Why Doesn't Swimming (Aquatics) Have a doping problem?

Old Runner Guy wrote:

[quote]auditor wrote:

maybe because if you think no one cares about running... no one really cares about swimming. so they have half as less exposure than running does thus less doping publicity.

[quote]

Let me get this straight .....

Swimming really does have a doping problem but since no one cares about the sport, it gets a pass.

On the other end, MLB, FIFA and the NFL also have doping problems but becasue they are really popular, no one cares either.

Moral, you can get away with a doping problem if your sport is really unpopular or really popular.

Does this make sense?

Oddly, I think it does make sense. Be very popular and there is a lot of money, a lot of big stars that you and the TV networks don't want to see dqed. Be unpopular and no one cares whether your sport is clean or not.

By the way, are swimmers professionals like track athletes are? That shows how much attention I pay to it.

"The Sunday Times - Sport

The Sunday Times May 08, 2005

Swimming: China's missing children

Four years ago, China picked its most promising 100 swimmers to prepare them to sweep the board at the Beijing Olympics. Half have not been heard of since. With fears growing of an East German-style doping system, Craig Lord investigates the mystery of a lost generation"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2094-1602490_1,00.html

HRE wrote:

Oddly, I think it does make sense. Be very popular and there is a lot of money, a lot of big stars that you and the TV networks don't want to see dqed. Be unpopular and no one cares whether your sport is clean or not.

By the way, are swimmers professionals like track athletes are? That shows how much attention I pay to it.

So the problem with cycling and track is they are in the middle. They are not unpopular like swimming and weightlifting and not popular like the "ball" sports.

Old Runner Guy wrote:

What jumps out (to me) is the similar number of AAFs for Aquatics/Swimming (1.26% out of 10,352 tests) versus athletics/Track (1.67% out of 20,464 tests). Cycling is higher at 3.78% (12,751 tests)

Or, do you think the difference between 1.26% AAFs and 1.67% AAFs is really significant.

According to the Test if Independent Proportions (see Alan Agresti, "An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis", 1996, page 20)....

(z = -2.60, p<0.01, 2-tailed) there is a statistically significant difference between the proportion of AAFs in swimming versus track.

tape holder wrote:

According to the Test if Independent Proportions (see Alan Agresti, "An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis", 1996, page 20)....

(z = -2.60, p<0.01, 2-tailed) there is a statistically significant difference between the proportion of AAFs in swimming versus track.

You're assuming that their is no false positives. From the Landis case we learned this is NOT true ...

---

In 2005, 25 out of 33 WADA-accredited labs reported their T/E ratio test results.

A total of 955 T/E ratio tests results were between 4 and 6 (above 4 is an AAF).

Of those, just three tests were confirmed as doping positives. A T/E screening value between 4 and 6 could be interpreted as a 99.5+% proof of innocence.

It is only when T/E ratios are above 15 that more tests than not are confirmed positive.

---

The stats you use assume no error rate. Since we have one and it is largely unknown, I beleive we cannot say their is a significant difference between track and swimming.

You're the one who presented the stats. You ask if there is a significant difference between 1.26% AAFs and 1.67% AAFs. Then you criticize someone for analyzing the data.

Since you are only talking about false positives for high T/E how do you know that all the AAFs were for high T/E? Maybe high T/E is a statistically small part of the total AAFs. Or perhaps even once the false positives are out the same ratio between swimming and track exist. If you don’t like the original data you presented, go find the proper data

God You Are a Pain wrote:

You're the one who presented the stats. You ask if there is a significant difference between 1.26% AAFs and 1.67% AAFs. Then you criticize someone for analyzing the data.

Since you are only talking about false positives for high T/E how do you know that all the AAFs were for high T/E? Maybe high T/E is a statistically small part of the total AAFs. Or perhaps even once the false positives are out the same ratio between swimming and track exist. If you don’t like the original data you presented, go find the proper data

High T/E ratios was 995 AAFs of a total of 3,909 total AAFs among all drug. T is far and away the most commonly used PED.

Sorry that you don't like my criticism. I thought it was a reasonable question and presented in a fair way.

You're going to have to get over your issues with dopers. Their are people that are better athletes than you and it's not because they use drugs.

doping in swimming vs. running...

I would agree that the relative populairty of the sports plays a big part in the perception of a drug problem but also I would consider the following. That even though doping helps swimmers and runners is not debatable I say there are several factors that make drug using runners generally more high profile than swimmers. It all starts with drug use in runners being more beneficial than in swimmers.

Why?

1. Potential unaided (non-drug) training volumes in proportion to event time are much greater in swimming vs. running. Meaning drug aided recovery adds fewer benefits to swimmers than runners (the less you can train due to the physical limitations of the sport the greater the benefit of drugs) Cycling is even worse than track in this aspect, since though it is a low impact sport the average race is so long the training to race ratio is low. (though I would say that cycling's small insular community contributed to its drug problem more so than anything else - like any closed group, disease spreads more quickly, and you could easily see where it would quickly become known in cycling that you "had" to be on drugs to be competitive - what we are seeing now is the trailing effects of that realization)

2. Efficiency through the water is as important as fitness level. This also limits the use of pure strength drugs (HGH, tradtional steriods) i.e. the building of muscle would on be beneficial to a point after that stroke eff. and bouyancy suffer nullifying gains (this is less so in women, hence I would bet a higher percentage of those positives came from female swimmers)

3. This leaves EPO like drugs as more valuable which are harder to detect so may not have brought up the percentage. Also swimmings events are in a much tighter time range than track (from 20 sec's to 15 mins for international comp) taking out some events where the greatest benefit might be derived from EPO (though that's debatable)

Why is this important?

1) It all adds up to less incentive to cheat for the super talented who can win without having too.

2) Less reason to cheat for money - since there is less overall in the sport and also since swimming is primarily a middle class sport.

3) Track's money is spread out over several different disciplines (road, track, XC) giving a wider spectrum of athlets and also disciplines that have little testing (roads anyone) so the 1.67% may be understated.

That doesn't mean swimmers won't cheat, it just means it will probably be more spread out over different success levels and that the percentage in athletics may be understated so that difference between the sports may be greater than portrayed.

Old Runner Guy wrote:

Sorry that you don't like my criticism. I thought it was a reasonable question and presented in a fair way.

You're going to have to get over your issues with dopers. Their are people that are better athletes than you and it's not because they use drugs.

This is your original reply:

You're assuming that their is no false positives. From the Landis case we learned this is NOT true ...

---

In 2005, 25 out of 33 WADA-accredited labs reported their T/E ratio test results.

A total of 955 T/E ratio tests results were between 4 and 6 (above 4 is an AAF).

Of those, just three tests were confirmed as doping positives. A T/E screening value between 4 and 6 could be interpreted as a 99.5+% proof of innocence.

It is only when T/E ratios are above 15 that more tests than not are confirmed positive.

---

The stats you use assume no error rate. Since we have one and it is largely unknown, I beleive we cannot say their is a significant difference between track and swimming.

There is no question here. You asked if the difference was statistically significant. It is, but you didn't like that answer. You then choose an explanation the confirms your pre-existing bias. So much for pretending to be some sort of enlightened observer.

So if you have all the proper data, why didn't you present in that way in the first place? Why present a set of data, ask for comments and then say the data is incorrect?

And what did my comments have to do with any 'issues' I might have with dopers. My only comment was on your criticizing someone for using data that you say is incorrect when you presented the data.

God You Are a Pain wrote:

So if you have all the proper data, why didn't you present in that way in the first place? Why present a set of data, ask for comments and then say the data is incorrect?

And what did my comments have to do with any 'issues' I might have with dopers. My only comment was on your criticizing someone for using data that you say is incorrect when you presented the data.

I never said the data was incorrect, you did, The data is correct and I've never claimed otherwise. However, what is not known is whether the AAF is confirmed or a false positive. Their is not data for this which is why I said it is an unknown. The T/E ratio data supports the idea that false positive exists.

So for a statistical analysis that suggest a significant difference between 1.26% AAF and 1.67% AAF it only works if you assume a zero error rate. The post was the one making that assumption, not me.

So why did YOU (get it ... YOU) present the data, ask if there was significant differences, if in YOUR opinion that data was not suitable for such analysis?

God You Are a Pain wrote:

So why did YOU (get it ... YOU) present the data, ask if there was significant differences, if in YOUR opinion that data was not suitable for such analysis?

Since you insist on hijhacking this thread, the least you can do is go back and read what I actually wrote. He is a cut and paste of what I said (go look it up):

In the first post I said:

Every reason you give me for doping in track also applies for swimming (it makes a difference, pressure to win, money) and lo and behold they have very similar AAF findings!

Then I asked the rhetorical question:

Or, do you think the difference between 1.26% AAFs and 1.67% AAFs is really significant?

In the fourth post I said:

I think they are the same number, differing by a rounding error. So, the problem in swimming is exactly the same as track. (I also think the cycling AAF of 3.78% is also not meaningfully different but I'll leave that for another time).

Therefore, I think the answer is purely PR. Pretend it doesn't exist and the problem goes away.

------------------

So what exactly are we arguing here?

We are arguing that your argument doesn't hold weight and is not supported by the facts. The differences in positives between swimming and track is statistically significant. You want to argue that they are the same, but they are not.

When the actual facts are pointed out to you, you try to find a way to argue that those facts are not accurate. Anything to support your conclusion, I guess.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

We are arguing that your argument doesn't hold weight and is not supported by the facts. The differences in positives between swimming and track is statistically significant. You want to argue that they are the same, but they are not.

When the actual facts are pointed out to you, you try to find a way to argue that those facts are not accurate. Anything to support your conclusion, I guess.

And I'm saying you analysis is correct IF YOU ASSUME a zero error rate. Since the error rate is unknown, and most likely not zero (see t/e ratio data), you cannot assume it to be zero and use a Test of Independent Proportions in this case.

Your argument uses a bad assumption and you insist on concluding that swimming with a 1.26% AAF rate is significantly difference than track with a 1.67% AAF rate.

To put in in english, if another 20,000+ dope tests are performed this year (2006) on track athletes, and 40 less AAFs come in than 2005 (2005 saw 342 AAFs, so a drop to 300 AAFs), track has the same AAF rate as swimming (all other things staying equal). It moves from 1.67% to 1.26%.

When this happens, I will be expecting you to start threads cogratulating the IAAF for "turning the corner" in the doping problem as track will be on par with swimming - a sport that is perecived to be cleaner than track.

Does this fairly summarize your position?

So you believe the t/e false positives only occur in track athletes and not in swimmers?

Mr. Obvious wrote:

So you believe the t/e false positives only occur in track athletes and not in swimmers?

I see where your going .... if you assume a normal distribution of false positives among all sports than the error rates cancel themselves out. But here you are assuming that data is normally distributed. You cannot as it rarely is in real world applications (see the financial markets, very little data in this realm is normally distributed). So, we are back to it being an unknown with a skew meaning we cannot determine if the differences between swimming and track are significant.

I see....apparently you want to argue that the data is good enough to support your argument (that there is no significant difference in the doping problems in swimming and track) but are not good enough when somebody points out that the differences actually are significant.

If you are to accept your viewpoint and take it serious then the only logical conclusion that we don't know anything about the relative seriousness of doping problems in track vs. swimming. It is, of course, possible that swimming has many more false t/e findings then track and that the data actually underestimate the differential.

All I'm asking for is a little bit of intellectual honesty and consistency in your arguments, chief.

For the record I believe that doping is a serious and significant problem in both track and swimming.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

If you are to accept your viewpoint and take it serious then the only logical conclusion that we don't know anything about the relative seriousness of doping problems in track vs. swimming.

Actaully this exactly my view!

In the fourth post I wrote ....

I think they are the same number, differing by a rounding error. So, the problem in swimming is exactly the same as track. (I also think the cycling AAF of 3.78% is also not meaningfully different but I'll leave that for another time).

---

I don't think their is a difference between cycling, swimming, track MLB, FIFA, Tennis and the NFL. The difference is not statistical, it perceptions.

I don't accept the standard wisdom that the dope tests are fool-proof. To put it bluntly, I belive they are full-of-crap. They cannot be trusted as many errors are made. It's that the system is set up to make it virtually impossible for an athlete to prove mistakes have been made.

And the results are what the dope testers wanted, we all assume the tests are full-proof and worship the guys in white coats as the gods that will save our sports. Now if we can only give them more money, they can solve the problem. People can be so gullible.