Lance Armstrong beat statistical odds, but it's not enough

Readers of Chapter 4 of Numbers Rule Your World would not be surprised about the fall of Lance Armstrong. The big theme of the chapter is that any screening tests has to balance between false positives and false negatives. The anti-doping agencies are so concerned about not falsely accusing anyone that they leave a gigantic hole for dopers to walk through. Strings of negative tests, therefore, do not prove one innocent; however, even a single positive test could be quite telling.

While we think about Armstrong's plight, let's not forget about this fact: every one of those who now confessed  passed hundreds of tests in their careers, just like Armstrong did. In fact, fallen stars like Tyler Hamilton and Floyd Landis also passed lots of tests before they got caught. In effect, dopers face a lottery with high odds of winning and low odds of losing.

Sadly, the media covering this issue continues to ignore false negative errors in testing. I have yet to find one article covering the current situation that acknowledges that dopers pass tests all the time! This over-confidence in scientific models is a disease, not just in drug testing.

***

In the book, I also discussed why we need a lie detector test in athletics. So, we arrive now at a day when a good handful of big-name cyclists decided to shed their lies and open up to us.

***

Another myth shattered by this scandal is the idea that stars don't need to cheat. It is most likely the opposite. At the very top of any sport, especially a sport that pays, the difference between the number 1 and the number 2 is vast in terms of financial reward but infinitestimal in terms of physics. Every little advantage counts. Placebos count.

It's hard to imagine why someone who has no chance of winning anything would take drugs that might kill them. So, when they say everyone was cheating, I wonder if they meant everyone who was competitive was cheating.

***

Here're my previous articles calling for "more false positives" in drug testing (link, link).

There are many stories because so many cyclists are named. Some are already selling their stories. Here are some links:

New York Times on the big report (link)

Tyler Hamilton already has a book (link)

George Hincapie testified (link)

Levi Leipheimer statement (link)

Glossary of secret codewords (link)

Former Irish massage therapist told her story (link)

Former coach continues to deny, deny (link)

Tour de France organizers silent. Imagine not having anything to say about a 7-time champion. (link)

Also silent are his sponsors. Nike? (link)

 

 

 

Comments

[Dave Jones]

Reading some of the USADA reports, it seems the drug testers at the time were some way behind the techniques used by the cyclists and teams. It seems almost comical how easy it was to beat the system in some cases - smuggling saline solution 'right under a testers nose', not answering the door to a tester, dropping out of a race if there was news 'on the grapevine' that a tester was coming. I wonder if the situation has changed in recent years and if testers have 'caught up'. Also, how can the testers know how far behind they actually are...

[Floormaster Squeeze]

The USADA was really important in establishing who cheated, how they cheated, and how much. I already understood the methods as they were widely reported in the better cycling press. The stuff that has come out recently about track makes me realize that catching someone doping is a pretty extraordinary thing given how easy it has been (is??) to use PEDs.

Your comment about lie detector tests is pretty interesting considering Armstrong's rhetorical gambit about "knowing he would pass a lie detector". I guess he is confident in his ability to lie (lots of practice) or is hoping for one more false positive.

I think your point about cycling being a "winner take all" system is spot on but that is one of the details that surprised me. Lance did not just want to dope to do better himself, he wanted/demanded that everyone dope in order that the team would support him better. This makes him pretty unusual and surprisingly evil in his (the other evil bits are his Machiavellian way of dealing with anyone who dared to tell the truth about him or the sport). This also lead to his demise (that and continuing to compete in USADA sanctioned running and triathlon to extend his statute of limitations).

[Kaiser]

Floormaster: one half of Chapter 4 is about steroids testing; the other half is about lie detector testing (and why it's not to be trusted). I think Lance's lawyer isn't going to like my book :)

[zbicyclist]

Nike has bailed out, as most know by now.

There will be no winner of 7 Tours -- in part of because all but one of the cyclists who shared the podium with Lance have also been suspended or at least heavily suspected of doping.

The UCI clearly didn't care (see Greg Lemond's rant: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/wp/2012/10/25/greg-lemond-says-corruption-is-the-problem-in-cycling-calls-for-uci-leaders-to-resign/ The money was good during this time. (similar story with baseball)

[Drug Test Friend]

Lance Armstrong's story is not an uncommon one in the athletics arena. The pressures brought on by the need to win can drive any good athlete to steroid use.

[BarryV]

It seems almost humorous how simple it was to defeat the program in some situations - smuggling saline remedy 'right under a evaluators nose', not responding to the entrance to a specialist, losing out of a competition if there was information 'on the grapevine' that a specialist was arriving. I wonder if the scenario has modified in latest times and if evaluators have 'caught up'.