That was as meaningful as Trump's statement on childcare. You never realise how ridiculous you sound.
This looks like personal projection again, coupled with a weird analogy.
If you don't like the way I sound, just read the paper for yourself, and look for all the "facts" and "data", and look for any of the researcher's statements of faith not supported by any "facts" or "data" which cannot substitute "conclusion" or "fact".
Stop relying on other middlemen to give you flawed interpretations based on half the facts, simply because you lack the knowledge and skills to figure out who is lying to you.
PR Detector has just shown how utterly dishonest your posts are.
So you haven't been able to follow the substantive argument. Of course not.
You haven't contributed with anything substantive. All you do is attack rekrunner, like the weak ignoramus you are.
There isn't anything "substantive" left to say about arguments he both invents and recycles over a decade. It is as meaningful as trying to debate with someone like Trump.
This post was edited 20 seconds after it was posted.
No need for you to spin? Then why do you move the goalposts and why do you pretend I was mislead by the authors? The misleading is all yours.
No one ever suggested that all these "sensitivity analyses" with their "numerous hypothetical scenarios" proved anything, but they do show that's unlikely less than 43.6% who doped in the last 12 months before Worlds 2011.
Move goalposts? Here's where I started: "The study never says : "nearly 1 in 2" and "likely more than 44%"." This remains true.
I did not say you were mislead by the authors.
Your quoted "suggestion" from the abstract incorporates by reference the "Sensitivity Analysis" (see under "3 Results") of deleting fastest responders, concluding with "obtained estimates of 30-31% for the past year's doping at WCA ...". This very same suggestion is re-iterated in "4 Discussion", and again in the Appendix secion "4.10 Summary and Evaluation ..."
Contrary to your suggestion, the analysis of their "numerous hypothetical scenarios" do not show which hypothetical scenarios are "likely" or "unlikely".
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
More spinning. "a rare mistake" from you that was ever so coincidentally fully in line with your misleading propaganda, sure....
"to remove a hypothesized (and confirmed), over-estimate, due to "carelessness" or "hasty responding" - more spinning including another bold lie. That's a sheer hypothesis, nowhere "confirmed" that is was due to carelessness.
What do the authors actually write in 3.2?
The next step would be to collect data and make observations to confirm, or contradict, such speculative suggestions. Hahahahaha you are quite the troll.
No propoganda, no bold lies, no trolling, at least none on my side.
What did I write? That they hypothesized (and confirmed) an over-estimate. Their hypothesis listed several possible causes, which remain speculative.
What did they write in the Appendix, under "3 Basic Results"? "We then considered the possibility that athletes with very fast response times might produce unreliable answers as a result of haste or carelessness". This sounds very much like the hypothesis ready for confirmation, with all these magic words like "possibility" and "might", and a clear indication of the speculative causes. To confirm this possibility, they did collect data: responses with response times. And they did make observations, leading the researchers to conclude their "Results" (in the main paper) with a post-analyzed estimate of "30-31%", based on the data they collected and their observations.
Speaking of the last 12 months: the number of athletes, who were doped at some point of their career, is evidently higher than 43.6% also for the following reasons:
1) All athletes who doped "only" prior to August 2010 are not included in the 43.6%.
2) All athletes who started doping "only" after August 2011 are not included in the 43.6%.
3) All athletes who were doped by their coaches/handlers/... without their knowledge are not included in the 43.6%.
That much is obvious. How many those are? Well, you argued a lot about point 3 in the past, so, a lot of athletes, according to your earlier statements.
This assumes that 43.6% is a reliable estimate, an estimate even the researchers didn't stand by, giving us about a dozen reasons.
This looks like personal projection again, coupled with a weird analogy.
If you don't like the way I sound, just read the paper for yourself, and look for all the "facts" and "data", and look for any of the researcher's statements of faith not supported by any "facts" or "data" which cannot substitute "conclusion" or "fact".
Stop relying on other middlemen to give you flawed interpretations based on half the facts, simply because you lack the knowledge and skills to figure out who is lying to you.
PR Detector has just shown how utterly dishonest your posts are.
Speaking of the last 12 months: the number of athletes, who were doped at some point of their career, is evidently higher than 43.6% also for the following reasons:
1) All athletes who doped "only" prior to August 2010 are not included in the 43.6%.
2) All athletes who started doping "only" after August 2011 are not included in the 43.6%.
3) All athletes who were doped by their coaches/handlers/... without their knowledge are not included in the 43.6%.
That much is obvious. How many those are? Well, you argued a lot about point 3 in the past, so, a lot of athletes, according to your earlier statements.
This assumes that 43.6% is a reliable estimate, an estimate even the researchers didn't stand by, giving us about a dozen reasons.
PR again. They explicitly wrote that the 43.6% is unlikely to be an overestimate, as suggested after considering all sensitivity analyses. I just proved that to you yesterday,
Yes, all, including the one that led to 31% and the ones that led to over 60 and even over 70%.
Speaking of the last 12 months: the number of athletes, who were doped at some point of their career, is evidently higher than 43.6% also for the following reasons:
1) All athletes who doped "only" prior to August 2010 are not included in the 43.6%.
2) All athletes who started doping "only" after August 2011 are not included in the 43.6%.
3) All athletes who were doped by their coaches/handlers/... without their knowledge are not included in the 43.6%.
That much is obvious. How many those are? Well, you argued a lot about point 3 in the past, so, a lot of athletes, according to your earlier statements.
This assumes that 43.6% is a reliable estimate, an estimate even the researchers didn't stand by, giving us about a dozen reasons.
It was a lower estimate - so of course you misrepresent that. But the overwhelming point from the survey, that in your unending tedious pedantry you struggle to avoid, is that it showed doping is right through championship level athletics like a disease - what difference is it if it is 1 in 3 athletes, I in 2, or even more! - when only a very small fraction of them are actually caught. Your pettifogging is completely irrelevant and nothing more than the modus of a doping denier.
No propoganda, no bold lies, no trolling, at least none on my side.
What did I write? That they hypothesized (and confirmed) an over-estimate. Their hypothesis listed several possible causes, which remain speculative.
Yes. You did write that. And again, the overestimate was not confirmed. That is your spin/propaganda/trolling/...
Guess what! That the faster answers differ from the slower answers does not confirm that the faster ones are wrong (overestimated). Another hypothesis is that the slower ones are wrong (underestimated).
This assumes that 43.6% is a reliable estimate, an estimate even the researchers didn't stand by, giving us about a dozen reasons.
It was a lower estimate - so of course you misrepresent that. But the overwhelming point from the survey, that in your unending tedious pedantry you struggle to avoid, is that it showed doping is right through championship level athletics like a disease - what difference is it if it is 1 in 3 athletes, I in 2, or even more! - when only a very small fraction of them are actually caught. Your pettifogging is completely irrelevant and nothing more than the modus of a doping denier.
This assumes that 43.6% is a reliable estimate, an estimate even the researchers didn't stand by, giving us about a dozen reasons.
PR again. They explicitly wrote that the 43.6% is unlikely to be an overestimate, as suggested after considering all sensitivity analyses. I just proved that to you yesterday,
Yes, all, including the one that led to 31% and the ones that led to over 60 and even over 70%.
You are still conflating empirical observations based on data, with hypothetical scenarios with no data or observations.
You didn't "prove" that 43.6% was a "reliable estimate", nor did the researchers. It is not yet settled that their survey method (UQM) produces reliably accurate results.
The first indication is the exericise based on data and observations removing a significant 12.2 percentage point over-estimation bias. The authors explicitly considered "at least 30% at WCA" a "Key Point" of the paper (see the second page, or page 212 of the published paper), with no mention of the pre-analyzed result of 43.6%.
The remaining discussion about many hypothetical scenarios is interesting, but purely theoretical. There is no reason to think the authors have even guessed the direction of the remaining bias correctly, with any degree of likelihood. Its only value is to provide guidance for follow-on research to resolve the many problems identified and come up with a more reliable method providing a more reliable estimate.
This assumes that 43.6% is a reliable estimate, an estimate even the researchers didn't stand by, giving us about a dozen reasons.
It was a lower estimate - so of course you misrepresent that. But the overwhelming point from the survey, that in your unending tedious pedantry you struggle to avoid, is that it showed doping is right through championship level athletics like a disease - what difference is it if it is 1 in 3 athletes, I in 2, or even more! - when only a very small fraction of them are actually caught. Your pettifogging is completely irrelevant and nothing more than the modus of a doping denier.
I like the way you pretentiously use the word "pettifogging" to give the appearance of intellectual content to your posts. Doesn't work of course.
If you would limit yourself to, say, only 5 lies per day, you might remember them better.
You just wrote this nonsense on the previous page (day):
"You could be forgiven for being misled"
I didn't blame "the authors".
I think you have misled yourself and others (like Armstronglivs who cannot read these papers for himself -- too many words and involves numbers), by placing an emphasis on partial data found in the Abstract that is more complete in the discussions in the main paper and Appendix. These are quick and easy reads, for those who have access, and the authors clearly present a linear flow from initial result without any analysis, to an analyzed result based on response time data, to the discussion of all of the remaining unresolved hypothetical theoretical limitations.
This assumes that 43.6% is a reliable estimate, an estimate even the researchers didn't stand by, giving us about a dozen reasons.
It was a lower estimate - so of course you misrepresent that. But the overwhelming point from the survey, that in your unending tedious pedantry you struggle to avoid, is that it showed doping is right through championship level athletics like a disease - what difference is it if it is 1 in 3 athletes, I in 2, or even more! - when only a very small fraction of them are actually caught. Your pettifogging is completely irrelevant and nothing more than the modus of a doping denier.
Of the two estimates provided by the researchers, of course 43.6% was the higher estimate. 31.4% was their lower bound estimate.
I'm not denying doping is wide and deep and goes to the top -- the belief in the power of doping is wide and deep and goes to the top.
But this study purports to estimate doping prevalence, which itself is a very interesting question. You ask an interesting question. So what? What would it change? Since UQM is not yet proven to be reliable, what if the "real" doping prevalence at 2011 WCA was only 1 in 4 (95% CI of most conservative UQM estimate), or 1 in 5 (like SSC), or 1 in 7 (similar to blood doping), or 1 in 10 (because they are all wrong)? Or what if it is mostly sprinters and fielders, or mostly Russians, and Eastern countries? In all cases, how will any of this change the approach to anti-doping? They are already testing at their limits, trying to optimize scarce resources and intelligence to get the most bang for buck.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.