Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

The science of doping

  • Commentary
  • Published:

From Nature

View current issue Submit your manuscript

The processes used to charge athletes with cheating are often based on flawed statistics and flawed logic, says Donald A. Berry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1: Metabolite data.

References

  1. Buchanan, M. The prosecutor's fallacy. The New York Times (16 May 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Berry, D. A. Stat. Sci. 6, 175–205 (1991).

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  3. Berry, D. A. Statistics: A Bayesian Perspective (Duxbury Press, California, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berry, D. A. & Chastain, L. A. Chance 17, 5–8 (2004).

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/osb/guidance/1620.pdf

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

See Editorial, page 667 . Donald Berry testified for the defence team of 1996 Olympian Mary Decker Slaney before a doping hearing board in 1997. He was paid for his time.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Berry, D. The science of doping. Nature 454, 692–693 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/454692a

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/454692a

  • Springer Nature Limited

This article is cited by

Navigation