u*****g
发帖数: 1632 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 Biology 讨论区 】
发信人: ipdang (ip), 信区: Biology
标 题: 饶毅致《自然》杂志总编的信
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Sat Aug 4 00:18:14 2012, 美东)
http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html
致《自然》杂志总编的信：有关叶诗文的新闻报道 精选
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报道最好也是草率、最差是种族偏见：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》可能意识到了原副标题的偏见
，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2012年7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。Lochte在400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Lochte在400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对叶的成就有一个相当快而公平的描述。署名的《自然》报道应该优于
Wikipedia。Callaway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"XXX"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，获得"XX"学院的博士，并因此获有声誉的奖学金到"XX"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
这些被Callaway忽略。
英国人常常忘记、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，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庆贺。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，却有很多媒体，特别是《自然》这样的刊物，的渲染
而导致负面舆论多于正面，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。
毅
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 Jiang在Callaway报道后的意见
附件 4 Zhenxi Zhang在Callaway报道后的意见
原文（2012年8月4日1:57am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 have
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 “facts” were wrong; 3) Callaway
did not check with experts whose opinions did not supported the doping
explanation, and thus did not provide a balance 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 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.XXX, who obtained a PhD
from xxx after publishing first author papers in Nature and Nature
Neuroscience. He was awarded a prestigious fellowship for an independent
postdoc at xxx. 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 had 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: e**[email protected]
Philip Campbell, Ph.D. and Editor-in-Chief of Nature,
I am a neurobiologist in University of xxx, 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.
xxx, PhD
xxx
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.
1. 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? Let
?￠a??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 president?￠a??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 ?￠a???“everyone will pass at the
Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in competition testing?￠a????? 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 a
本文引用地址：http://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-2237-598917.html |
|
