There are many child stars. Many whom are not tested in labs (vo2 max etc).
Norwegian skiiers are known for threading the gray zone.
I would not be surprised if he is clean since he has trained (structured) more or less his whole life. Few if any (western) runners are so fully trained.
With that said I do also believe there is a chance that he could be on something.
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).
I thought we were going by the authors' "spin/propaganda/trolling...", and not mine or yours.
Technically, it should be understood that the hypothesis of over-estimation in the fastest responses was confirmed by the empirical data and observations.
They authors didn't present us with this other hypothesis of slower responses being an underestimation. That is your PR spin/propaganda/trolling/...
They did say (see Appendix 4.10) that "automatic yes" "would theoretically cause substantial overestimates" but "this is not a serious problem because (of) our exercise of deleting up to 30% of fast responders". They even called the "samples of the remaining 70%" "pure".
This deletion of the fastest 30% caused the prevalence estimate to drop substantially, providing confirmation for the theory that a significant number of "automatic yes" responses were present (versus "automatic no") in the fastest responses. According to Table 12, the drop corresponds to about 13% "automatic yes" responses, found in the 30% of deleted responses.
Note this is the only path to reasonably justifying any suggestion of "likely greater than (the lower bound estimate)" without resolving any likelihoods, as other "over-estimation" scenarios were regarded as "implausible" or "less than 3%", leaving only "under-estimation" scenarios.
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.
"Pettifogging" is quite a common English term amongst those who have an education. Not you, apparently.
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
He ran the fastest mile and 1500 indoors in history and was barely tired at the end of the race, shaking hands and celebrating with everyone in the stands. I believe he should have been suffering more following such a great effort yet he was not even tired. His other times that are unprecedented and are much faster than the runners that came before him that were proving to have taken peds probably show that he is guilty as well.
This post alone show the level of retardation of a lot of posters.
Unfortunately true. You can be Yared for instance, and have whereabouts problems that would get Hocker crucified and suspended, but Yared smiles, and he’s black, ao he must be nice guy, above reproach. So they hit “ignore” and scream about Habz or Hoey.
