Talk:Montreal lab questions ethics of recent EPO doping claims against Lance Armstrong

I don't have enough knowledge about this subject to be able to comment on the story as a whole, but I would definitely suggest removing this final sentence: 'That opens a logical question. If lab Châtenay-Malabry has developed extremely sensitive detection for the presence of EPO, they must also deny the possibility that they detected residual traces of EPO, which Armstrong was given during chemotherapy prior to 1999.' - simply because 'original' speculation isn't allowed on Wikinews. It looks like a pretty thorough story to me though, hopefully Mrmiscellanious will help with more advice if needed. One thing: you don't need to be too hasty to publish or offended if people give you criticism, that's the whole point here! ClareWhite 13:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

This story should not have listed sources which were not used in the story; nor should Ayotte's opinions about ethics be reported as 1-3 factoids.I have tried to NPOV the article but the entire thrust of it seems to be POV from a party that has no detailed info about the test that was performed, hence her need to speculate and make assumptions in the text I removed. This is an article looking for a tag; imo. Neutralizer 19:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments.

1) All four sources cited were used for facts cited in the story, and indeed they are required by Wikinews policy. I have no idea why the orginal IP-identified commenter wrote that they weren't used, but it's just not so. It may be true that only ONE fact came from a particular source, and that it would take a reviewer a long time to locate that one fact in a lengthy source article, but I followed policy and cited all my sources.

2) Dr. Christiane Ayotte is a world class expert in a field of sport doping detection science that is thoroughly understood by only a relative handful of people in the world. She is what the court system calls an expert witness, and courts treat such opinions as the next closest things to facts. She is also an expert in WADA rules of ethics, as she must follow them on a daily basis. Again only a few dozens of people in the world have to do this. Furthermore, she and her colleagues are trusted by global sports authorities in both matters of science and regulations.

3) "'That opens a logical question. If lab Châtenay-Malabry has developed extremely sensitive detection for the presence of EPO, they must also deny the possibility that they detected residual traces of EPO, which Armstrong was given during chemotherapy prior to 1999.'" This is a logical question obviously raised by the facts at hand. On the other hand speculation is suggesting something not supported by facts, like 'Lance won so he must have been using drugs'. Is there a Wikinews policy of not raising logical questions or drawing logical conclusions?

4) The story has now been inverted to conclude with Jean-Marie Leblanc's claim that Armstrong's guilt has been thoroughly branded by science. I wrote this piece to tell the other side of the story.

This story was quite difficult to research and write. It involves a complex interplay among global elites, sports, cutting edge science, and tabloid smear journalism, and possibly nationalistic interests. I have reluctantly concluded that Wikinews is not a suitable forum for such complex stories. I wish to withdraw the story. Milomedes 23:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

You have to have a thick skin to publish here, as you will be attacked even for claiming the sky is blue, LOL. I don't think it's fair to withdraw the story now, as many other's have contributed to it. It has been published, and looks to be in good shape to me. StuRat 06:47, 27 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I liked Milomedes' question. Can we put it back in? -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 12:41, August 27, 2005 (UTC)