Josh Gordon Hearing Continues Monday
-
Hope we know by Tuesday morning. If he is not suspended, its going to be fun to watch him and Austin and Cameron shredding defenses.
-
Since there are two samples, we can calculate a standard deviation just for Josh Gordon's two samples.
The standard deviation shows us how sure we can be of our result when we have multiple, differing pieces of information. It helps us to make sense of randomness. One standard deviation has a 68% confidence level. Two standard deviations have a 95% confidence level.
The standard deviation is equal to the square root of (the sum of each sample's difference from the mean divided by N, which is the number of samples - in this case that is two.)
So...
(16 + 13.6)/2 = 29.6/2 = 14.8. 14.8 is the mean. The differences from the mean are 16-14.8 = 1.2 and 14.8-13.6 = 1.2. So we add 1.2 and 1.2 together to get 2.4 we divide that by 2 (the number of samples) which gives us 1.2 and then we take the square root which is 1.09.
1.09 is the standard deviation.
So for these two samples the standard deviation is 1.09, which means for EACH sample, we can be 68% confident that the TRUE RESULT is within +/-1.09. This means on the measurement of 16ng we can only be 68% certain that the TRUE RESULT is between 14.91 and 17.09, and that on the 13.6 ng measurement, we can only be 68% certain that the true measurement lies between 12.51 and 14.69.
Alternatively - if we use TWO standard deviations - we can be 95% sure that the TRUE RESULT of Josh's test was in the first reading 16 +/- 2.18 or between 13.82 and 18.18 and on the second reading 13.6 +/- 2.18 or between 11.42 and 15.68.
The problem for the NFL is by the 2nd sample measurement being so far apart from the first measurement that now randomness MUST be dealt with. This simple statistics problem blows the whole thing apart. Even on the 16ng reading you cannot be sure he wasn't actually UNDER 15ng - whether you chose to look at things in terms of one standard deviation OR two.
The standard deviation deals with how accurate the machine is, how capable it is of reproducing the exact same reading given the exact same concentration of sample, BUT there's another layer to consider.
In additional to accuracy, we need to know what the LINEARITY readings are on the machine doing the measuring. Linearity means that the machine needs to be accurate at various levels, meaning if the machine is within %5 accuracy at 5ng, it must be within 5% accuracy at 100ng, and within 5% accuracy at 1000ng, etc, etc in other words the same level of accuracy must be reproducible at various different concentration levels.
The above - accuracy and linearity - come into play BIG TIME here because Josh was BARELY over the limit one sample and altogether UNDER the limit on the other. Had he tested 44 and 39, it wouldn't matter. But he didn't so it does.
Forgive me if you've never taken statistics - personally I never thought it would come in so handy, but it has!
-
You just blew my mind man, in Chongs voice.
-
Yeah- I thought I'd bring it up- we haven't had a formal place to discuss in about a month.
My viewpoints and thoughts.
As a laboratory professional "Medical Laboratory Scientists must recognize anomalies in their test results and know how to correct problems with the instrumentation". Josh's test results should be thrown out- (and I'd say the same even if it was Ben Rotlisberger.)
Standard deviation is too high, and way to close to the cutoff to be kicking a guy out of the league for a year over. As was pointed out, the NFL standard is 1\10 of the Olympic Committee's. It was pointed out on another board- Josh wouldn't even be in stage 3 if he hadn't agreed to it after the codeine episode, you normally get 2 strikes in stage 2.
Secondly- the meeting with the arbitrator went on for 10 hours- and they're still not done. I know lawyers can get paid by the hour, but geeze, this is turning into an OJ type deal. I have a feeling Goodell wanted to be there in person too. Something more than just Josh Gordon going on behind the scenes is being speculated by a lot of observers.
My guess (hope) is Gordon's drug test gets tossed, then Goodell is going to have a long talk with him, and give him a two game suspension under the personal conduct policy to save face. You can't suspend Ray rice 2 games for domestic violence, and then kick Gordon out for a year for smoking weed- and FWIW, I'll buy his he was getting second hand smoke from his pals argument- that was an incredibly low level. It would be like a person's blood alcohol after drinking one near beer.
My guess (hope) is Gordon's drug test gets tossed, then Goodell is going to have a long talk with him, and give him a two game suspension under the personal conduct policy to save face.
Roger can't do whatever he likes. He's bound by the CBA. He'd have to wait for the DUI case to levy a 2 game under the PCP... the policy, not the drug...
Gordon needs a suspension to set him straight.
Right... evidence indicates he hasn't smoked in around a year (kinda the definition of "straight"), but he needs to be suspended???
Since there are two samples, we can calculate a standard deviation just for Josh Gordon's two samples.
Forgive me if you've never taken statistics - personally I never thought it would come in so handy, but it has!
I did... and remember enough to know that while you can calculate the standard of 2 differing sample results, it is not worth the effort.
And one last time, I'll mention that in most drug screen protocols, that if sample B is run, then it is by a different method.
-
i remember onkyo stereo equipment back in the day of turntables, solid state circuitry................and they SUCKED.
give me a marnatz anyday over an onkyo or sansui or
-
Good post. I enjoyed the read fellas.
-
Since there are two samples, we can calculate a standard deviation just for Josh Gordon's two samples.
The standard deviation shows us how sure we can be of our result when we have multiple, differing pieces of information. It helps us to make sense of randomness. One standard deviation has a 68% confidence level. Two standard deviations have a 95% confidence level.
The standard deviation is equal to the square root of (the sum of each sample's difference from the mean divided by N, which is the number of samples - in this case that is two.)
So...
(16 + 13.6)/2 = 29.6/2 = 14.8. 14.8 is the mean. The differences from the mean are 16-14.8 = 1.2 and 14.8-13.6 = 1.2. So we add 1.2 and 1.2 together to get 2.4 we divide that by 2 (the number of samples) which gives us 1.2 and then we take the square root which is 1.09.
1.09 is the standard deviation.
So for these two samples the standard deviation is 1.09, which means for EACH sample, we can be 68% confident that the TRUE RESULT is within +/-1.09. This means on the measurement of 16ng we can only be 68% certain that the TRUE RESULT is between 14.91 and 17.09, and that on the 13.6 ng measurement, we can only be 68% certain that the true measurement lies between 12.51 and 14.69.
Alternatively - if we use TWO standard deviations - we can be 95% sure that the TRUE RESULT of Josh's test was in the first reading 16 +/- 2.18 or between 13.82 and 18.18 and on the second reading 13.6 +/- 2.18 or between 11.42 and 15.68.
The problem for the NFL is by the 2nd sample measurement being so far apart from the first measurement that now randomness MUST be dealt with. This simple statistics problem blows the whole thing apart. Even on the 16ng reading you cannot be sure he wasn't actually UNDER 15ng - whether you chose to look at things in terms of one standard deviation OR two.
The standard deviation deals with how accurate the machine is, how capable it is of reproducing the exact same reading given the exact same concentration of sample, BUT there's another layer to consider.
In additional to accuracy, we need to know what the LINEARITY readings are on the machine doing the measuring. Linearity means that the machine needs to be accurate at various levels, meaning if the machine is within %5 accuracy at 5ng, it must be within 5% accuracy at 100ng, and within 5% accuracy at 1000ng, etc, etc in other words the same level of accuracy must be reproducible at various different concentration levels.
The above - accuracy and linearity - come into play BIG TIME here because Josh was BARELY over the limit one sample and altogether UNDER the limit on the other. Had he tested 44 and 39, it wouldn't matter. But he didn't so it does.
Forgive me if you've never taken statistics - personally I never thought it would come in so handy, but it has!
The problem for the NFL is by the 2nd sample measurement being so far apart from the first measurement that now randomness MUST be dealt with. This simple statistics problem blows the whole thing apart. Even on the 16ng reading you cannot be sure he wasn't actually UNDER 15ng - whether you chose to look at things in terms of one standard deviation OR two.
The standard deviation deals with how accurate the machine is, how capable it is of reproducing the exact same reading given the exact same concentration of sample, BUT there's another layer to consider.
In additional to accuracy, we need to know what the LINEARITY readings are on the machine doing the measuring. Linearity means that the machine needs to be accurate at various levels, meaning if the machine is within %5 accuracy at 5ng, it must be within 5% accuracy at 100ng, and within 5% accuracy at 1000ng, etc, etc in other words the same level of accuracy must be reproducible at various different concentration levels.
The above - accuracy and linearity - come into play BIG TIME here because Josh was BARELY over the limit one sample and altogether UNDER the limit on the other. Had he tested 44 and 39, it wouldn't matter. But he didn't so it does.
Forgive me if you've never taken statistics - personally I never thought it would come in so handy, but it has!
Thanks for the lesson- we let our computer do the calculations for standard deviation when we're doing hematology, and I'm lousy at math- probably the reason I'm not a full bore chemist cooking up rocket fuel at Morton-Thiokol.
You just blew my mind man, in Chongs voice.
LOL, I'm sure Josh's lawyer got a guy on Onkyo's level in at his hearing that probably blew the arbitrators mind too. Who said, "there's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics?" I'm feeling even better about Josh's chances of getting the suspension tossed, now that we had a true statistician crunch the numbers. You don't boot a guy over a 68% probability the number is right.
& Tour it doesn't matter if they used differing protocols- and you'd have to assume the backup method is the more sensitive, reliable (and as us lab guys love to point out- the more expensive) one, no? You can be certain the NFL has the standard deviations (& so do Josh's lawyers) of the protocols they were using based on hundreds of test results. And while we're at it, let's do a reproducibility study (for you non laboratorians, run the exact same sample the exact same way) ten times at the 15 nanogram level, and see what we come up with.
Too close to call, side with the player in this case. As Onkyo said, if we were dealing with test results of 60-55, it wouldn't matter, and Gordon wouldn't have a leg to stand on. -
Thank you for the links and information.
It seems to me that there are no solid grounds for a suspension here. And sure as shit no way to justify a year-long ban.
-
That is probably why this is going in to today. The judge is having the numbers checked.
-
-
I have a good feeling about it. Im guessing the drug test is tossed out and they hit him hard for the DUI. 4 games.
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
I have a good feeling about it. Im guessing the drug test is tossed out and they hit him hard for the DUI. 4 games.
there's always a chance a DUI offense can get lessened to wreckless driving which is a misdemeanor not a felony. just like in the pot piss test, the guy barely crossed the line of fail/pass.
-
"Josh Gordon's car just pulled into the players parking lot here in Berea. The car has tinted windows so it's unclear who was driving it."
-
I'm going to stick with my original thoughts since the numbers came out last week. It is going to be all or nothing. The NFL rarely hands out a reduced suspension, and they have already done so in the past for Gordon. They will either find him innocient or guilty and move on from there.
-
Confirming #Browns WR Josh Gordon is here and will practice. No news however on appeal of suspension.
-
Beat me too it. I would think this a positive sign right?
Phil Taylor also suited up.
-
That means he's not suspended yet, basically, and I think probably he's suspended for a fixed amount of time - ie, he can't train with the team for the x weeks he's suspended, but through these sessions he's all good.
-
XxDaBuckeyexX said:
I have a good feeling about it. Im guessing the drug test is tossed out and they hit him hard for the DUI. 4 games.
there's always a chance a DUI offense can get lessened to wreckless driving which is a misdemeanor not a felony. just like in the pot piss test, the guy barely crossed the line of fail/pass.
there's always a chance a DUI offense can get lessened to wreckless driving which is a misdemeanor not a felony. just like in the pot piss test, the guy barely crossed the line of fail/pass.
1st offense DWI is also a misdemeanor.
what state was it in? in Ohio it should have been called "OVI" i believe so was it elsewhere?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login