手機版 | 簡體版 | 發布廣告 |常用工具 | 網站地圖

登錄註冊找回密碼切換風格

我要發布

倍可親首頁 › 日誌 › 我是虔謙 › 日誌

我是虔謙

https://big5.backchina.com/?253209

葉詩文的事情讓我憤悶不平

作者：我是虔謙於 2012-8-9 12:53 發表於最熱鬧的華人社交網路--貝殼村

作者分類:雜文|通用分類:熱點雜談|已有10評論

關鍵詞：的, 冠軍, 百度百科, 亞運會, 游泳隊

之所以寫這篇文章，因為在一個年輕的中國女選手的面前所顯示出來的傲慢、偏見、無知和粗暴，就發生在我的身邊。

說老實話，當我在網上泛泛讀到葉詩文的游泳速度超過男子時，我心裡也狐疑，因為不久前我剛好在網上讀到一則關於男女力量上差異的科普。那則科普里很詳細地比較了男女身體各部位力量的差別，比如上肢，男人的力氣超過女人多少等等。如此這般，女子速度如何能超過男子呢？

後來我了解到，葉詩文超過男子冠軍羅切特，並不是全程超過，而是最後五十米分段超過。

再後來我又了解到，葉詩文葯檢通過。

葯檢通過後，我再到網上查詢葉詩文的資料。原來葉詩文根本不是西方一些人說的，以前默默無聞什麼也不是，怎能突然奧運摘金。事實上是：「2010年，14歲的葉詩文首次參加亞運會奪得女子200米和400米個人混合泳兩項冠軍，成為中國游泳隊一顆冉冉升起的新星。2011年7月25日，在上海第14屆游泳世錦賽上取得200米混合泳冠軍，這是「95后」泳壇新星首度登上世界大賽冠軍領獎台，也是自1978年來最年輕的游泳世界冠軍。」（百度百科）

我還觀看了葉詩文2010年奪得亞運冠軍後接受採訪的視頻。那個視頻非常的棒，我這裡先把連接提供一下：http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjIzNjkyMjgw.html 這個視頻提供給人們關於葉詩文的許多珍貴資料，比如：

1．葉詩文四歲就開始學游泳。

2．她對自己在2010年亞運會上的表現滿意度達95%，特別是四百混合，自己覺得有了長足的進步。反倒是對自己擅長的兩百混表現不滿，具體指出了自己技術上的問題。

3．她事先並沒有想到自己會得兩塊金牌，因為她覺得四百混另一名選手可能實力比她強。

4．她說亞運會上的游泳氣氛非常好，她瞬間充滿了力量。

5．主持人問她對兩年後的倫敦奧運有什麼目標？她回答：沒有想那麼遠。主持人問那麼下個目標呢？她回答：希望在迪拜游出好成績。

6．葉詩文跑步也不錯，在學校里還取得四百米賽跑的第一名。

7．勝利的喜悅無法形容，不後悔當運動員。

……

電視採訪台上的葉詩文，靦腆，內斂，淡定，看不出任何心計……一個非常可愛純真的女孩。那個視頻，讓我看到葉詩文奧運奪冠的紮實前奏、自然過程和必然，讓我無條件的喜歡她支持她。說無條件也有條件，這個條件就是葉詩文這個女孩本身。

早幾天我的美國同事就公然叫囂：那個女的居然游得比世界上最快的男人快，根本就是欺騙！也就是因為他的叫囂，我才認真到網上去做調查，因為我說過，我心裡也疑惑。

我真希望那些西方人能夠放下他們根深蒂固的傲慢和偏見。假如他們真有興趣的話，去了解了再說話。傲慢和偏見除了就是傲慢和偏見外，這兩個東西也來自無知。這個世界本來就有稀奇的事，有奇迹，有人們未知和未能解釋的事情，有吉尼斯大全！你不相信因為你的心胸狹窄，知識和想象力跟著狹窄！

我對他們說：當初納芙拉蒂諾娃雄霸女網，我們中國人多數欽佩誇讚，賜美名「女金剛」，沒有誰不服，沒有誰懷疑她欺騙！我一個同事居然接著我的話說：現在葉詩文正在接受性別方面的檢查，也許她身上有男性基因。還稱世界上一共有過五個還是六個這樣的案例。我說果真如此也不是葉詩文的錯，爹媽帶來的。第三個美國同事說：那她就不合格參加女子比賽。我說那是另一回事。我不平的是他們憑無知、偏見、臆測就斷定葉詩文欺騙，而且在葉詩文已經通過葯檢了，他們還如此說。我說就算是殺人的案件，在法院判決之前，你也不能稱他是殺人犯！這些所謂的法制國家裡的人，竟然可以如此粗暴地下論斷。那些記者，居然可以如此粗暴地責問一個女孩：你吃藥了沒有？合理質疑是可以的，無據論斷就是侮辱誹謗。

讓我感到憤悶不平的還有另一個原因，為什麼整個事件過程我沒有聽到中國體育官方的聲音？他們哪去了？讓一個女孩背黑鍋受委屈？我們這些海內外觀眾的意見影響是有限的，真正應該扛起這個輿論責任的是國家奧運官方。人言可畏，說得跟真的似的，中國體育官方的有力回應在哪裡？為什麼不能站出來保護自己的運動員？讓一個十六歲小女孩在十幾年艱苦訓練后還要面對這種傷害，這些負責人們於心於責何忍？

底下這篇文章說到女性在水中有優勢，我之前就想過水的浮力縮小了男女的差別，看文章寫得也很有道理。

http://www.hinews.cn/news/system/2012/08/03/014736489.shtml

類似這樣的東西，官方為什麼不能提出來？不說不駁，真是不知其所以。

想到以前善良國人的口號：友誼第一比賽第二，再看今朝，真要說天冷好個夏了……

高興

感動

同情

搞笑

難過

拍磚

支持

鮮花

剛表態過的朋友 (8 人)

收藏分享邀請舉報

發表評論評論 (10 個評論)

回復同往錫安 2012-8-9 13:13: 中國用實力說話。但是我也希望中國官方能有自己的聲音。

回復北勝街 2012-8-9 15:21: 西方就是這樣找茬。他們還希望中國解散體委，也按歐美一樣民間練體育。這樣的話，中國人的體質就再也不能跟他們比了。只有獎牌都落入他們的囊中，他們才說公平。

回復 iamcaibird 2012-8-10 02:39: 虔謙說得好

回復 pengl 2012-8-10 05:18: 北勝街: 西方就是這樣找茬。他們還希望中國解散體委，也按歐美一樣民間練體育。這樣的話，中國人的體質就再也不能跟他們比了。只有獎牌都落入他們的囊中，他們才說公平。 ...
那就成印度第二了

回復 pengl 2012-8-10 05:28: 問好！這是在美一方的一篇轉載文章：

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.

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 2010 1. 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. （pengl註：美國15歲的游泳女神童 Katie Ledecky 幾個月內成績提高10秒）

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 16 2. 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'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's press release 5, 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 everyone will pass at the Olympic games. Hardly anyone fails in
competition testing? 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.

1 http://www.fina.org/H2O/index.php?option=com_wrapper&view=wrapper&Itemid=1241
2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ETPUKlOwV4
3 http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/men-400m-individual-medley/phase=swm054100/index.html
4 http://www.london2012.com/swimming/event/women-400m-individual-medley/phase=sww054100/index.html
5 http://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

回復青貝殼 2012-8-10 08:24: 或許是官方的一種姿態，你們不是說中國在南海咄咄逼人嗎？我們現在讓你們看看我們是多麼謙遜啊！

回復亦云 2012-8-11 10:39: 不是針對這次奧運會的運動員：
葯檢合格，並不等同於沒有用藥，說不定檢驗的手段趕不上興奮劑的研發，懷疑不用怕，歷史會證明一切，人們對於運動員超常的發揮持懷疑，不是壞事，大可不必過於緊張，坦然面對才是。

回復我是虔謙 2012-8-11 12:23: 青貝殼: 或許是官方的一種姿態，你們不是說中國在南海咄咄逼人嗎？我們現在讓你們看看我們是多麼謙遜啊！

回復我是虔謙 2012-8-11 12:25: 亦云: 不是針對這次奧運會的運動員：
葯檢合格，並不等同於沒有用藥，說不定檢驗的手段趕不上興奮劑的研發，懷疑不用怕，歷史會證明一切，人們對於運動員超常的發揮持 ...
你筆名亦云，可你不是人云亦云。很大度淡定哦，謝謝評論分享，贊一句！

回復亦云 2012-8-12 07:42: 我是虔謙: 你筆名亦云，可你不是人云亦云。很大度淡定哦，謝謝評論分享，贊一句！
葉的成績太超常發揮了，因此招致懷疑，應該高興才是，若真的沒有服用興奮劑的話。

我是虔謙最受歡迎的博文

熱點新聞>> 更多

>> 更多

其它[熱點雜談]博文更多

本站時間採用京港台時間 GMT+8, 2024-4-25 07:46

返回頂部

我是虔謙

葉詩文的事情讓我憤悶不平

剛表態過的朋友 (8 人)

發表評論 評論 (10 個評論)

發表評論評論 (10 個評論)