爱吱声

标题: Nature也和叶诗文较劲了 [打印本页]

作者: 澹泊敬诚    时间: 2012-8-3 13:45
标题: Nature也和叶诗文较劲了
Why great Olympic feats raise suspicions 为何奥运会的奇迹让人怀疑 2012-08-01

http://www.nature.com/news/why-g ... -suspicions-1.11109

简述的内容(大概的意思,大家原谅):

怀疑的论据1:叶的400米混合泳成绩比7月份提高了7秒
Her time in the 400 IM was more than 7 seconds faster than her time in the same event at a major meet in July.

下面的评述中有人说那是2011年7月的成绩

怀疑的论据1:叶的最后50米比罗切特要快
But what really raised eyebrows was her showing in the last 50 metres, which she swam faster than US swimmer Ryan Lochte did when he won gold in the men’s 400 IM on Saturday, with the second-fastest time ever for that event.

这个反驳的太多了,不详述

评论1:通过比赛期间的药检能否确证运动员没有服药?南非开普顿大学Ross Tucker说否。训练中更容易检查到,比赛中很难检查。
1. 不知道Ross Tucker的言论是否断章取义
2. 泳联等是有定期和不定期药检的,似乎欧阳鲲鹏就不是在比赛中被检出的
3. 做研究是可以这样说的,“否定的结论是肯定的,肯定的结论是不一定的”,但实际操作中用这个原则就是没事找抽了。要用就先从菲尔普斯、富兰克林、罗切特搞起。

评论2:如何通过记录运动员的表现检查是否服药?建立数据库,通过统计模型计算运动员达到某个成绩的可能性。
这个模型后面不知道需要多少体质人类学的数据,以及一个不知怎么设计的模型
一个字,扯

评论3:能否只因为运动员“太好”的表现而进行处罚。虽然这样是不公平的,但也是使人怀疑的理由。

皮里阳秋

下面已经有很多中国人留言谴责了。


作者: 梦晓半生    时间: 2012-8-3 14:25
这些所谓专家记者在重复同样的可笑逻辑,早已被他们自己运动员以及媒体有力驳斥了的逻辑,却敢于一遍又一遍犹如驳斥不存在一样继续着同样的言论,这根本就不应该是一个记者乃至专家应有的品质。这种人网上见多了,对于驳斥无非如果不是中国人就当没听见,如果是中国人除了选择当没听见还可以说是政府派的云云,整个变态臆想者。西方这些人的脸皮之厚,中国人应该好好学习,也是可以借鉴的生存法则。
作者: 居庸叠翠    时间: 2012-8-3 18:58
Nature历史地位降格一刻.......你说太阳报这样的胡说八道也就算了,你这素来在俺们理工男眼里面浓眉大眼的也......话说这篇破玩意儿有一点科学精神吗???
作者: Highway    时间: 2012-8-3 21:17
本帖最后由 Highway 于 2012-8-3 21:19 编辑

有一位中国同胞的Comment,因为太有了了,居然被敌人悄悄撤下。这里再全文转贴一下:

中文的译文可以看这里Lai Jiang对Nature关于叶诗文文章的评论
    It is a shame to see Nature, which nearly all scientists, including myself, regard as the one of the most prestigious and influential physical science magazines to publish a thinly-veiled biased article like this. Granted, this is not a peer-reviewed scientific article and did not go through the scrutiny of picking referees. But to serve as a channel for the general populous to be in touch with and appreciate sciences, the authors and editors should at least present the readers with facts within proper context, which they failed to do blatantly.

    First, to compare a player’s performance increase, the author used Ye’s 400m IM time and her performance at the World championship 2011, which are 4:28.43 and 4:35.15 respectively, and reached the conclusion that she has got an “anomalous” increase by ~7 sec (6.72 sec). In fact she’s previous personal best was 4:33.79 at Asian Games 20101. This leads to a 5.38 sec increase. In a sport event that 0.1 sec can be the difference between the gold and silver medal, I see no reason that 5.38 sec can be treated as 7 sec.

    Second, as previously pointed out, Ye is only 16 years old and her body is still developing. (See note 1 below) Bettering oneself by 5 sec over two years may seem impossible for an adult swimmer, but certainly happens among youngsters. Ian Thorpe’s interview revealed that his 400m freestyle time increased 5 sec between the age of 15 and 162. (See note 2 below) For regular people including the author it may be hard to imagine what an elite swimmer can achieve as he or she matures, combined with scientific and persistent training. But jumping to a conclusion that it is “anomalous” based on “Oh that’s so tough I can not imagine it is real” is hardly sound.

    Third, to compare Ryan Lochte’s last 50m to Ye’s is a textbook example of what we call to cherry pick your data. Yes, Lochte is slower than Ye in the last 50m, but (as pointed out by Zhenxi) Lochte has a huge lead in the first 300m so that he chose to not push himself too hard to conserve energy for latter events (whether this conforms to the Olympic spirit and the “use one’s best efforts to win a match” requirement that the BWF has recently invoked to disqualify four badminton pairs is another topic worth discussing, probably not in Nature, though). On the contrary, Ye is trailing behind after the first 300m and relies on freestyle, which she has an edge, to win the game. Failing to mention this strategic difference, as well as the fact that Lochte is 23.25 sec faster (4:05.18) over all than Ye creates the illusion that a woman swam faster than the best man in the same sport, which sounds impossible. Put aside the gender argument, I believe this is still a leading question that implies the reader that something fishy is going on.

    Fourth, another example of cherry picking. In the same event there are four male swimmers that swam faster than both Lochte (29.10 sec)3 and Ye (28.93 sec)4: Hagino (28.52 sec), Phelps (28.44 sec), Horihata (27.87 sec) and Fraser-Holmes (28.35 sec). As it turns out if we are just talking about the last 50m in a 400m IM, Lochte would not have been the example to use if I were the author. What kind of scientific rigorousness that author is trying to demonstrate here? Is it logical that if Lochte is the champion, we should assume he leads in every split? That would be a terrible way to teach the public how science works.

    Fifth, which is the one I oppose the most. The author quotes Tucks and implies that a drug test can not rule out the possibility of doping. Is this kind of agnosticism what Nature really wants to educate its readers? By that standard I estimate that at least half of the peer-reviewed scientific papers in Nature should be retracted. How can one convince the editors and reviewers that their proposed theory works for every possible case? One cannot. One chooses to apply the theory to typical examples and demonstrate that in (hopefully) all scenarios considered the theory works to a degree, and that should warrant a publication, until a counterexample is found. I could imagine that the author has a skeptical mind which is critical to scientific thinking, but that would be put into better use if he can write a real peer-reviewed paper that discusses the odds of Ye doping on a highly advanced non-detectable drug that the Chinese has come up within the last 4 years (they obviously did not have it in Beijing, otherwise why not to use it and woo the audience at home?), based on data and rational derivation. This paper, however, can be interpreted as saying that all athletes are doping, and the authorities are just not good enough to catch them. That may be true, logically, but definitely will not make the case if there is ever a hearing by FINA to determine if Ye has doped. To ask the question that if it is possible to false negative in a drug test looks like a rigged question to me. Of course it is, other than the drug that the test is not designed to detect, anyone who has taken Quantum 101 will tell you that everything is probabilistic in nature, and there is a probability for the drug in an athlete’s system to tunnel out right at the moment of the test. A slight change as it may be, should we disregard all test results because of it? Let’s be practical and reasonable. And accept WADA is competent at its job. Her urine sample is stored for 8 years following the contest for future testing as technology advances. Innocent until proven guilty, shouldn’t it be?

    Sixth, and the last point I would like to make, is that the out-of-competition drug test is already in effect, which the author failed to mention. Per WADA president’s press release5, drug testing for olympians began at least 6 months prior to the opening of the London Olympic. Furthermore there are 107 athletes who are banned from this Olympic for doping. That maybe the reason that  everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing? Because those who did dope are already sanctioned? The author is free to suggest that a player could have doped beforehand and fool the test at the game, but this possibility certainly is ruled out for Ye.

    Over all, even though the author did not falsify any data, he did (intentionally or not) cherry pick data that is far too suggestive to be fair and unbiased, in my view. If you want to cover a story of a suspected doping from a scientific point of view, be impartial and provide all the facts for the reader to judge. You are entitled to your interpretation of the facts, and the expression thereof in your piece, explicitly or otherwise, but only showing evidences which favor your argument is hardly good science or journalism. Such an article in a journal like Nature is not an appropriate example of how scientific research or report should be done.

    1http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.ph ... per&Itemid=1241
    2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4
    3http://www.london2012.com/swimmi ... wm054100/index.html
    4http://www.london2012.com/swimmi ... ww054100/index.html
    5http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/new ... 12-press-conference

Note 1: Since the 2010 Asian Games, Ye’s height has grown from 160cm to 175cm, a huge advantage in swimming.

作者: erha    时间: 2012-8-4 00:07
Highway 发表于 2012-8-3 07:17
有一位中国同胞的Comment,因为太有了了,居然被敌人悄悄撤下。这里再全文转贴一下:

中文的译文可以看这 ...

我真的服了。真的有才。有理有据有节。Nature恨不得找个地缝钻进去算了。居然悄悄删帖子,这个跟国内网站没什么不同么。
作者: 老福    时间: 2012-8-4 11:18
erha 发表于 2012-8-4 00:07
我真的服了。真的有才。有理有据有节。Nature恨不得找个地缝钻进去算了。居然悄悄删帖子,这个跟国内网站 ...

不光是删贴,有的ji年的老账户还被封了,看这位同学的帖子:

发信人: xiache (hello), 信区: Olympics
标  题: 俺给nature文的评价:没发出来,帐号也被封了(好几年的老帐号)。


**
Even with the correction, the author could not make his point supported. The
author did not mention that Ye has a long history of participation in the
400m individual medley. Here is a quick list of her past results not
mentioned by the author:
2010 Asian Games...............................4'33''79
2011 7th China Cities Games................4'33''66
Obviously the author did "cherry picking" his data, a 4’35’’xx one, might
be in an attempt to get a more "dramatic" difference for supporting his
conclusion.
Ye participates another game, 200m individual medley. The author may also
want to compare Ye's record on her 200m individual medley:
2010 Chinese Nationals..........................2'10''32
2010 China Water Games.......................2'10''87
2010 Asian Games ................................2'09''37
2011 Chinese Nationals..........................2'10''01
2011 World Aquatics Championships.......2'08''90
Quite contrary, the results seem to be quite consistent. Abrupt increase?
Unlikely. Is it possible that the "doping" specifically act in 400m but not
200m? Quite surprising to me and I hope there are experts could examine this
possibility.
Why Ye’s 400m got improved this much? I spend a few minutes reading past
reports on Ye's career. What I learned is Ye was previously mostly focusing
on her 200m individual medley and she recently put much effort on her 400m.
This could be a sound explanation. Had the author spent this few minutes? I
guess not.
Finally, I am surprised when reading this description:
“Nature examines whether and how an athlete's performance history and the
limits of human physiology could be used to catch dopers.”
Obviously this article represents NATURE’s opinion. As it appears in NATURE
, I suppose it should be SCIENTIFIC. However, that seems be something
missing. I thus would strongly suggest that NATURE consider adding a little
SCIENCE gradient into it.
**
Here is what I got back:
"This account is banned
• This account has been banned from commenting due to posting of
comments classified as inappropriate or other violations of our Terms of
Service."

作者: 西楼客    时间: 2012-8-4 21:41
叶诗文成了照妖镜了,什么妖魔鬼怪都现行了
作者: MacArthur    时间: 2012-8-4 23:26
老福 发表于 2012-8-3 22:18
不光是删贴,有的ji年的老账户还被封了,看这位同学的帖子:

这个应该是Nature网站管理方干的 -- 跟作者无关。。。

不过显然Nature网管也是一帮腮帮子酸得发涨的loser...
作者: 船长阿道克    时间: 2012-8-5 19:48
他们咋不出一个研究下美国小将的文章
作者: 川江客    时间: 2012-8-5 20:03
吃药了没有?
作者: 茉莉    时间: 2012-8-6 00:35
他们明显忘了吃药
作者: 燕庐敕    时间: 2012-8-6 15:44
茉莉 发表于 2012-8-6 00:35
他们明显忘了吃药

我倒是觉得吃错药的可能,或者概率大些。




欢迎光临 爱吱声 (http://129.226.69.186/bbs/) Powered by Discuz! X3.2