亚洲区和欧洲区一二三四,wwwxxx日本,亚洲一区二区精品,国产精品白浆无码流出

VimIy微民網(wǎng),讓世界傾聽微民的聲音! 設(shè)為首頁 | 加入收藏 | 網(wǎng)站地圖
當(dāng)前位置:主頁 > 微博精選 >

Nature(期刊)也寫了有關(guān)葉詩文用藥與否的文章

整理時間:2012-08-03 17:49 熱度:°C

為什么奧林匹克的功勛引起懷疑
   
   多快是太快?
   
   文章提出四大問題
   
   1.葉的表現(xiàn)異常嗎?
   是. 她的奧運成績比自己最好成績快了7秒,但真正被質(zhì)疑的是最后50米比美國男游泳選手Ryan Lochte還快
   
   2.藥物測試通過 排除了用藥的可能?
   否
   
   3. 如何用選手的表現(xiàn)來抓用藥者?
   要建立選手表現(xiàn)的數(shù)據(jù)庫 血液的資料庫 定期追蹤
   
   4. 然后運動員(用藥者)是否可以簡單的約束自己不要表現(xiàn)的太好?
   那是一個需要被驗證的問題
   
   原文出處:
   
   什么?你沒聽說過自然期刊? 我草,nature,這是科技類期刊的No.1了吧nature上如果有的話,那應(yīng)該算在學(xué)術(shù)討論吧這個文章沒啥問題吧,人家有表示疑問的權(quán)利
   它也沒給這事兒下結(jié)論,畢竟“異!边@個詞只是表達(dá)與常規(guī)不同,人家并沒有定性說是作弊啊
   充其量就是一群學(xué)究在學(xué)術(shù)的立場上討論而已,其實這樣也是好的
   真金不怕火煉,壓著不讓人說才會越傳越邪乎
   提出的方法也沒啥大問題各種shame on you 啊 評論里
   敢于直面權(quán)威嘛老外沒算下上海世錦賽葉詩文最后50米多快么看下面的評論我笑了尼瑪,這種文章也能上nature這個不代表nature官方的觀點
   
   下面已經(jīng)有中國科學(xué)家提出反駁了
   
   臥艸這幫人辯論都是標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的論文體,我好像看到坑爹的review郵件撲面而來”不好意思,你這篇論文我們reject了“媽的,為什么不論證下飛魚 08年拿8塊,4年后毛都沒這個現(xiàn)象呢Nature系列太多了我擦,自然雜志這是蛋疼了哎
   你好歹研究下世界上到底有沒有無法被任何現(xiàn)有儀器檢出的興奮劑嘛
   
   就這四個問答小學(xué)生都能作好吧評論是各種打臉啊……學(xué)術(shù)討論而已,不應(yīng)帶有過多的政治感情來閱讀
   
   學(xué)術(shù)討論而已,不應(yīng)帶有過多的政治感情來閱讀
   
   如果是學(xué)術(shù)討論的話,基本的數(shù)據(jù)都搞錯,這篇文章只有被審稿人抽臉然后扔進(jìn)垃圾堆的份,而實際上也是如此。比較嚴(yán)謹(jǐn)?shù)囊粋東西。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. 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 mena™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:
   
   純轉(zhuǎn)一位網(wǎng)友的打臉文雖然我感覺這位哥們可能審稿審魔怔了,但是他幾乎把這篇狗屁不通的文章全駁回去了
   
   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. 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
    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 asPut 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.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? Let’s be practical and reasonable. And accept WADA is competent at its job.
   
    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.
   
    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
    2
    3
    4
    5
   這尼瑪就是一篇新聞而已,又不是論文,跟馬桶或者網(wǎng)易開個場所讓大家噴一樣,都是噴噴更健康,這不過那里的噴子稍微高級一點而已。
   
   而且這東西狗屁不通,基本的歷史數(shù)據(jù)都是錯的。那里的噴子才是真正的講究干貨打臉,這中國學(xué)者扇臉扇的,作者臉得腫成豬頭了

關(guān)于網(wǎng)站 | 網(wǎng)站聲明 | 用戶反饋 | 合作伙伴 | 聯(lián)系我們
Copyright 2012年2月8日 蘇ICP備12030052號-3
视频三区| 国产无码一区二区三匹| 色婷婷久久综合| 国产99热在线| 91日操| 国产亚洲综合| 视频中文字幕在线| 欧美真操| 欧美熟妇XXxx性。| 女人被狂躁到高潮视频免费动态图| 东京热做视频| 欧美熟妇交换久久久久久| 夜夜操天天日日本性爱| 强奸一区二区小说| 久久亚洲国产中文香蕉视频| 超碰1234| 91天堂网| 三级在线观看播放视频| 性色AV电影在线| 亚洲欧美日韩精品| 永久AV免费播放| 伊人青青综合| 成人免费在线观看视频| 神马嘿嘿午夜视频| 亚洲色图日韩综合| 沅陵县| 美女av一区二区| 天天日天天操小美女| cao99| 99精品视频免费| 青青在线观看视频无码| 91在线国产精品啪| 国产成年无码久久久久下载| 映画中文字幕蜜桃| 亚州AV又大又硬| 性荡视频播放在线视频7777| 国内偷拍福利| 在线播放国产精| 久久久国产乱子伦精品| 丁香五月91韩国| 欧美日韩无线精品|