saying it is impossible without the aid of drugs.
I want to see an athletic event where all the competitors are doping.
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.
Quote from: Crow
There is a difference between suspicion and accusation. When Bolt smashed the record everyone congratulated him, sure there were suspicions but that wasn't even the focus. This lass does amazing and the media just focus on the opinions of a few, prove it first before you start screaming witch.
People keep bandying around legalistic terminology like accusation, suspicion and proof as if we are presiding over a criminal case. I think it's a question of evaluating the probabilities. And given China's almost manic determination to rack up medals, its murky track record in doping, it's general disregard for the rule of law, the unprecedented performance of this girl, the fact that such superhuman exploits in the past have almost invariably been discovered to have been obtained illicitly, then anyone weighing the odds up objectively I would have though would infer that it is extremely likely she is a cheat. The notion that that people are innocent until proven guilty Is irrelevant. Even if it was relevant, this is an offence where it is not all that difficult to suppress the proof. The Chinese certainl y are not going to incriminate themselves . The last swimmer to record a barely credible improvement at the Olympics was Michelle Smith an Irish maiden with a Dutch husband who came with a chequered history on the doping front. She did not show positive at the games themselves, but later doctored a random test and was subsequently banned for 4 years.
Quote from: OldGit on August 01, 2012, 07:23:06 PM
1. The times achieved are universally assessed by the experts as impossible in the natural way.
I don't think it's universal, I've heard an Australian coach and Australian swimmers take a different view. She doesn't look to be of an extreme build, her improvement has been gradual over a number of years. Aren't sport commentators universally assessed as a bunch of ass holes? maybe it's just by me.
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.
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.
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 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-02/australian-coach-defends-ye-shiwen/4171050) 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."
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 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-02/australian-coach-defends-ye-shiwen/4171050) 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's all well and good to form opinions based on probabilities, but what exactly are the probabilities? Probability implies likelihood based on statistics. Quite different from simply saying something "probably" happened, which is simply an opinion based on a general impression of the scenario.
Quote from: Dobermonster on August 06, 2012, 05:27:06 AM
It's all well and good to form opinions based on probabilities, but what exactly are the probabilities? Probability implies likelihood based on statistics. Quite different from simply saying something "probably" happened, which is simply an opinion based on a general impression of the scenario.
The point you make is astute. Would you agree that in life we regularly make predictions with varying degrees of confidence based on incomplete information.? Let's say you hear of two people you know have decided to get married. You might say there's no chance', or very little chance, that the marriage will last. You might sit on an interview panel and think candidate X is by far the likeliest to fit the bill. In this case, we have a performer from a country with a win- at - all costs mentality and a history of cheating producing an athlete like a rabbit out of the hat performing extraordinary feats in a discipline where extraordinary feats are very frequently associated with subsequent discovery of malpractice. That's pretty well all the information to hand and if course not everyone will interpret and evaluate it in identical manner. So my inference is that she is more likely than not to have obtained her results dishonestly. I imagine there are very few people who would not concede some element of doubt surrounding her performance; after that it is just a question of attaching a weight to the degree of doubt.
Ye Shiwen: Can statistics explain her win? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19116749)
Quote from: Crow on August 07, 2012, 11:26:38 PM
Ye Shiwen: Can statistics explain her win? (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19116749)
Interesting article. There does seem to be a consensus that her feat was exceptional ,even extraordinary. Nobody ever claimed what she did was literally impossible without recourse to illicit methods. The stats don't damn her absolutely but on the facts known to us I would still think that the likelihood is that she pulled a flanker. Though in the light of the most recent information I'd probably revise that probability down to a limited extent.