爱吱声 › 标签 › 叶诗文

标签: 叶诗文

相关帖子	版块	作者	回复/查看	最后发表

	孙杨牛，叶诗文更牛	体育看台	大西洋 2012-7-29	21 3542	jonathanyj 2012-8-2 10:01
	专家评论叶诗文	体育看台	李禾平 2012-8-1	6 2189	bayer 2012-8-2 18:41

更多...

相关日志

分享《Nature》被迫向读者和叶诗文道歉了: 热度 51 爱菊轩 2012-8-7 00:31; http://www.nature.com/news/why-great-olympic-feats-raise-suspicions-1.11109#/Ed_note 两位主编出面道歉： For that, we apologize to our readers and to Ye Shiwen. Tim Appenzeller ， Chief Magazine Editor, Nature Philip Campbell ， Editor-in-Chief, Nature 当然，《Nature》还是狡辩了一番，说原文本意并非如此云云。 But we acknowledge that the combination of errors discussed above and the absence of a more detailed discussion of the statistics (which with hindsight we regret) gave the impression that we were supporting accusations against her, even though this was emphatically not our intention. 这次中国学者抗议达成的胜利不仅是得到了道歉，小编改正了原文中的“错误”（error)，并把宾大中国学者Lai Jiang那篇“由于评论系统的技术问题导致的非主观性删除的评论” （unintended removal of comments because of technical issues with our commenting system）收录在正文之后。; 个人分类: 道听途说|156 次阅读|25 个评论

分享 Yes she won!: 热度 24 韦红雪 2012-8-6 12:34; 到处都在谈论叶诗文。 “一小撮”伪善的西方人一旦失去优势，别说斯文，假装的蛋定都不要了。可怜 Nature 把假模假式的遮羞布彻底扔掉，露出了很大的破腚，看它怎么找补。叶诗文赢的好！叶诗文赢的不是金牌，是照妖镜。一位 MSNBC 的评论读者比较有才，把叶诗文（Ye Shi Wen)名字直接翻译成 Yes she won! YES, She Won!; 893 次阅读|3 个评论

分享叶诗文和孙杨说啥了？: 热度 14 船长阿道克 2012-8-5 22:40; 817 次阅读|13 个评论

分享 [转贴]饶毅致信Nature杂志总编，为叶诗文事件讨说法: 热度 29 爱菊轩 2012-8-5 12:13; 转自饶毅博客：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html 致《自然》杂志总编的信：有关叶诗文的新闻报道斐尔 , 你可能因 Ewen Callaway 对叶诗文的报道而被 email 狂炸，过去二十小时，给你 email 的人里面小部分也给我来信。如果你奇怪《自然》非本质部分一篇报道为何带来这么大的反应，你应该高兴中文读者比世界其他读者更看重你们的新闻报道，与科学相关的（即使关系很小）也可能重于《纽约时报》，中文媒体报道用你们的新闻也远多于一般西方媒体用你们的新闻。 Callaway 报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见： 1) 最初的副标题暗示叶可能舞弊 ; 2)Callaway 用了两件事实说明叶惊人地异常，而两件都错了 ; 3)Callaway 没咨询意见不同的专家，导致报道不平衡，低于公平报道的最低标准。所以， Callaway 至少不负责任，可能太快就暗示中国运动员容易舞弊。他肯定没有达到新闻报道的通常标准。我很高兴看到在我草拟此信的过程中，《自然》可能意识到原副标题的偏见，将之由 “ 成绩追踪记录有助于抓体育舞弊者 ” 更正为 “ 成绩追踪记录有助于驱散疑问 ” 。舞弊的前设改为疑问。 Callaway 报道用的两个“事实”让叶诗文看起来比真实的要更“异常”：说她比自己在 2012 年 7 月的记录要快 7 秒，说她在最后五十米比男子冠军 Ryan Lochte 还要快，而后者是男子第二快的世界纪录。第一个“事实”错了，第二个误导。 1) 叶比自己只快 5 秒，而此前她的记录创于 2011 年、不是 2012 年，这位 16 岁运动员用了一年而不是少于 4 周刷新自己。 2) 叶只在混合泳 400 米中最后自由泳一段比 Lochte 快，而非整个 400 米。 Lochte 在 400 米是世界第二快的记录，叶在 400 米丝毫不能接近他（慢了二十多秒 ) 。叶只是自由泳最强，而在前 300 米落后于好些女选手。虽然 Lochte 在 400 米很快，他在最后 50 米的自由泳慢于五、六位男选手。叶最后五十米自由泳也慢于那些男子。所以，叶只在她自己的强项而他的弱项快于 Lochte 。如果 Callaway 多做的功课，他就难以用这些“事实”来使“问题”醒目。如果 Callaway 多查询，他就能发现其他游泳运动员也曾在十几岁发育阶段显著提高记录。这些事实更正后， Callaway 的报道就没基础。还有好些事实，可以让一般读者更理解叶诗文的成绩，我不在此赘述。可以参见《附件 1 》， wikipedia 对叶的成绩有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于 Wikipedia 。 Callaway 报道与 Wikipedia 条目的差别也显示该记者未采访已经公开提出不同意见的专家。你应该收到了王立铭博士的一封 email 。他在发表多篇《自然》和《自然神经科学》的第一作者论文后，获加州理工学院的博士，并因此得到有声誉的奖学金到伯克利加州大学做独立的博士后。万一他给你的 email 埋在你收到的成百上千邮件中，我将其拷贝为《附件 2 》。他 email 给了我、要我看看此事。 Callaway 在线报道下面有很多跟帖讨论。有些学生以为有些很有道理（且有实质内容）的讨论被删了，他们寄给了我。我选 Lai Jiang 的一份为《附件 3 》， Zhenxi Zhang 的为《附件 4 》。你们可以看到学生和一些更有经历的《自然》读者不高兴是有依据的，而这些为 Callaway 忽略。英国人常忘记、而现代华人不易忘记，世界上很多人以为鸦片战争是中国人卖鸦片给英国人。我自己 6 月份（这确是 2012 年）又经历一次，我和一位老朋友（麻省理工学院教授）在香港开会时，发现她竟然也是这么认为。英国人的国际形象好，部分原因是你们的科学和科学家：当全世界中学生都要从教科书学牛顿和达尔文时，英国赢得了世界的尊重。《自然》应该以这些伟大（且客观）的科学家建立的传统和声誉为自豪。他们其中有些曾在《自然》发表过论文，才有《自然》的今天。你们如果采取措施修复你们的新闻记者造成的损害，可以加强你们的声誉。英国人从来没因鸦片战争对我们道歉，即使在 1997 年离开香港时也未显示丝毫悔意。而香港是英国在鸦片战争后强迫我们割让的土地。所以，记忆是犹新的，而不仅是 1840 年代的残余。如果《自然》拒绝承认此报道不公平，可能很难“驱散”英国至上的“疑问”（借用《自然》对叶报道的词汇）。中国人受形象不佳的牵累。我们也知道我们还有很多感到羞耻的未解决的问题，包括舞弊。越来越多的中国人能接受合理与平衡的批评，我们在伦敦奥运会为我们羽毛球的问题公开道歉就是证据。但我们对缺依据、有偏见的批评还很敏感。叶诗文不过是个 16 岁的年轻人，本该为自己职业生涯的成就而满心欢喜。当已知她通过了奥运会赛前、赛中多次测试，而毫无证据指责她的时候，还有很多媒体，特别是《自然》这样的刊物，渲染负面舆论多于正面，当然令人深感不平。我希望你们能澄清记录，发表平衡 Callaway 报道的意见。毅北京大学生命科学学院神经生物学教授饶毅附件 1 Wikipedia 对叶诗文的总结附件 2 伯克利加州大学王立明的 email 附件 3 Lai Jiang 在 Callaway 报道后的意见附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang 在 Callaway 报道后的意见原文（ 2012 年 8 月 4 日 1:57am 发送） Dear Phil, You might have been bombarded with emails about Ewen Callaway’s report on the Chinese Olympic gold medalist Ye Shiwen. Over the last 20 hours, I have received emails from a small fraction of those who had emailed you. If you wonder why a piece in a non-essential section of Nature has brought you so much response, you should be happy to know that Chinese readers place much more weight in Nature news reports than the rest of the world does. If an event is related to science (even tangentially) and Nature publishes a news report, many Chinese readers treat the Nature report more seriously than New York Times. Chinese news media also use Nature news pieces much more than the regular Western news media would. The Callaway report was sloppy at the best and racially biased at the worst: 1) the original subtitle implied cheating on Ye’s part, setting a negative tone for the report; 2) Callaway presented two facts to establish that Ye was strikingly anomalous, but both “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway did not check with experts whose opinions did not support the doping explanation, and thus did not provide a balance report that is the minimal standard of fair reporting. Therefore, Callaway is at least irresponsible, and could have jumped too quickly to imply that Chinese athletes were prone to cheating. He has certainly not held onto the usual standard of news reporting. I am glad that, while I was drafting this letter, Nature may have already noticed the bias in the original subtitle and corrected it by changing it from “Performance profiling could help to catch cheaters in sports” to “Performance profiling could help to dispel doubts”. A presumption of cheating has changed to doubts. The Callaway report presented two “facts” which made Ye Shiwen seem more “anomalous” than she really was by stating: that she was 7 seconds faster than herself in the same event in July 2012, and that, in the last 50 meters, she was faster than Ryan Lochte, the gold medalist of the same event for men, with the second fastest record. The first “fact” was wrong, while the second was misleading. 1) Ye was only ~5 seconds faster than her own record in July, 2011, giving the 16 year old a full year rather than less than 4 weeks to improve her own record. 2) Ye was faster than Lochte only in the freestyle, not for the entire 400 meters. Lochte’s time was the second fastest for the entire 400 meters, for which Ye was not even close (she was more than 20 seconds slower than Lochte in 400 meters). Ye was only at her best in freestyle and trailed behind other women in the same event in the first 300 meters of the individual medley. While Lochte was the fastest in 400 meters, he was slower than 5 or 6 men in the last 50 meters of freestyle. Ye was slower than those other men. Thus, Ye was only faster than Lochte in a style that was her strength and his weakness. Had Callaway done a bit more home work, then he would have had a hard time to use these “facts” to highlight the “problem”. Had Callaway done double-checking, he would have found that other swimmers had significantly improved their own records when they were in the teens. Corrections of these facts would have changed the basis for the Callaway report. There are more facts that would have made the performance of Ye Shiwen more understandable to the general readership, which I will not go into details here. See Attachment 1 for an amazingly quick and well-balanced description of Ye’s performance by Wikipedia. Signed reports in Nature should have been better than Wikipedia. The contrast between the Callaway report and the Wikipedia item shows that the reporter did not interview experts who had publicly voiced different opinions. You should have received an email from Dr. Liming Wang, who obtained a PhD from Caltech after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature Neuroscience . He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent postdoc at Berkeley. In case his email has been buried among the hundreds you have received, I am copying it here as Attachment 2. He had sent a copy of his email to me and asked me to look at the issue. There are many online posts below the Callaway report. Some students think that a few very reasonable (and substantive) posts have been deleted. They have sent these to me and I am including one authored by Lai Jiang as Attachment 3 and another by Zhenxi Zhang as Attachment 4. You can see that the anger of students and more established scientists who read Nature was supported by facts neglected by Callaway. One point the British often forget, but the modern Chinese do not, is that many in the world wrongly think that the Opium Wars occurred because the Chinese sold opium to the British. I personally experienced this in June (2012) when a long time friend of mine at MIT thought that way while she and I were in Hong Kong attending a meeting. The British have a good international image, partly because of your science and your scientists: when every middle school student has to know Newton and Darwin in textbooks, the entire Britain wins the respect of the world. Nature should be proud of the tradition and prestige built by the great (and objective) scientists, some of whom have published in Nature to make Nature what it is today. Your prestige will be strengthened when you take steps to repair the damage caused by your news reporters. The British have never apologized to us about the Opium Wars and did not show slight remorse when leaving Hong Kong in 1997 which the British forced us to cede after the British won the Opium Wars. So the memory is rather fresh, not just lingering from the 1840s. If Nature refuses to admit that this report was not balanced, it will be difficult to “dispel doubts” about British supremacy. The Chinese suffer from a poor image. We also know that we have many unsolved problems that we are ashamed of, including cheating. More and more Chinese are receptive to legitimate and balanced criticism, as evidenced by our public apology for our faults at the badminton games during the London Olympic. But we are sensitive to ill-founded criticism with apparent biases. Ye Shiwen is only a 16 year old and should have enjoyed her moment of professional achievement. When she is known to have passed multiple tests before and during the London Olympic and there is no evidence to accuse her, it is certainly unjustified when the negative opinions were highly publicized but the positive ones were not, especially in a journal like Nature . I hope that you will set record straight and publish opinions that balance the Callaway report. Yi Yi Rao, Ph.D. Professor of Neurobiology, Peking University School of Life Sciences Beijing, China Attachment 1 Wikipedia summary of the Ye Shiwen performance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ye_Shiwen 2012 Summer Olympics At the 2012 Summer Olympics , in the third heat of the Women's 400m Individual Medley she swam 4:31.73, an improvement of 2 seconds over her 2010 Asian Games time. In the final she won the gold medal and broke the world record (held by Stephanie Rice since the 2008 Summer Olympics) with a time of 4:28.43, an improvement of a further 3 seconds, swimming the last 50m in 28.93 seconds. Ye's time over the final 50m was compared to that of Ryan Lochte , the winner of the corresponding men's event, who swam it just under a fifth of a second slower in 29.10. However, commentators pointed out that these two times were misleading outside of their proper contexts. Lochte's overall time was 23.25 seconds faster, 4:05.18, than Ye's, as were the times of three other competitors in the men's 400m IM. Equally, as Chinese team officials also pointed out, Ye's race was a very different one to Lochte's. Lochte, when he had hit the freestyle leg of the race, had a comfortable lead over his opponents, whereas Ye was still a body length behind U.S. swimmer Elizabeth Beisel at that point in her race. Phil Lutton, sports editor of the Brisbane Times , observed that Ye, in that position, "had to hit the burners to motor past Beisel". Freelance sports journalist Jens Weinreich described it as Ye having "lit the Turbo " at that point in the race. Australia's Rice, a fellow competitor in the race, described Ye's performance as "insanely fast", and commented on Ye's past racing form: "I was next to her at worlds in the 200m IM last year and she came home over the top of me in that freestyle leg and I'm not exactly a bad freestyler. So she's a gun freestyler." Phil Lutton pointed out that Ye had grown from 160cm at the time of the 2010 Games to 172cm at the 2012 Olympics, and that " hat sort of difference in height, length of stroke and size of hand leads to warp-speed improvement". In support of the same point Ian Thorpe pointed out that he improved his own personal best in the 400m freestyle by several seconds between the ages of 15 and 16. Adrian Moorhouse similarly observed that he made a personal best improvement of four seconds at age 17 as the result of a growth spurt. In the 200m IM, three days later, Ye again was behind, in third place, at the start of the final leg of the race, having been in fourth place at the end of the first leg. But she again overtook her competitors in the freestyle leg, finishing with the time 2:07.57. In preliminary heats she had swum 2:08.90, the same time that she achieved in the 2011 World Championships and her tenth best time of all time, with splits of 28.16, 1:00.54, and 1:38.17. Attachment 2 Email by Dr. Liming Wang, UC Berkeley From: Liming Wang Date: Thu, Aug 2, 2012 at 11:26 AM Subject: Protest to a Nature article "Why great Olympic feats raise suspicions" To: exec@nature.com Philip Campbell, Ph.D. and Editor-in-Chief of Nature , I am a neurobiologist in University of California, Berkeley, USA. I (as well as many of my colleagues) found an article that appeared in Nature yesterday, titled “Why great Olympic feats raise suspicions”, completely groundless and extremely disturbing. In that article, Mr. Callaway questioned China’s 16-year-old swimmer Ye Shiwen, who won two gold medals in women’s 200-meter and 400-meter individual medley (400 IM) in London Olympics, and said her record-breaking performance “anomalous”. However, the evidence he used to support his reckless statement is simply groundless. As many have pointed out in the major media, it is not uncommon for an elite and young swimmer to increase his/her performance in a relatively short time window. An Australian swimmer and Olympics gold medalist, Ian Thorpe, said that he improved his 400-meter performance by 5 seconds around same age as Ye. UK’s Adrian Moorhouse, a Seoul Olympics gold medalist, also testified openly that he “improved four seconds” at the age of 17. He also called the suspicions around Ye’s performance “sour grape”. The other point that Ewen Callaway used to support his accusation, that Ye swam faster than US swimmer Ryan Lochte in the last 50 meters when he won gold in the men’s 400 IM, is unfortunately also unprovoked. First of all, Ryan Lochte did not perform the best in the final 50 meters. He only ranked 5th in the last 50 meters, at 29’’10, which was significantly slower than Japan’s Yuya Horihata (27”87) and three other swimmers competing in the same event. (Ye’s performance was 28”93). It could be that Lochte was away ahead of his competitors in the first three splits so he did not have to strike too hard in the final 50 meters, or that he had used up all his strength. So one cannot only look at the final 50 meters of Ye and Lochte and conclude that Ye swam faster than a men’s champion. In fact, Ye’s record-breaking performance in women’s 400 IM (4’28”43) was significantly slower than Lochte’s (4’5”18). Secondly, even if one only looks at the performance of the final 50 meters, women can certainly surpass men and Ye’s performance shouldn’t be accused as “anomalous”. For example, in last year’s World Championships in Shanghai, UK’s swimmer Rebecca Adlington won a gold medal in women’s 800-meter freestyle. In that event her performance in her final 50 meters (28”91) was faster than both Ye and Lochte in London. It is worth pointing out that all the facts I listed above can be easily tracked in major media and from the Internet. With just a little effort Ewen Callaway could have avoided raising groundless and disturbing charges against China’s young athlete in a professional scientific journal. Even worse, Ewen Callaway further argued that Ye’s clean drug test in Olympics ”doesn’t rule out the possibility of doping”, implying that Ye might dope “during training” and escape the more rigorous tests during Olympics. Such a statement is disrespectful to Ye and all professional athletes. Following this logic, Mr. Callaway can easily accuse any athlete “doping” without having any evidence; and ironically, according to him, those being accused have no way to prove themselves innocent: even if they pass all rigorous drug test, they can still be doping at a different time, or even be dope some unidentified drugs! I cannot help wondering if presumption of innocence (innocent until proven guilty) still has people’s belief nowadays, or it is considered outdated in Nature , or in UK? Last but not least, although Mr. Callaway claimed that he was attempting to discuss science, instead of “racial and political undertones”. Readers can easily smell the hidden (yet clearly implied) racism and discrimination. Yes, we may all agree that better methodology for drug test (such as “biological passport”) is needed for the anti-doping effort. But why the stunning performance from this 16-year-old gifted swimmer can lead to such a proposal? Was Mr. Callaway suggesting that Ye was found drug-clean simply because the drug detection method was not advanced enough? At the end of the article, Mr. Callaway even quoted “ When we look at this young swimmer from China who breaks a world record, that’s not proof of anything. It asks a question or two .” So athletes from China, despite their talent and training, are supposed to perform bad and never break world records, otherwise they deserve to be questioned, suspected, and accused? Backed up by technological progress and better training/supporting systems, athletes worldwide are maximizing their potentials. World records are being refreshed every year. USA’s Michael Phelps just won a record 19th medals in Olympics and he has broken numerous swimming world records. Shall we also “ask a question or two” about his “anomalous” performance? Nature is considered one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world; many scientists, including myself, chose Nature to publish their best work (I myself have co-authored three papers published in Nature and Nature sister journals). However, Mr. Callaway’s article, which is not only misleading, but also full of racial and political bias, has tainted Nature ’s reputation in the scientific community, and among the general audience. Unless Nature takes further actions (e.g. publicly retract this article and apologize to Ye and all athletes), I hereby decide not to send my work to Nature any more-and believe me I will not be the last one to protest. Liming Wang, PhD Bowes Research Fellow Department of Molecular and Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley CA 94720 USA Attachment 3 Post by Lai Jiang following the Callaway report 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. 1. 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 2010 1 . 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. 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 16 2 . 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 Lochter (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, Lochter 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 Lochter 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? LetÃ￠a‚¬a„￠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 presidentÃ￠a‚¬a„￠s press release 5 , 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 Ã￠a‚¬Å“everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testingÃ￠a‚¬Â ? 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. 1 http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapperview=wrapperItemid=1241 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4 3 http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/men-400m-individual-medley/phase=swm054100/index.html 4 http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-400m-individual-medley/phase=sww054100/index.html 5 http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference/?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference Attachment 4 Post by Zhenxi Zhang following the Callaway report I just want to add this: Phelps improved 4+ seconds in his 200 fly between 14-15 years old. Ian Thorpe also had a similar performance improvement. Ye is now 16. She was 160 cm in height and now 170 cm. Human biology also play a role “ she gets stronger and bigger naturally. Yes she can make up 5 seconds (NOT 7 seconds in the article) in a 400 IM that has more room for improvement, with good training she got in Australia. In both the 400 IM and 200 IM finals, Ye were behind until freestyle. Well I guess there is "drug" that just enhances freestyle, but not the backstroke, breast, and fly. Does that make sense? Also, it is not professional to only mention that 'her showing in the last 50 metres, which she swam faster than US swimmer Ryan Lochte did when he won gold in the menÃ￠a‚¬a„￠s 400 IM'. The whole fact is that Ye is more than 23 second slower than Lochte in 400 IM. Plus, Freestyle isn't Lochte's best leg, but it is Shiwen's best leg. Lochte had a huge lead on the field, and almost coasted to the finish. He wasn't pressured by the field to go all out that last few meters. And before we get into the fact there's no way a woman should be able to come close to man's time for a final leg of 50m. May I present the following: Kate Ziegler set a WR in the 1500m freestyle. In the last 50m of her race she had a split of 29.27, which is ONLY 0.17s slower than Lochte final 50m. This was after she swam for 1100m longer than Lochte! I feel the author would probably not write such a piece if Ye is an American or British. Neither country is clean from athletes caught by doping (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_performance-enhancing_drugs_in_the_Olympic_Games). Let's try not to use double standards on the great performance from countries other than US and European countries .; 个人分类: 道听途说|93 次阅读|9 个评论

分享 Lai Jiang对Nature关于叶诗文文章的评论: 热度 62 橡树村 2012-8-3 16:51; 来自果壳网，@ent_evo 翻译。包括我在内的几乎所有科学工作者都认为nature是业界最有影响最具威望的自然科学杂志之一，但我很遗憾地看到它竟然会发表这样一篇几乎毫无掩饰的偏见文章。诚然，这篇文章没有同行评审，没有挑剔的评委把关；但作为公众接触科学、理解科学的渠道，作者和编辑起码应该向读者提供正确的事实和恰当的上下文，而他们显然没做到。首先，为了比较选手成绩提升幅度，作者把叶诗文的400米混合泳成绩和她2011年游泳世锦赛上的成绩相比，分别是4:28.43 和 4:35.15 ，由此认为她的成绩“异常”提升了大约7秒（6.72秒）。但事实上，她之前的个人最好成绩是在2010亚运会的4:33.79。换言之，成绩提升了5.38秒。游泳可是一项0.1秒都意味着金银牌区别的项目，我觉得这里5.38秒不应等同为7秒。其次，正如先前有人指出的，叶诗文只有16岁，身体仍在发育。在两年内把成绩提高5秒对于成年选手来说也许看似不可能，但对青少年肯定是可以的。伊安·索普的采访表明，他的400米自由泳成绩在15-16岁之间提高了5秒。一般人（包括作者）可能很难想象顶尖的游泳选手逐渐成年时（辅以科学和刻苦的训练）能达到什么样的高度。但是因为觉得“这太难了，无法想象这是真的”就认定这样的成绩是“异常”，这可不是好的论证。第三，将叶诗文和罗切特的最后50米对比，这是典型的“有目的的选取数据（cherry pick）”行为。的确，罗切特在最后50米比叶诗文慢，但如Zhenxi之前所言，罗切特在前300米已遥遥领先，所以他选择了不全力以赴来为之后的比赛节约能量。（这是否符合奥林匹克精神呢？算不算违背了“尽全力在比赛中取胜”的要求呢？国际羽联刚刚因此取消了4对羽毛球选手的参赛资格。这个问题也很值得讨论，不过大概不是在nature上吧。）相反，叶诗文前300米一直尾随，而最后是靠她擅长的自由泳获胜的。不指明这样的战略区别，也不提及罗切特总成绩比叶诗文快了23.25秒(4:05.18)，会让读者产生错觉，以为一位女性在同一项赛事里比最优秀的男性还快（听起来的确不可能）。且不说其中的性别问题，我认为这样的论述是在暗示读者”其中有鬼“。第四，另一个“有目的的选取数据”的例子。同一场比赛中还有四名男运动员在最后50米比罗切特(29.10 s) 和叶诗文(28.93 s) 都快：萩野 (28.52 s), 菲尔普斯 (28.44 s),堀畑(27.87 s) 和弗雷泽-霍姆斯 (28.35 s)。看起来，仅仅对比400米混合泳最后50米的成绩时，如果我是作者我不会用罗切特作例子。本文作者在他的论述里展示了怎样的科学严谨性呢？莫非因为罗切特是冠军，我们就应假定他每段赛程都最快吗？要想向公众展示科学如何运作的话，这可是个相当糟糕的办法。第五，我最为反对的一点。作者引用了Tucks 的话，暗示药检不能排除使用违禁药物的可能。这种不可知论真的是nature希望教给读者的东西吗？要按这样的标准，我估计nature发表过的一半同行审核过的论文都要撤回。难道有人能说服编辑和审稿者，让他们相信某个理论在所有可想象的场合下都成立呢？不可能的。论文作者只能把他的理论应用在典型的实例上，向审稿人表明，在所有考察过的场景下，这个理论都还过得去（希望如此）。而这就可以满足发表的要求了——直到人们发现反例为止。我能想象，作者是有怀疑精神的，这对科学思考至关重要。但是他本应当把这样的精神用在更好的地方，比如写篇真正经过同行评审的文章，基于数据和理性推导，讨论叶诗文有多大可能使用了某种高度先进、极难发现的兴奋剂，而这兴奋剂是中国人在过去四年里发明的（四年前北京奥运会他们显然还没有这东西，不然怎么不在主场使用、让自家观众欢呼呢？）。可是这篇文章给人的印象是，所有运动员都在使用违禁药品，只是管理机构还没本事抓住他们。逻辑上说，这是可能的；但是就算国际泳联为此举行上诉听证会，这篇文章也是不能说明什么问题的。问“是否可能在药检中出现假阴性”在我看来是个有问题的质疑。且不说针对某些药物的检验手段可能还没有诞生，任何上过量子物理入门课程的人都知道“世间万物的本质都是概率性的”，没准就在做药检的那一瞬间，所有药物成分都从运动员的血液里隧穿出去了呢。虽说是小概率，但我们是否就该因此无视所有的药检结果呢？现实点，讲讲理吧。请承认国际反兴奋剂机构能合格完成工作。还有，叶诗文的尿样在赛后要存上8年等待技术进步。不是说无罪推定吗？第六，我要说最后一点，赛外药检已经开始实行了，作者却没提及。根据国际反兴奋剂机构主席在新闻发布会上的声明，奥运选手从赛前6个月就开始接受例行药检，而且已有107名运动员因为违禁药品被禁止参加此次奥运会。这也许才是“人人都能通过奥运会的药检，几乎没人是在奥运期间被查出使用禁药”的真正原因吧？因为用药的已经被处罚了。作者自然有权提出质疑：一个选手赛前用药、赛时停药而骗过药检，但是这种可能性在叶身上已经可以排除了。总体来说，尽管作者没有伪造任何数据，但是我认为他的确（无论是否故意）“有目的的选取了数据”，使得文章过于暗示性，绝非“公正无偏”。如果要从科学角度报道一个使用禁药嫌疑的故事，请不要有所偏差和片面，请提供全部的事实，让读者去评判。你有权保留你对事实的解读，也可以在你的文章中表达出来，隐晦还是明显都没有关系；但是只提供对你有利的证据，这恐怕不是好的科学，也不是好的新闻写作。nature这样的期刊上出现这样的文章，这不是科学研究或者科学报道的好例子。参考文献： 1 http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapperview=wrapperItemid=1241 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4 3 http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/men-400m-individual-medley/phase=swm054100/index.html 4 http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-400m-individual-medley/phase=sww054100/index.html 5 http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference/?utm_source=rssutm_medium=rssutm_campaign=wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference 顺便说明一下，这篇引起了众怒的文章并不是nature杂志的文章，也是不nature旗下任何一个出版物的文章，只是nature集团的网站上的文章。我的个人评价，Nature这篇文章出现在一些普通媒体上，并不新鲜，实际上这个事情本来就是一些媒体炒起来的。但是这样的内容出现在nature这样的有着很高地位的科学媒体上，就令人大跌眼镜了。文章说的虽然并没有下结论叶的确有问题，只是提出了所谓的科学问题，但是挑选的数据足够令读者误导叶肯定有问题。也就是说，这篇文章所做的事情，就是利用真实的但是精心挑选的数据而产生误导，然后还说自己没有责任。这样做，如果是作者和编辑水平不足（那么从nature滚出去），还可以理解，但是出现在nature上，编辑还自己辩解，并且这篇最有力的回复已经从网站评论中消失（现在有其他人在反复贴这篇回复，所以信息仍然可以看到）那么就只能说是主观故意了。; 2151 次阅读|24 个评论

分享兴奋剂找到了！叶诗文: 热度 46 胖卡门 2012-8-2 15:05; 兴奋剂找到了！#叶诗文受训基地的一名工作人员匿名爆料，叶诗文一直服用一种名为2，3，4，5，6-五羟基己醛（PHH）的新型兴奋剂。PHH能显著提高肌肉力量，且不被兴奋剂检测手段测出。同时PHH对运动员本身的健康有着很大的潜在风险，血液中PHH浓度过高可引发肾衰竭。据说三天不吃这东西就会浑身无力出现幻觉，严重还可致死！依赖性相当强！而且世界上有近七十亿人口服用，令人震惊！; 3504 次阅读|25 个评论

更多...

		自动登录	找回密码
密码			注册

标签: 叶诗文

相关帖子

相关日志