> 30% of T&F athletes admit to doping in 2011

Dirty sport, since ever and forever.

So the BBC made > 30% out of that study? Hmmmm... the authors however wrote 43.6%:

"The estimated prevalence of past-year doping was 43.6% (95% confidence interval 39.4–47.9) at WCA and 57.1% (52.4–61.8) at PAG."

They also argued in the main part that they likely underestimated the number of dopers, not overestimated it.

It's always good to read the actual work, not what journalists made out of it.

I would expect that if the admitters were 30% of the sample who answered, those who did it were significantly higher than 50%. That statistical mumbo jumbo is likely based on correct computation based on assumptions, but the assumptions are likely incorrect. Even privately, most do not admit a dirty deed when that admission would cost them reputation and likely money as well.

I suspect the 95% confidence levels are closer to 70 to 90 %, based on my guess on compliance rates, which is too vague to to estimate 95% confidence levels with much accuracy. Stat people are great at telling people what their equations produce as results, but somewhere along the line, the errors in the input data and their effects on the output estimates tend not to be reported.

??? ?

Since athletes in western countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia) don't dope, this goes from 30% to 60% of athletes from the other countries.

I've been saying this for years, time to give up the fight. Anti-doping may sound cute and noble, but it's entirely impractical. Regulate substances that aren't harmful, just ban the harmful ones.

2020 wrote:

I've been saying this for years, time to give up the fight. Anti-doping may sound cute and noble, but it's entirely impractical. Regulate substances that aren't harmful, just ban the harmful ones.

No, everything that is regulated IS considered harmful to some extend. If it isn't, it isn't regulated. If we didn't fight it, we'd see more women turning into men.

casual obsever wrote:

Dirty sport, since ever and forever.

So the BBC made > 30% out of that study? Hmmmm... the authors however wrote 43.6%:

"The estimated prevalence of past-year doping was 43.6% (95% confidence interval 39.4–47.9) at WCA and 57.1% (52.4–61.8) at PAG."

They also argued in the main part that they likely underestimated the number of dopers, not overestimated it.

It's always good to read the actual work, not what journalists made out of it.

So the original figure is 43.6% yet the BBC says 30%. In conclusion, the missing 13.6% must be British athletes.

say no to drugs. wrote:

2020 wrote:

I've been saying this for years, time to give up the fight. Anti-doping may sound cute and noble, but it's entirely impractical. Regulate substances that aren't harmful, just ban the harmful ones.

No, everything that is regulated IS considered harmful to some extend. If it isn't, it isn't regulated. If we didn't fight it, we'd see more women turning into men.

^ I do agree with this.

I understand the regulation argument but as we learned with cycling, there is no level playing field when it comes to drugs. Some people have better programs and some people respond to drugs better. It then becomes a different competition, not who is best naturally but who can handle and has the nerve to take the most drugs.

Would be interesting to know what kind of drugs were taken, whether it was a little herb or blood doping / hgh.

Makes me wonder if the bio passport ranges should be tightened up - perhaps this would only result in mistakenly catching clean athletes though.

casual obsever wrote:

So the BBC made > 30% out of that study? Hmmmm... the authors however wrote 43.6%:

BBC just removed the Brits admitting to doping.

Dope Train wrote:

^ I do agree with this.

I understand the regulation argument but as we learned with cycling, there is no level playing field when it comes to drugs. Some people have better programs and some people respond to drugs better. It then becomes a different competition, not who is best naturally but who can handle and has the nerve to take the most drugs.

Would be interesting to know what kind of drugs were taken, whether it was a little herb or blood doping / hgh.

Makes me wonder if the bio passport ranges should be tightened up - perhaps this would only result in mistakenly catching clean athletes though.

I think there are two choices. I would either remove prize money from the sport making it amateur (it definitely needs more Kawauchis after all) and be very severe on doping (for example Jama Aden and all athletes coached by him banned for life regardless of testing results, 10 year bans on Kenya and Ethiopia) or I would just let doping be on condition that the doping regimens are made public so everyone is aware of the health benefits or risks.

i am very pessimistic about this. the whole test system is useless, as written in numerous articles. therefore the whole sport is quite dirty. on the other hand it would not be a solution to allow doping. rich and highly developed countries will always find a way to enhance and to take an advantage of it.

we even know that some amateurs and hobby runners dope like mad for nothing else than being the local hero. some good information on the boards about testosterone, low t-centers and masters athletes, or about ibuprofen, apirin, asthma inhalers and so on.

inspector clouseau tests wrote:

i am very pessimistic about this. the whole test system is useless, as written in numerous articles. therefore the whole sport is quite dirty.

I'd agree with two of these three sentences. The current system is not completely useless, as it helps to decrease the sheer amount of doping done in the 80s and 90s. Just have a look at many old world records (virtually) never to be broken.

Of course with a corrupt IAAF, and certain NADOs that let their own people get away with even the lamest excuse, some may dope more than others, but in any case we'll never have a truly level playing field.

Boober999 wrote:

Since athletes in western countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia) don't dope, this goes from 30% to 60% of athletes from the other countries.

^Correct. This is a fact. Everyone agrees. ALL Russian and Chinese athletes dope. FACT. It's due to their disgusting cultures which are built on the principles that cheating and lying are a good thing. Just look at their foreign policies and this is totally clear.

This article is much better:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2017/aug/29/sport-doping-study-revealing-wider-usage-published-after-scandalous-delay

The IAAF sat on this study for SIX YEARS before it got out. Obviously, they didn't want the world to know that testing is a complete farce.

Ho Hum wrote:

The IAAF sat on this study for SIX YEARS before it got out. Obviously, they didn't want the world to know that testing is a complete farce.

Yes. That was all part of Coe's ongoing fight against transparency.

A few points should be raised here.

Firstly, are those athletes who have doped more or less likely to respond to the survey than clean athletes? Assuming that nobody was compelled to take part.

Secondly, how can the authors vouch for the accuracy of any replies? When filling in surveys such as these (not on this subject, obviously!) there is a temptation to give ridiculous answers, the opportunity for schoolboy mischief is too strong!

Assuming that the results of the survey are broadly accurate; have things improved, worsened, remained the same in six years? London in 2017 could suggest doping is on the decline (performances in many events lower than previously or, given the very small number of positive tests despite what we are told is ever more accurate testing, that the athletes have become more proficient than ever at avoiding giving positives.

I read the study and the methodology.

They reduced their estimate of % of dopers by eliminating some respondents that answered the survey too quickly. That seems a little conservative, but not abnormal.

The bigger issues, to me, are that:

- they spoke of a possibility that they underestimated the % of dopers because respondents might have been resistant to admit to doping (despite a cloak of anonymity). This is undoubtedly the case.

- about 7% of the potential respondents opted out. They may have biased the results because the type of people that opt out are likely doping.

Net, net, I think the real % is > 50%. Sad but not surprising at all.

I too have also read the actual paper and am very satisfied .

Thus WADa can't and will never be able to do what they claim and thus wonder if the whole wada project is a cheat and athletes should be protected from cheats making a handsome living of the back of their efforts .

Ban these cheats .Zero tolerance of these self fulfilling cheats. Clean up the sport now .

Put the money into athletes health .

Looking at one of the proven dirtier races in 2011, the women's 800m, the Russians accounted for 37.5% of the final:

1st Caster Semenya South Africa 1:56.35

2nd Janeth Jepkosgei Kenya 1:57.42

3rd Alysia Montaño. United States 1:57.48

4th Maggie Vessey United States 1:58.50

5th Kenia Sinclair Jamaica 1:58.66

DSQ Ekaterina Kostetskaya Russia 1:57.82 DSQ Yuliya Rusanova Russia 1:59.74

DSQ Mariya Savinova Russia 1:55.87

If we assume the other runners are clean this roughly fits in with the statistic quoted (circa 30%).

However, there were only 2 male Russians in total in events from 100m - 10,000m (incl. steeple & hurdles).

This suggests that there must be a large number of dopers from other countries such as Ethiopia, Jamaica, Kenya etc. (possibly even USA but less likely IMO).

I just wish his Lordship (Coe) could actually deliver on his anti-doping rhetoric.