Did Lance Armstrong dope or use blood transfusions during his professional cycling career? I have no idea. Nor, it appears, does anyone else except for Lance and perhaps a few members of his team. But as a mathematician with expertise in the use of language in reasoning, I find the much-touted central pillar of the United States Anti-Doping Agency's case against him does not stand up to even a cursory examination.
Apart from hearsay evidence from two disgraced former cycling teammates of Armstrong, the USADA bases its case (at least according to what they have said) on the blood and urine samples taken from the cyclist in 2009 and 2010, when he made a brief comeback to the sport after four years in retirement. In a June letter to Armstrong, subsequently made public, the USADA said those samples were "fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions."
Though a recreational cyclist, my interest in this case is fairly minimal. It is that term "fully consistent with" that piqued my mathematician's interest. It is a very odd phrase to use in a situation like this, not least because it has absolutely no evidentiary force. It says nothing of any significance.
[Certainly, after two years deliberation, including testimony from former team-mates obtained under oath through a grand jury, the U.S. federal criminal investigation of the allegations made against him finally dropped the case early this year, saying there was no real evidence against him.]
Though the layperson typically thinks of mathematicians as being focused on numbers, that is actually not the case. That false view is a consequence of the mathematics taught in high school. Only at university are you likely to encounter the mathematics done by the professionals. High among our real areas of expertise are logical reasoning, rigorous proof, and the precise use of language.
Incidentally, I am not referring here to using language and reasoning precisely in esoteric discussions of arcane mathematical topics. Yes, we do that too. But we also apply our expertise in everyday, practical domains. (Homeland Security, to name one domain I myself have worked on.)
There are a number of terms we use to describe evidence. The strongest is "proof" (or "conclusive proof", but any mathematician will tell you the adjective is superfluous.) We might say that, "Evidence X proves that Y happened."
An alternative that might seem weaker, but in actuality is not, is that "Evidence X implies that Y happened."
Definitely weaker, is "Evidence X suggests (or indicates) that Y happened."
All of these have evidentiary power of differing degrees. And there are others.
At the other end of the spectrum, we can say, "Evidence X contradicts Y having happened." X proves Y did not occur.
Evidence collected to uncover wrong-doing, such as doping controls in sport, by virtue of their design, rarely (if at all) provide proof of innocence. At best, when a doping test does not come up positive, the most you can say is it did not yield proof. It does not rule out (i.e., does not contradict) doping, just as a negative result from a cancer screening does not mean you are cancer free, merely that the test did not detect any cancer.
So what does that USADA term "fully consistent with" mean? Well, first of all, let's drop the "fully"; it's superfluous. Consistency is a definitive term. Something is either consistent or not; no half measures. It's also a term mathematicians like myself are very familiar with -- again for real world uses as much if not more than within theoretical mathematics. It means "does not contradict". Nothing more, nothing less.
Given the availability of terms such as "proves," "indicates," "suggests," or more evocative terms such as "raises the distinct possibility that," why did the USADA decide to use the curious term "consistent with"? Since they surely spent a lot of time, and consulted with a number of lawyers, in drafting their letter, their choice of wording was clearly deliberate. Why choose a term that means "does not contradict"?
After all, I can say "Drinking milk as a child is (fully) consistent with using crack cocaine as an adult." Should we take that as evidence that milk producers are to blame for adult drug use? Of course not. But this example has exactly the same logical heart, and the same evidentiary force, as the USADA letter's "fully consistent with blood manipulation including EPO use and/or blood transfusions."
Why not say "suggest" or "indicates"? They fall well short of "proof", but they do carry some weight.
"Does not contradict" is, then, it appears, a key part of their case against Armstrong. In which case, I find it troubling. The USA should have far higher standards of proof than that.
Follow Dr. Keith Devlin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/profkeithdevlin
He probably did. EPO and transfusions are common among cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, Since his bout with cancer occurred during his professional career, it's quite likely. There are other legitimate reasons for getting transfusions during that period as well. Are we going to strip all athletes of their awards if they've received a blood transfusion and issue them suspensions?
As for methods used, if any, it's safe to assume he's accused of transfusion methods. If there was evidence of EPO or a similar drug, he wouldn't be accused of blood doping. He'd be accused of using a controlled (or banned) substance
One word ultimately means little, what matters is the quality of the evidence. As such, your post adds very little, but seems to be an attempt to obfuscate the reality that there is a ton of evidence against Armstrong.
To add context, there was a nearly concurrent case of racial abuse by Chelsea's John Terry which was brought to the courts, as is the normal course of action for such instances in England for offensive and derogatory speech.
The point being, from my perspective, that sporting associations, when confronted with a lack of evidence simply move the goal posts and construct means to ensure convictions. The FA, for instance, has a 98% conviction rate (conviction meaning judgement against accused players in terms of bans and monetary penalties, not legal action), which even the most effective court system not in a dictatorship could only dream of.
Hearsay n 1.unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge.
The accounts are from people who claim to have direct knowledge, that is called a witness account. Hearsay is if they said, I heard it from someone who was there.
As an engineer I must show that your truth is not the whole truth. You mention two disgraced former cycling teammates of Armstrong, but you fail to mention that there are 8 other, yet unnamed but who in all likelyhood include Levi Leipheimer and George Hincapie, who are nothing if not trustworthy and that their accounts would not have been included were they not incriminating.
As a mathematician I'll assume you know how to add up. Your artilce doesn't add up because it doesn't include all the factors required in the addition.
You make a case for the precise use of language, yet you use freely the word "hearsay". There are two things wrong with this. First is that when talking about a legal matter, one is obliged to watch one's use of words within that context and not resort to their vernacular meanings, as they tend to be less precise, and again, it is you who's making the case for the precise use of language.
This is especially important where the different interpretations of "hearsay" carry important consequences to the outcome of the logic flow. "X says he heard it from Y, and Y is supposed to have seen it (according to X)" is completely different than "X says he saw it". I can very easily say that the theory of evolution is "just a theory" and that "my theory" is that we all descend from Adam and his rib. Except that what people usually mean by "theory" is a simple hypothesis in scientific terms. My point is that you cannot mix colloquial meanings with exact meanings, especially if you're doing it while stressing the importance of word precision.
Second, and what worries me the most is that you focus on the exactness of the words used in one part of the accusation by USADA (the one pertaining to blood samples, but not the rest about the witness accounts) and demand that the way it is written in interpretation proof while excusing your own sloppiness in the use of "hearsay". Furthermore, you at once reduce your argument to your level of expertise (and as I claim in this posting and the preceding, failing even at it) and fail to acknowledge that the conclusions you may draw from it cannot be conclusive to dismiss USADA's arguments.
http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame?page=0,2
If Armstrong and his teamates were doping as a team using the same drugs, masking agents and method them surely Armstrong should have failed a test sooner because he had many more tests to beat as the most frequent winner.
Normally courts give more weight to scientific evidence than eyewitness testimony. If you were on trial for drunk driving and the prosecutor had 10 witnesses who say they saw you drink a 40 once bottle of scotch before driving and you had breathalyzer and blood tests that said you had no alcohol in your system, you would be found not guilty. The prosector would most likely be in trouble for even taking such a case to court.
I think USADA chose this wording because their testing proved nothing scientifically. Their proof is testimony achieved through the use of the Grand Jury and promises of short bans for information.
If you want to read up on the Science in this matter, best to stick with the scientists themselves. I highly suggest this article:
Buzz, you need to read this:
http://velocitynation.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
Personally, I don't think they have the same meaning. "Is consistent" excludes neutrality in a way that "does not contradict" doesn't have to. Saying a number is "not negative" isn't the same as saying it's positive. There's also zero--a neutral number. Similarly, "is consistent" is like a claim of being a positive number. There's an actual claim of consistency that "doesn't contradict" doesn't require.
Seems to me the USADA is sending a clear message to the UCI that they can convict anyone on hearsay and the UCI can put its Biological Passport Program where the sun doesn't shine despite the fact that several riders have been caught through that program. I'm waiting to see Pat McQuaid's reaction.
Your blog is about the evidentiary value of the verb 'consistent with'. But I just indicate that the evidence is (presumably, I don't know but that is how they present it) in the witness statements, and that this '...consistent with blood manipulation' is just a kind of confirmation (not contradictory to) this.
Probably they added this line because they also want to mention the 2009/2010 testresults in their statement. Although it has no evidentiary value.
recent news report http://tinyurl.com/9nzne2g, where the writer states "USADA also insists it has scientific evidence pointing to doping by the Texan." We expect journalists -- and bloggers! -- to make errors, since they (we) generally work in haste, and besides there is not much at stake. In contrast, the USADA clearly had months to work on their statement, and given its significance, must have weighed every word. As a consequence, I still find it curious, and perhaps suspicious.