"1% false positive rate => 99% confidence about a positive signal" is a really intuitive step to take, but you should be careful because it turns out to be horr

"1% false positive rate => 99% confidence about a positive signal" is a really intuitive step to take, but you should be careful because it turns out to be horribly wrong in general: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy (Perhaps not in this case but in general this can get you into trouble) Though personally I'd say that it's quite likely that the p=0.01 threshold falsely flagged a non-cheater, which to me says it is too lax.