饶毅的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/饶毅      

博文

致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选

已有 99072 次阅读 2012-8-4 11:09 |个人分类:社会|系统分类:观点评述|关键词:自然,叶诗文| 自然, 叶诗文

致《自然》杂志总编的信:有关叶诗文的新闻报道

 

英文原信附后,大意如下:

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报道说的好听是草率、说的难听是种族偏见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20127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。Lochte400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Lochte400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WikipediaCallaway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。

 

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 JiangCallaway报道后的意见

附件 4 Zhenxi ZhangCallaway报道后的意见

 

 

 

原文(2012841:57am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 were inaccurate; 3) Callaway did not check with experts whose opinions did not support the doping explanation, and thus did not provide a balanced 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 been 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.[7][8]

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.[6][9] Phil Lutton, sports editor of the Brisbane Times, observed that Ye, in that position, "had to hit the burners to motor past Beisel".[6] Freelance sports journalist Jens Weinreich described it as Ye having "lit the Turbo" at that point in the race.[8] 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."[10][11][12]

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 "[t]hat sort of difference in height, length of stroke and size of hand leads to warp-speed improvement".[6] 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.[13] Adrian Moorhouse similarly observed that he made a personal best improvement of four seconds at age 17 as the result of a growth spurt.[13]

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.[14][15] But she again overtook her competitors in the freestyle leg, finishing with the time 2:07.57.[14][15] 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.[16]

 

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.

<!--[if !supportLists]-->1.      <!--[endif]-->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. 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. 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? Letâa‚¬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 presidentâa‚¬a„¢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 âa‚¬Å“everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testingâa‚¬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.

1http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=1241
2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4
3http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/men-400m-individual-medley/phase=swm054100/index.html
4http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-400m-individual-medley/phase=sww054100/index.html
5http://playtrue.wada-ama.org/news/wada-presidents-addresses-london-2012-press-conference/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_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 menâa‚¬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.

 



我看奥运
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html

上一篇:洋学位吃香是过去时:学术招聘关键是水平
下一篇:奥运与我何相干

499 谢海燕 刘旭霞 刘洋 郑华康 马磊 鲍丙豪 任胜利 喻海良 李学宽 徐政基 司廷 吴顺凡 王涛 赵明 刘光波 周可真 傅琳琛 雷子恒 周永胜 姚羽 郭建华 任晓丹 何明洪 王琛柱 许培扬 董文攀 史晓雷 温景嵩 许浚远 董成 吕喆 唐凌峰 许洪光 徐义贤 黄育和 汪楠 徐留芳 沈惠川 王亚云 刘太祥 郑永军 单博炜 杨海涛 马仁锋 雷海鹏 叶江华 胡石建 成宝芝 贺泽龙 邸利会 申艳军 陈明 王宇飞 张国良 马晓敏 王志宏 廖新化 张卫 李阳 吴辉 王德华 曹周阳 杨立泉 王军强 孟庆强 刘建兴 贺振 史川兴 刘俊华 蔡庆华 马剑 张钫 李子欣 于玉国 郭胜锋 李斌 张尚立 王钰 韩文娟 张世成 苏盛 蔡正才 彭友松 温世正 文文 王国强 周华 朱述炎 王随继 梁建华 黄长平 李刚 罗再磊 谢文兵 陈明 彭勇波 张松涛 杜永明 王伟 任国玉 夏鹭 牛丕业 吴江文 傅国旗 秦川 金小伟 王志坚 安海龙 刘鹏飞 李世森 赵星 吕鹏辉 胡士华 史仍飞 孙广东 赵立平 王吉林 刘安金 刘灵通 李建平 戴小华 王伟 孙军昌 肖振亚 苏荣欣 吴兆录 侯志军 王晓虎 周夕淋 武永军 袁方 赵凤利 李晶 曹须 周跃明 姜春海 方琳浩 曹雁冰 张乾兵 徐坚 占礼葵 李益文 黄顺谋 赵美娣 陈彬 李福海 王桂颖 秦雪梅 梁安民 赵国求 陈方培 李泽波 王群 刘士勇 郑坤灿 冯建荣 彭新宇 高建国 刘自然 翟自洋 徐笠 解辉 苏伟忠 贾伟 张旭 张俊鹏 陈锡云 郭维 张文增 范杰 吕寿丹 马陶武 赵飞虎 宋卫民 蒋德明 李韦伟 黄寿光 毛克彪 杨新春 余洪波 段洪涛 傅云义 钱学强 李军 李新海 周杰文 杜伟 樊爱鹏 张平 李宁 李伟钢 陈智文 徐营 周冰蕊 李志锋 罗松 谷敏 高虹 杨正瓴 李培光 陈珍珠 徐耀 张文超 吴中祥 雷锦志 高清松 王翔 陈铁喜 吕海平 耿培武 左宋林 连博 王春艳 陶涛 李广磊 包云岗 王芳 邹忠华 刘亮明 何天兵 叶长辉 Enago英论阁 程奇峰 李发堂 陈琦 陈文锐 王澄海 杨生茂 帅鹏 常广军 徐绍辉 任立伟 龚勇 田兵伟 侯勤福 文双春 韩健 贺乐 杨秀海 邢志忠 李旸 张玉翠 史亚鹏 罗教明 陆俊茜 秦承志 邱青松 孙洪广 刘伟 赵斌 胡登科 杨雁祥 王守业 刘瑞亭 穆庆鑫 徐长庆 王晓东 张树风 李义平 王耀 肖学峰 姜泽东 杜向军 廖晓琳 吴恬伏 杨宇 周必成 朱教君 段庆伟 肖峰 鲍博 丁迅雷 黄继红 陈青春 孙东科 谷长栋 董焱章 王秀章 薛怀君 季斌 薛海斌 张超 黄卫华 朱钦士 王兴中 颜照坤 姚小鸥 黄理 李刚 钟云飞 李春辉 淡松松 张冬至 李灿 崔全顺 徐世文 胡熙浩 邬建勇 葛德燕 王恪铭 郑玉峰 韩传辉 陈艳 陈向荣 高召顺 李土荣 杨逸凡 赵新铭 于涛 李森 邵钢锋 郭保华 覃森 刘欢 刘杰 李红 范武 何学锋 杨旭 张大成 李孔斋 何创龙 张启峰 李泳 陈志刚 岳跃民 丁邦平 许新裕 曹墨源 杨艳明 夏伟梁 陈贤泽 叶剑 许海云 王康建 李威龙 寸玉鹏 王磊 王学文 韦茂彬 韦玉程 沈国栋 汪秉宏 陈国兵 于培师 谭海仁 许永男 杨洪强 孙中华 肖红伟 王衍伟 方晓汾 王晓峰 程南飞 吉宗祥 陈妮 李欣海 高萌 陈德鹏 骆小红 李杰 王延青 李大斌 方跃文 李丽莉 张明洲 熊李虎 王佳 刘高华 管登高 曾新林 冯永忠 曹建军 冯辉 许耀斌 曾春华 卫亚红 李志成 李扬 黄齐林 郭雪坤 何岸飞 郭彦洲 张显峰 丁伟 胡贝 李毅伟 林志弟 曹禺 吕洪波 zhanghuatian swws16 ggwwzka torontogg windsea aichengzhang minnongda luyouwen kmzhaojian gyrotron huangshan jlx1969 liangfeng haoye yuyuswh zhm198807 BrianUSA shlzhang micalhe xgs liuzhan001st cliffou kizlz layota ykgs nobrickmaker zhoubukang kaicn zhouguanghui crossludo zhangsw yangwhust suoyouluntan waynechu whz95 thubwli Februar fantl agreatboy songjie1698 westmidlands xiaomanxiaoman lanyouno2 seanhhu ldydy keen3 dark1220 lrklx ztcztc chuxiao yunmu LantaoYu lingling101 zhguigen z168168 flighteer phage xzmeng zdzszl ncepuztf flumazenil zsg0108 dawnlight 寒屋居士 jlbb silentyf stexplorer Aegilops dchlin JoneWang lilianchong libinana dangping xianquan919 huiee lzy0702 schist xinbrain xiaoqiangfeng tjuhan zjywfwm sxl0929 angewchem xinsky zgg Noble007 morningdaisy wenbo88818 木子 LiuyanZ srrs Eleanor127 lihx1798 majiancheng piratenb HJY660 daoruaimi husselfist guhanyan allegretto ltom4 B2009 hyeneo qinyouwen BacterialCellul diaoraul kencqpoll GXLBLC brunoh

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (262 个评论)

数据加载中...

Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2019-10-15 15:10

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社

返回顶部