The only purpose in this thread is for rekrunner to argue his fixation that doping isn't the problem in championship athletics that it has clearly shown itself to be. Doping is always far higher than what the great doping minimizer tries to argue.
Funny you thought it should end, but came back within 3 hours to post again.
You want to suggest that these are "my arguments" and "my estimates", but these are not mine -- once again I am only a messenger, delivering the messages coming directly from the researchers in peer reviewed papers. I did not say anything you couldn't already find in the corresponding papers. Furthermore, I just reported the mid-point estimates, but if I had reported the 95% CI, the ranges become even wider, with 14%-22% for estimated blood doping, or 9%-20% for just the men, and 12.5%-30% for the SSC anonymous survey results, and 28.9%-47.9% for UQM.
My goal here would not be for unknowledgeable posters to arrive at an "accurate assessment". If different groups of researchers at one single event cannot form a consensus after 11 years, I do not expect a forum of anonymous posters, armed with less information, to do any better.
Just the same, even without an accurate assessment, there is still room for discussion. Both survey papers recommended refinement of the respective methodologies, that would address some of the identified weaknesses and limitations, and attempt to minimize non-compliance.
Flannel, as usual. I am pointing out that this thread, in which you purport to discuss the incidence of doping at the 2011 championships, is an absurdity when you have previously claimed data obtained through such surveys can't be relied upon.
Could not be relied upon because of missing data. Now the data has appeared.
Try reading stuff; it does help.
And what about the blood samples given under duress?
The only purpose in this thread is for rekrunner to argue his fixation that doping isn't the problem in championship athletics that it has clearly shown itself to be. Doping is always far higher than what the great doping minimizer tries to argue.
Why do you keep presenting your assumption and prejudices as facts?
Flannel, as usual. I am pointing out that this thread, in which you purport to discuss the incidence of doping at the 2011 championships, is an absurdity when you have previously claimed data obtained through such surveys can't be relied upon.
Did I make any such claim? I think you can always rely on data.
I believe the statement you are referring to is this: "Rather than blind acceptance, I recommend critical appraisal based on a deep understanding of the limitations (of) anonymous survey methods."
That is a more accurate description of my purpose. All three studies I referred to discuss the limitations of the various approaches.
Flannel, as usual. I am pointing out that this thread, in which you purport to discuss the incidence of doping at the 2011 championships, is an absurdity when you have previously claimed data obtained through such surveys can't be relied upon.
Did I make any such claim? I think you can always rely on data.
I believe the statement you are referring to is this: "Rather than blind acceptance, I recommend critical appraisal based on a deep understanding of the limitations (of) anonymous survey methods."
That is a more accurate description of my purpose. All three studies I referred to discuss the limitations of the various approaches.
And then you add in that participation in the research was under duress thus invalidating it.
Did I make any such claim? I think you can always rely on data.
I believe the statement you are referring to is this: "Rather than blind acceptance, I recommend critical appraisal based on a deep understanding of the limitations (of) anonymous survey methods."
That is a more accurate description of my purpose. All three studies I referred to discuss the limitations of the various approaches.
And then you add in that participation in the research was under duress thus invalidating it.
Can you stop adding that?
Blood testing in competition, e.g. at a World Championship, is an integral part of anti-doping, and part of every athlete's obligations under the WADA Code 2009, when the ABP was introduced, and pretty much universally accepted by all stakeholders on all sides. The IAAF has been collecting blood samples from athletes since 2001. The UCI since 1994. The IOC since 1992. And the FIS since 1988.
Flannel, as usual. I am pointing out that this thread, in which you purport to discuss the incidence of doping at the 2011 championships, is an absurdity when you have previously claimed data obtained through such surveys can't be relied upon.
Did I make any such claim? I think you can always rely on data.
I believe the statement you are referring to is this: "Rather than blind acceptance, I recommend critical appraisal based on a deep understanding of the limitations (of) anonymous survey methods."
That is a more accurate description of my purpose. All three studies I referred to discuss the limitations of the various approaches.
So what is a "deep understanding of the limitations of anonymous survey methods"? That these methods can't tell us much at all? Or that you know better than anyone else - including the IAAF?
And then you add in that participation in the research was under duress thus invalidating it.
Can you stop adding that?
Blood testing in competition, e.g. at a World Championship, is an integral part of anti-doping, and part of every athlete's obligations under the WADA Code 2009, when the ABP was introduced, and pretty much universally accepted by all stakeholders on all sides. The IAAF has been collecting blood samples from athletes since 2001. The UCI since 1994. The IOC since 1992. And the FIS since 1988.
Participation in the surveys was also voluntary.
Wrong! The blood testing was not part of anti doping it was for the purpose of the research.
The athletes were told that they had to comply with both the blood testing and the survey or they could not compete.Duress !
Did I make any such claim? I think you can always rely on data.
I believe the statement you are referring to is this: "Rather than blind acceptance, I recommend critical appraisal based on a deep understanding of the limitations (of) anonymous survey methods."
That is a more accurate description of my purpose. All three studies I referred to discuss the limitations of the various approaches.
So what is a "deep understanding of the limitations of anonymous survey methods"? That these methods can't tell us much at all? Or that you know better than anyone else - including the IAAF?
Rather than copy/pasting a bunch of words, only for you to whine that it's a bunch of words, while saying something not particularly clever like "flannel" or "waffle", and pretending these are my arguments rather than the researchers', I would direct you to click on the link I provided in the first post, and skip to the sections on "Potential confounding factors", and read right through the conclusion.
In addition, since you quote "one in two" so often (something I called "blind acceptance"), I would also direct you to read the UQM study, starting with the "Key Points", and then skipping to the Discussion and Limitations, and, if you are mathematically inclined, its Appendix. You'll conveniently find links to both of these at the bottom, under "Data Availability Statement".
Blood testing in competition, e.g. at a World Championship, is an integral part of anti-doping, and part of every athlete's obligations under the WADA Code 2009, when the ABP was introduced, and pretty much universally accepted by all stakeholders on all sides. The IAAF has been collecting blood samples from athletes since 2001. The UCI since 1994. The IOC since 1992. And the FIS since 1988.
Participation in the surveys was also voluntary.
Wrong! The blood testing was not part of anti doping it was for the purpose of the research.
The athletes were told that they had to comply with both the blood testing and the survey or they could not compete.Duress !
Is it wrong? I don't think so. Is it relevant to this thread? I don't think so. Maybe you could continue that ethics discussion in another thread.
Be sure to ready the study first:
"Athletes were requested to report to a designated station within 24 h upon their arrival on the competition sites as part as (sic) the routine anti-doping procedure."
"All samples and blood tests were conducted in accordance with the ethics code of conduct of WADA and the study was approved by WADA’s Ethical Committee as regulator of any sample collected in an antidoping context."
"Subjects signed an informed consent that the collected sample and the doping control related data would be used for anti-doping research purposes provided that they could no longer be identified."
Wrong! The blood testing was not part of anti doping it was for the purpose of the research.
The athletes were told that they had to comply with both the blood testing and the survey or they could not compete.Duress !
Is it wrong? I don't think so. Is it relevant to this thread? I don't think so. Maybe you could continue that ethics discussion in another thread.
Be sure to ready the study first:
"Athletes were requested to report to a designated station within 24 h upon their arrival on the competition sites as part as (sic) the routine anti-doping procedure."
"All samples and blood tests were conducted in accordance with the ethics code of conduct of WADA and the study was approved by WADA’s Ethical Committee as regulator of any sample collected in an antidoping context."
"Subjects signed an informed consent that the collected sample and the doping control related data would be used for anti-doping research purposes provided that they could no longer be identified."
They were told that they could not compete unless they turned up for the research project at their appointed time ( not 24 hrs) for both the survey and the sample giving
Duress!
And it is not the ethics control of Wada that matters rather that of the actual research body that published.
If Wada as the sponsoring body of the research body was in contravention of research ethics it strikes me they could have caused bias in the whole project.
Is it wrong? I don't think so. Is it relevant to this thread? I don't think so. Maybe you could continue that ethics discussion in another thread.
Be sure to ready the study first:
"Athletes were requested to report to a designated station within 24 h upon their arrival on the competition sites as part as (sic) the routine anti-doping procedure."
"All samples and blood tests were conducted in accordance with the ethics code of conduct of WADA and the study was approved by WADA’s Ethical Committee as regulator of any sample collected in an antidoping context."
"Subjects signed an informed consent that the collected sample and the doping control related data would be used for anti-doping research purposes provided that they could no longer be identified."
They were told that they could not compete unless they turned up for the research project at their appointed time ( not 24 hrs) for both the survey and the sample giving
Duress!
And it is not the ethics control of Wada that matters rather that of the actual research body that published.
If Wada as the sponsoring body of the research body was in contravention of research ethics it strikes me they could have caused bias in the whole project.
So if the tests were voluntary what was the percentage of those requested to turn up who did. And what then was the effect of the self selection to take part on the project.
Furthermore you have not spotted it could not be for actual doping control as they were give notice of “ the test “.
Do you not smell a bit of a rat ?
I repeat they were told the had to take part in the research otherwise they could not compete.
So what is a "deep understanding of the limitations of anonymous survey methods"? That these methods can't tell us much at all? Or that you know better than anyone else - including the IAAF?
Rather than copy/pasting a bunch of words, only for you to whine that it's a bunch of words, while saying something not particularly clever like "flannel" or "waffle", and pretending these are my arguments rather than the researchers', I would direct you to click on the link I provided in the first post, and skip to the sections on "Potential confounding factors", and read right through the conclusion.
In addition, since you quote "one in two" so often (something I called "blind acceptance"), I would also direct you to read the UQM study, starting with the "Key Points", and then skipping to the Discussion and Limitations, and, if you are mathematically inclined, its Appendix. You'll conveniently find links to both of these at the bottom, under "Data Availability Statement".
So simply reading the study gives you a "deep understanding"? And the IAAF and those who reported it don't have that? But your "deep understanding" has also shown you (but only you it seems) the "limitations" of the study. And these are?
Rather than copy/pasting a bunch of words, only for you to whine that it's a bunch of words, while saying something not particularly clever like "flannel" or "waffle", and pretending these are my arguments rather than the researchers', I would direct you to click on the link I provided in the first post, and skip to the sections on "Potential confounding factors", and read right through the conclusion.
In addition, since you quote "one in two" so often (something I called "blind acceptance"), I would also direct you to read the UQM study, starting with the "Key Points", and then skipping to the Discussion and Limitations, and, if you are mathematically inclined, its Appendix. You'll conveniently find links to both of these at the bottom, under "Data Availability Statement".
So simply reading the study gives you a "deep understanding"? And the IAAF and those who reported it don't have that? But your "deep understanding" has also shown you (but only you it seems) the "limitations" of the study. And these are?
Read a book on social science research methods. Oh you don’t read.
Is it wrong? I don't think so. Is it relevant to this thread? I don't think so. Maybe you could continue that ethics discussion in another thread.
Be sure to ready the study first:
"Athletes were requested to report to a designated station within 24 h upon their arrival on the competition sites as part as (sic) the routine anti-doping procedure."
"All samples and blood tests were conducted in accordance with the ethics code of conduct of WADA and the study was approved by WADA’s Ethical Committee as regulator of any sample collected in an antidoping context."
"Subjects signed an informed consent that the collected sample and the doping control related data would be used for anti-doping research purposes provided that they could no longer be identified."
They were told that they could not compete unless they turned up for the research project at their appointed time ( not 24 hrs) for both the survey and the sample giving
Duress!
And it is not the ethics control of Wada that matters rather that of the actual research body that published.
If Wada as the sponsoring body of the research body was in contravention of research ethics it strikes me they could have caused bias in the whole project.
I just quoted it for you -- they were tested "as part (of) the routine anti-doping procedure". Not research, but routine anti-doping. No duress due to research. No breach of ethics.
So simply reading the study gives you a "deep understanding"? And the IAAF and those who reported it don't have that? But your "deep understanding" has also shown you (but only you it seems) the "limitations" of the study. And these are?
Read a book on social science research methods. Oh you don’t read.
It clearly hasn't helped you. Even rekrunner appears to agree with that.
Rather than copy/pasting a bunch of words, only for you to whine that it's a bunch of words, while saying something not particularly clever like "flannel" or "waffle", and pretending these are my arguments rather than the researchers', I would direct you to click on the link I provided in the first post, and skip to the sections on "Potential confounding factors", and read right through the conclusion.
In addition, since you quote "one in two" so often (something I called "blind acceptance"), I would also direct you to read the UQM study, starting with the "Key Points", and then skipping to the Discussion and Limitations, and, if you are mathematically inclined, its Appendix. You'll conveniently find links to both of these at the bottom, under "Data Availability Statement".
So simply reading the study gives you a "deep understanding"? And the IAAF and those who reported it don't have that? But your "deep understanding" has also shown you (but only you it seems) the "limitations" of the study. And these are?
Oh no. Like anything else educational, it also requires applying the intellectual effort necessary to process the facts and statements and concepts, not to mention the necessary foundational background. Of course the IAAF (sic) and other researchers who reported the "limitations" understand what they reported. That is why I provided the link, and directed you to the respective papers and sections -- for you to read about them in their own words. (I didn't link the study on the population of IAAF blood samples, but can on request).
Once you have read the linked material with deep comprehension, you might be able to understand and explain why one anonymous survey, based on birthdays and doping questions, gives a range of 12.5%-30%, while another, also based on birthdays and doping questions, gives two empirical estimates: a lower-bound of 31.4% in addition to the survey result of 43.6%.
They were told that they could not compete unless they turned up for the research project at their appointed time ( not 24 hrs) for both the survey and the sample giving
Duress!
And it is not the ethics control of Wada that matters rather that of the actual research body that published.
If Wada as the sponsoring body of the research body was in contravention of research ethics it strikes me they could have caused bias in the whole project.
I just quoted it for you -- they were tested "as part (of) the routine anti-doping procedure". Not research, but routine anti-doping. No duress due to research. No breach of ethics.
You selectively quote.
So what was it : research or anti doping.?If it was anti doping why was it stated a giving advance notice? Did the results go down on the athletes records or Adams.?