Science & Justice
Volume 49, Issue 3 , Pages 214-215 , September 2009

Anti-doping researchers should conform to certain statistical standards from forensic science

  • Klaas Faber

      Affiliations

    • Chemometry Consultancy, Goudenregenstraat 6, 6573 XN Beek-Ubbergen, The Netherlands
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +31 24 6844977; fax: +31 24 6844978.
    • ,
  • Marjan Sjerps

      Affiliations

    • Netherlands Forensic Institute, PO Box 24044, 2490 AA, The Hague, The Netherlands

Received 24 April 2009 ,Accepted 13 May 2009.

References 

  1. Berry DA. The science of doping. Nature. 2008;454:692–693
  2. Sottas P-E, Saudan C, Saugy M. Doping: a paradigm shift has taken place in testing. Nature. 2008;455:166
  3. Thompson WC, Schumann EL. Interpretation of statistical evidence in criminal trials: the prosecutor's fallacy and the defense attorney's fallacy. Law Hum. Behav. 1987;11:167–187
  4. Wagenaar WA. The proper seat. A Bayesian discussion of the position of expert witnesses. Law Hum. Behav. 1988;12:499–510
  5. Evett IW, Jackson G, Lambert JA, McCrossan S. The impact of the principles of evidence interpretation on the structure and content of statements. Sci. Justice. 2000;40:233–239
  6. World Anti-Doping Agency, World Anti-Doping Code, Montreal, Canada. 2009;
  7. Van Eenoo P, Delbeke FT. Reply to “Measurement uncertainty and doping control in sport” by A. van der Veen, Accredit Qual Assur (2003) 8: 334–339. Accredit. Qual. Assur. 2003;8:477–479
  8. Berry DA, Chastain L. Inferences about testosterone abuse among athletes. How does one teach anti-doping officials about evidence-based decision making?. Chance. 2004;17:8–11
  9. Sottas P-E, Robinson N, Saugy M, Niggli O. A forensic approach to the interpretation of blood doping markers. Law Prob. Risk. 2008;7:191–210
  10. Sottas P-E, Saudan C, Schweizer C, Baume N, Mangin P, Saugy M. From population- to subject-based limits of T/E ratio to detect testosterone abuse in elite sports. Forensic Sci. Int. 2008;174:166–172
  11. Information downloaded from http://www.uci.ch on 16 March 2009.
  12. Faber NM. On the unacceptable reporting of results in doping control. Accred. Qual. Assur. 2009;14:341

PII: S1355-0306(09)00089-6

doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2009.05.001

Science & Justice
Volume 49, Issue 3 , Pages 214-215 , September 2009

Article Tools