The answer to the OP'S question is because the science of doping remains ahead of the science of detection - and it has been so for many years.
But fear not - we have it on the authority of none other than rekrunner that doping only works for Russian women shot-putters. For the rest it is a misguided "belief" by athletes that doping will help them.
"Old guys get slower" is not really a compelling point.
IMO, for new/unheralded athletes it's virtually impossible to test positive unless you're an idiot. There's either no or very little out of competition testing, and you get 3 missed tests. So unless you use too close to competition or have psycho blood composition, you'll never get caught. Much trickier when you do reach the top, particularly if you start getting target tested. But even then, we see most people snagged by the passport and not a specific doping positive, so I assume they're just blood doping and/or microdosing. And you can always "go Christmas gift shopping" if the testers come around too close to your last shot. Even missing more than 3 tests is fine a lot of the time, just get your lawyer to muddy the waters.
There's also definitely corruption in a lot of the national organisations, and I'm sure some in IAAF but seemingly more hit and miss there
So again, why do you think “most are doping”?
Why do you think the reason for running faster is doping? What other explanations have you considered?[/quote]
More to the point:-
So again, why don't you think "most are doping"?
Why don't you think the reason for running faster is doping? What doping explanations have you considered?
casual obsever wrote:
Why do you respond to a question with three more questions?
Do you expect a response with nine more questions?
Anytime you perceive a contradiction, an obvious thing to consider is whether your assumptions are valid.
Initially I gave the most obvious question, to the very first assumption that literally starts the thread, i.e. “most are doping”.
As you can see for yourself, the response to that question actually did not answer why the OP thinks “most (elites) are doping”, and it revealed more assumptions — hence the additional questions.
You can ask me nine questions, but that will not clarify the thinking of the OP.
Armstronglivs wrote:
So again, why do you think “most are doping”?
Why do you think the reason for running faster is doping? What other explanations have you considered?
More to the point:-
So again, why don't you think "most are doping"?
Why don't you think the reason for running faster is doping? What doping explanations have you considered?
These aren’t “more to the point”, but rather off point.
Nevertheless, the answer is the lack of real world evidence for “most elites”.
I have the exact opposite question: How do we catch anybody?
Many substances athletes 'dope' with are also made within the body. It's not like testing for cocaine. I find it pretty amazing we can somehow distinguish between exogenous and endogenous.
For upcoming athletes, they literally only get tested at events. And with short clearance rates for most substances, you have to pretty careless to fail an in-competition test. I honestly don't know how athletes ever fail in-competition actually.
For regular testing, even 'random' drug testing has a one-hour window. So athletes can dose 23 hrs at minimum before every test. So just take something that clears in under 23 hrs.
So how does anyone fail?
Despite that, I actually think most are clean. Doping is essentially the honor system. And I optimistically believe most people follow the code.
They know when they'll be tested so they time their dosage and cycle accordingly. If they screw up or are unprepared for a test and they could possibly have a positive, they can skip the test like Doorbell Mo, Christian Coleman, Rollins, the list goes on.
Well obviously you again want to distract from the fact that most dopers never get caught, and pretend that the documented at least 31% dopers under two conservative assumptions is the reality, instead of the much more likely over 50%.
But even if you'd go with your preferred "only" 31% at the top, the OP's question remains.
In any case, the OP got several answers already, so, good luck with your renewed obfuscation attempts.
wazzu1452 wrote:
I am still waiting for a Salazar Athlete to test positive.
We were told that would happen any day now ....and that was over a year ago.....
Exactly.
You’re probably still waiting for Lance Armstrong to test positive too 😂
casual obsever wrote:
Well obviously you again want to distract from the fact that most dopers never get caught, and pretend that the documented at least 31% dopers under two conservative assumptions is the reality, instead of the much more likely over 50%.
But even if you'd go with your preferred "only" 31% at the top, the OP's question remains.
In any case, the OP got several answers already, so, good luck with your renewed obfuscation attempts.
Obfuscation, read gaslighting.
rekrunner wrote:
Armstronglivs wrote:
So again, why do you think “most are doping”?
Why do you think the reason for running faster is doping? What other explanations have you considered?
More to the point:-
So again, why don't you think "most are doping"?
Why don't you think the reason for running faster is doping? What doping explanations have you considered?
These aren’t “more to the point”, but rather off point.
Nevertheless, the answer is the lack of real world evidence for “most elites”.
Only to someone with his head stuck firmly up his a*rse.
rekrunner wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Why do you respond to a question with three more questions?
Do you expect a response with nine more questions?
Anytime you perceive a contradiction, an obvious thing to consider is whether your assumptions are valid.
Initially I gave the most obvious question, to the very first assumption that literally starts the thread, i.e. “most are doping”.
As you can see for yourself, the response to that question actually did not answer why the OP thinks “most (elites) are doping”, and it revealed more assumptions — hence the additional questions.
You can ask me nine questions, but that will not clarify the thinking of the OP.
Let alone yours.
casual obsever wrote:
Well obviously you again want to distract from the fact that most dopers never get caught, and pretend that the documented at least 31% dopers under two conservative assumptions is the reality, instead of the much more likely over 50%.
But even if you'd go with your preferred "only" 31% at the top, the OP's question remains.
In any case, the OP got several answers already, so, good luck with your renewed obfuscation attempts.
Even 31% is in doubt. Anonymized surveys are not proven to give accurate results for sensitive questions like doping due to significant survey non-compliance.
Part of the question is why the gap between doping and doping busts is so large.
Samii wrote:
wazzu1452 wrote:
I am still waiting for a Salazar Athlete to test positive.
We were told that would happen any day now ....and that was over a year ago.....
Exactly.
You’re probably still waiting for Lance Armstrong to test positive too 😂
Lance tested positive 4 times in 1999 for cortico-steroids.
rekrunner wrote:
Samii wrote:
Exactly.
You’re probably still waiting for Lance Armstrong to test positive too 😂
Lance tested positive 4 times in 1999 for cortico-steroids.
Nice try. He was never determined to have committed a doping violation through testing. Hence USADA had to use the evidence of his teammates.
notworstyearever wrote:
why do you ask? wrote:
Is Sydney McLaughlin doping?
Womens wr
100m 100% doping
200m 100% doping
400m 100% doping
800m absolutely 100% doping
1500m likely doping
Sure the 400mh is clean, needs no speculation
Stop trolling. Leave them kids alone.
notworstyearever wrote:
Most are doping but only a small amount are busted. How come?
1. Is wada and the ioc covering up positive tests for image purposes (bolt testing positive for example)
2. Are their new drugs we don't know about that are untestable?
3. New masking agents wada doesn't know about?
4. Complete corruption? (Testing officials being paid off)
5. Short half lives for modern peds? (Only staying in system for a few days). If within half life window athlete has a whereabouts issue if a tester shows up. After two missed tests they slow down the doping regime?
Want 100% srs answers.
WADA is unlikely covering up positives for image purposes — it bolsters their image to have more doping busts.
Some limitations of anti-doping testing:
- Testing resources are limited and prioritized, so not all athletes are tested
- Tested athletes are not tested all the time
- Many athletes are not subject to regular out of competition testing (therefore no possibility for a whereabouts violation)
- Not all banned drugs are detectable
- Many detectable drugs have limited windows of detection
- Sophisticated dopers will not show up to a competition “glowing” for in-competition testing
If an athlete never finishes on the podium, and is not in his/her federation’s OOC testing pool, the chance that they will be tested is very low, maybe never.
rekrunner, please stop feeding the trolls. They are abusers, not reformers.
sporting federations protect their own,as do sponsors,so some test positive,but its swept under a rug.microdosing is a myth.
notworstyearever wrote:
Most are doping but only a small amount are busted. How come?
1. Is wada and the ioc covering up positive tests for image purposes (bolt testing positive for example)
2. Are their new drugs we don't know about that are untestable?
3. New masking agents wada doesn't know about?
4. Complete corruption? (Testing officials being paid off)
5. Short half lives for modern peds? (Only staying in system for a few days). If within half life window athlete has a whereabouts issue if a tester shows up. After two missed tests they slow down the doping regime?
Want 100% srs answers.
*** NB read The Secret Race by Tyler Hamilton... there are as many ways as there are athletes.