The overwhelming evidence of advantage is that the practice is decades old and is throughout the sport - and indeed all sports. The individual gain that athletes make doesn't have to be measured to enable a conclusion that no practice would be so longstanding and so widespread without a rational basis, which is that it enables an advantage. Nor would sports be focused on eradicating doping unless it was against the principle of fair competition. Athletes would not risk their health - if health concerns are part of the picture - if they gained nothing from their doping.
This is not "overwhelming" evidence of advantage, but would be evidence of use. In any case, recall Howman said just last year, "the evidence base for doping prevalence in competitive sport is still weak and fragmented with most evidence pointing to a prevalence rate of 0 to 5% overall". There is no "overwhelming" evidence of use.
Recall the context is not "advantage", (or "helps" as "marinia" said), but "If it gives so much of an advantage", and more specifically for this thread, in the men's elite marathon. The individual gain would have to be measured, or reliably estimated, to suggest that the advantage is "so much".
I'll say it again. You are letting yourself be fooled, and fooling yourself, with such contorted logic lacking evidence.
Howman has said doping at championship level is at least ten times the number of athletes caught but could even be closer to the estimates of those who say virtually everyone at that level could be doped.
Advantage follows from extensive use or the practice would have long ago been discredited, and doping be seen as offering no more advantage than cornflakes - which is what you effectively reduce it to - a mere placebo at best. You are also effectively saying elite and pro athletes are naive morons for believing they gain from using drugs. So must antidoping, for seeking to eliminate something that it views as giving unfair advantage.
Don't make the mistake of thinking only the top 1% of professional runners dope. Runners at all levels, even the school level probably dope. To get a scholarship. To get an NIL. To get a shoe contract. To get appearance money (guaranteed money). (Prize money (non-guaranteed money) is for chumps.) Mo Farah was very likely doping with NOP. Why would he take that chance? Because through doping he won 10 gold medals, became wealthy and became a national hero. People who dope mainly think about the upside. They of course are aware of the downside -- positive tests, bans, being ostracized from the sport. But they are willing to take that chance.
Maybe you don't go far enough. Maybe the top 1% are doping far less as they were already winning without resorting to doping, and would be less motivated to take the risk. It would be their competitors who are losing who are more motivated to supplement their training with banned substances and methods.
I don't find it so likely that SlowMo doped. He was fortunate to rise to prominence at a time when his potential competitors decided to skip the track as more money could be made on the roads.
So Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Kiprop, Ramzi, Jeptoo, Chepnegetich, Amos, Katir and so on, weren't "top" but were second-string who could only succeed with doping? Could you quote where Howman and other antidoping experts say we don't have to worry about the best athletes doping, it's only the losers who dope? Or is that just another one of your fantasies?
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Exactly. He goes out of his mini mind to defend any and all malfeasance from Africans. It’s comical. Hilarity combined with bottom of the barrel level pilpul.
Oh, I don't defend anyone's malfeasance.
And I apply my same high standards and reasoning equally to the cases of non-Africans.
You have no honest standards.
The guy is right, you go out of your way and go exceptionally far to defend African cheats. You find great satisfaction in this type of trolling, trying to extend the natural length of threads.
I'll try to simplify for you. "Ineffective" does not mean "partially effective". It isn't qualified success; it is failure.
For you, if only one in 50 or more doped athletes is caught that means the system is "partially" effective - because at least someone is caught even if most aren't. But by any rational basis, if far fewer dopers are caught than those who get away with it - which is what Howman is saying, that intentional dopers are "getting away with it" - then the system is ineffective. It is not succeeding; it is failing. He has always acknowledged it, because he says doping is ahead of antidoping and there are many more athletes who get away with it than are being caught. If it were not so it could not be claimed that doping is prevalent in the sport. It is.
Simplest would be to answer a yes/no question with "yes" or "no".
Howman did say "not effective enough", which you said means "partially effective". You are the only reason we ever started talking about "partially effective".
Anything short of 100% effective will have intentional dopers "getting away with it".
Howman did not say "far fewer" or "many more". There is no way he could. He said as much: "Without a measure for doping behaviour reliably, evaluating the effectiveness of anti-doping programs is ILLUSIVE."
Howman has said doping at championship level is at least ten times the number of athletes caught but could even be closer to the estimates of those who say virtually everyone at that level could be doped.
Advantage follows from extensive use or the practice would have long ago been discredited, and doping be seen as offering no more advantage than cornflakes - which is what you effectively reduce it to - a mere placebo at best. You are also effectively saying elite and pro athletes are naive morons for believing they gain from using drugs. So must antidoping, for seeking to eliminate something that it views as giving unfair advantage.
I doubt Howman said that. But even if he did, we must wait to evaluate it until he provides a reliable basis supporting such an estimate, especially in light of his recent statement: "Without a measure for doping behaviour reliably, evaluating the effectiveness of anti-doping programs is ILLUSIVE."
"Advantage" does not follow from extensive use or practice. This is just your contorted "if it were not so ..." fallacious logic, wishing it were so.
The "elite and pro" athletes, as well as "anti-doping", are not the naive morons telling me that "advantage" follows from "use". They aren't telling me they "(believe) athletes (have gained) from using drugs". They haven't said anything. But if they had, we must wait to evaluate it until they provide a reliable basis for such a belief.
So Ben Johnson, Marion Jones, Lance Armstrong, Barry Bonds, Kiprop, Ramzi, Jeptoo, Chepnegetich, Amos, Katir and so on, weren't "top" but were second-string who could only succeed with doping? Could you quote where Howman and other antidoping experts say we don't have to worry about the best athletes doping, it's only the losers who dope? Or is that just another one of your fantasies?
I didn't say "only". This is always your strawman.
Sure some in the top 1% have also doped. For most of your examples, it is speculative whether they succeeded because of doping, or could not have succeeded without.
And Les spoke about "Runners at all levels, even the school level". Many of them are not subject to anti-doping controls.
You have inverted the logic. Anti-doping should be worried about the 1%, and they should be worried about the bottom 99% too. But they have limited resources, and prioritize testing the winners. This alters the risk/reward ratio, There is less risk for athletes to be caught, when they are not in an RTP, and haven't ever finished on the podium, or, in the case of high school and university, aren't even subject to WADA testing. And the perceived reward is the ability to continue the sport at the next level, as opposed to stagnating, or being forced to leave the sport.
And I apply my same high standards and reasoning equally to the cases of non-Africans.
You have no honest standards.
The guy is right, you go out of your way and go exceptionally far to defend African cheats. You find great satisfaction in this type of trolling, trying to extend the natural length of threads.
You are a "Bizarre Impulse". Yours is a dishonest and ignorant post, which only serves to extend the natural length of threads, with such falsehoods. I'm not sure what game you are playing. Are you trying to fool persuadables by repetition? Or were you yourself fooled?
"Defend cheats" is quite a vague accusation. I do not ever defend any alleged cheating.
Here I was more strongly accused of "any and all malfeasance from Africans", as if I do anything different for Africans than I do for non-Africans. I do not ever defend the malfeasance of Africans, nor the malfeasance of non-Africans.
I apply the same level of skepticism in all cases, African or not, where the allegations greatly exceed the known facts and observations. This includes doping and/or performance allegations against many non-Africans, including Mary Decker, Paula Radcliffe, Shelby Houlihan, Galen Rupp and any and all NOP athletes, Alberto Salazar, Cathal Lombard, Dieter Baumann, Simon Getzmann, Steven Colvert, Benedikt Karus, Vojtech Sommer, etc.
I only try to separate fact from fiction and faith and fallacy, by asking for more facts. This should not be wrongly construed as a defense, and such false accusations only arise when there are no more facts to give.
I'll try to simplify for you. "Ineffective" does not mean "partially effective". It isn't qualified success; it is failure.
For you, if only one in 50 or more doped athletes is caught that means the system is "partially" effective - because at least someone is caught even if most aren't. But by any rational basis, if far fewer dopers are caught than those who get away with it - which is what Howman is saying, that intentional dopers are "getting away with it" - then the system is ineffective. It is not succeeding; it is failing. He has always acknowledged it, because he says doping is ahead of antidoping and there are many more athletes who get away with it than are being caught. If it were not so it could not be claimed that doping is prevalent in the sport. It is.
Simplest would be to answer a yes/no question with "yes" or "no".
Howman did say "not effective enough", which you said means "partially effective". You are the only reason we ever started talking about "partially effective".
Anything short of 100% effective will have intentional dopers "getting away with it".
Howman did not say "far fewer" or "many more". There is no way he could. He said as much: "Without a measure for doping behaviour reliably, evaluating the effectiveness of anti-doping programs is ILLUSIVE."
"Ineffective" means that. It is failing - like your arguments.
Howman has never said antidoping has to be 100% effective to stop dopers "getting away with it". Unlike you, he is a realist.
Antidoping is nowhere near catching most dopers. If it was then the numbered of doped athletes in the sport would be far fewer than 1% of athletes competing, as that is the number of positive tests yet many more athletes aren't tested. No one in antidoping claims doping is at that miniscule level. If it was then the sport wouldn't have a problem. Expert estimates can range from 30% to over 80% at the top. That is consistent with Howman saying doping is "ineffective" and intentional dopers are "getting away with it". He doesn't have to produce an exact figure to come to the view that antidoping is failing to catch the cheats.
If your ridiculous arguments are to be accepted doping would be less than 1% of the sport and where it occurs it doesn't even aid athletes (except for some strange reason, Russian female 800 runners). If that were so, that makes idiots of those like Howman who issue warnings about what drugs are doing to sport.
"Ineffective" means that. It is failing - like your arguments.
Howman has never said antidoping has to be 100% effective to stop dopers "getting away with it". Unlike you, he is a realist.
Antidoping is nowhere near catching most dopers. If it was then the numbered of doped athletes in the sport would be far fewer than 1% of athletes competing, as that is the number of positive tests yet many more athletes aren't tested. No one in antidoping claims doping is at that miniscule level. If it was then the sport wouldn't have a problem. Expert estimates can range from 30% to over 80% at the top. That is consistent with Howman saying doping is "ineffective" and intentional dopers are "getting away with it". He doesn't have to produce an exact figure to come to the view that antidoping is failing to catch the cheats.
If your ridiculous arguments are to be accepted doping would be less than 1% of the sport and where it occurs it doesn't even aid athletes (except for some strange reason, Russian female 800 runners). If that were so, that makes idiots of those like Howman who issue warnings about what drugs are doing to sport.
These aren't my arguments. I'm just quoting to you what Howman says, and pointing out things you say which go far above and beyond what Howman ever said.
Can you tell us again, what Howman meant when he said "not effective enough"? Hint: you've already given us the correct answer. Will you answer the question without contradicting yourself? Again?
Howman doesn't have to say that anything less than 100% effective at catching dopers means some dopers are getting away with it. It's rather self-evident.
Not sure what kind of alternative math you are doing to say that if we were "catching most dopers" then doper prevalence "would be far fewer than 1% of athletes competing". Note that top athletes are tested multiple times, which increases the effectiveness of testing at catching dopers. If we say prevalence is 30% in the top 100 athletes, and we test these top athletes 20 times each, a 1% positive test rate will catch 20 dopers out of 30, or "most dopers".
But recall Howman said last year that, based on the existing evidence, prevalence is around 0-5%. Any estimate larger than that is not evidence-based.
Howman isn't the idiot telling me all these things like "Expert estimates can range from 30% to over 80% at the top." On the contrary, he says we lack a reliable measure of doping behavior.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
"Ineffective" means that. It is failing - like your arguments.
Howman has never said antidoping has to be 100% effective to stop dopers "getting away with it". Unlike you, he is a realist.
Antidoping is nowhere near catching most dopers. If it was then the numbered of doped athletes in the sport would be far fewer than 1% of athletes competing, as that is the number of positive tests yet many more athletes aren't tested. No one in antidoping claims doping is at that miniscule level. If it was then the sport wouldn't have a problem. Expert estimates can range from 30% to over 80% at the top. That is consistent with Howman saying doping is "ineffective" and intentional dopers are "getting away with it". He doesn't have to produce an exact figure to come to the view that antidoping is failing to catch the cheats.
If your ridiculous arguments are to be accepted doping would be less than 1% of the sport and where it occurs it doesn't even aid athletes (except for some strange reason, Russian female 800 runners). If that were so, that makes idiots of those like Howman who issue warnings about what drugs are doing to sport.
These aren't my arguments. I'm just quoting to you what Howman says, and pointing out things you say which go far above and beyond what Howman ever said.
Can you tell us again, what Howman meant when he said "not effective enough"? Hint: you've already given us the correct answer. Will you answer the question without contradicting yourself? Again?
Howman doesn't have to say that anything less than 100% effective at catching dopers means some dopers are getting away with it. It's rather self-evident.
Not sure what kind of alternative math you are doing to say that if we were "catching most dopers" then doper prevalence "would be far fewer than 1% of athletes competing". Note that top athletes are tested multiple times, which increases the effectiveness of testing at catching dopers. If we say prevalence is 30% in the top 100 athletes, and we test these top athletes 20 times each, a 1% positive test rate will catch 20 dopers out of 30, or "most dopers".
But recall Howman said last year that, based on the existing evidence, prevalence is around 0-5%. Any estimate larger than that is not evidence-based.
Howman isn't the idiot telling me all these things like "Expert estimates can range from 30% to over 80% at the top." On the contrary, he says we lack a reliable measure of doping behavior.
You simply never stop making stuff up.
No definition of "partially" effective is one doper caught for every 50 who aren't. But that is the estimated success rate of antidoping, which has long said "only the dumb and the careless" are caught. Is that "partially effective" in your books?
Howman has never said doping is around 1% or less of athletes. If that were so it would mean all dopers are being caught, because that is the number of positive tests. Before the London Olympics he conceded that the estimated number of dopers might not be as high as those claiming everyone will be doping or as low as those who suggested only one in ten, when he said it is likely "somewhere in between". So in his view it could be as high as 90%. That is "somewhere in between". But what he says today is that antidoping is "ineffective". So there will be as many dopers as those who want to gain advantage, because they know they mostly aren't being caught.
Lacking a reliable measure of doping "behaviour" (Behaviour? What does that mean? Who is doping? How they go about it?) is not saying they lack a reliable measure of whether dopers are "getting away with it". He says they are.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
No definition of "partially" effective is one doper caught for every 50 who aren't. But that is the estimated success rate of antidoping, which has long said "only the dumb and the careless" are caught. Is that "partially effective" in your books?
Howman has never said doping is around 1% or less of athletes. If that were so it would mean all dopers are being caught, because that is the number of positive tests. Before the London Olympics he conceded that the estimated number of dopers might not be as high as those claiming everyone will be doping or as low as those who suggested only one in ten, when he said it is likely "somewhere in between". So in his view it could be as high as 90%. That is "somewhere in between". But what he says today is that antidoping is "ineffective". So there will be as many dopers as those who want to gain advantage, because they know they mostly aren't being caught.
Lacking a reliable measure of doping "behaviour" (Behaviour? What does that mean? Who is doping? How they go about it?) is not saying they lack a reliable measure of whether dopers are "getting away with it". He says they are.
What did I make up, besides a hypothetical that illustrates why "far fewer than 1%" is pure nonsense?
You brought "partially effective" into this discussion, and already told us what it means, but now you want to renegotiate it. Let me know when you've decided what you mean, and then explain to us why you think you were wrong the first time.
No one estimates only 1 in 50 dopers are caught. You made that up. Howman says such estimates are ILLUSIVE. But even 1 part in 50 is still 1 part.
I never said or agreed that doping is around 1% or less. That was your bad math, and also something you made up.
You have to ask Howman what he really means by "behavior", but maybe it means what doping athletes are doing. But even if anti-doping catches 49 out of 50 dopers, dopers will still be "getting away with it".
No definition of "partially" effective is one doper caught for every 50 who aren't. But that is the estimated success rate of antidoping, which has long said "only the dumb and the careless" are caught. Is that "partially effective" in your books?
Howman has never said doping is around 1% or less of athletes. If that were so it would mean all dopers are being caught, because that is the number of positive tests. Before the London Olympics he conceded that the estimated number of dopers might not be as high as those claiming everyone will be doping or as low as those who suggested only one in ten, when he said it is likely "somewhere in between". So in his view it could be as high as 90%. That is "somewhere in between". But what he says today is that antidoping is "ineffective". So there will be as many dopers as those who want to gain advantage, because they know they mostly aren't being caught.
Lacking a reliable measure of doping "behaviour" (Behaviour? What does that mean? Who is doping? How they go about it?) is not saying they lack a reliable measure of whether dopers are "getting away with it". He says they are.
What did I make up, besides a hypothetical that illustrates why "far fewer than 1%" is pure nonsense?
You brought "partially effective" into this discussion, and already told us what it means, but now you want to renegotiate it. Let me know when you've decided what you mean, and then explain to us why you think you were wrong the first time.
No one estimates only 1 in 50 dopers are caught. You made that up. Howman says such estimates are ILLUSIVE. But even 1 part in 50 is still 1 part.
I never said or agreed that doping is around 1% or less. That was your bad math, and also something you made up.
You have to ask Howman what he really means by "behavior", but maybe it means what doping athletes are doing. But even if anti-doping catches 49 out of 50 dopers, dopers will still be "getting away with it".
You are wrong. There were estimates at the London Olympics that virtually all competitors were doping. Confidential athlete surveys range from 1 in 3 top athletes to more than 1 in 2. Since fewer than 1% of athletes test positive that means most dopers aren't caught. You continue to evade the view of antidoping that "only the dumb and the careless" are caught.
By arguing semantic nonsense about what "partial" means you continue to avoid the fact that doping is endemic in sports, including running, and most dopers aren't being caught. Howman wouldn't recognize your absurd misinterpretation of what he has said. But you have always shown why you do it; it is your purpose to reduce doping to an insignificance, a practice that scarcely exists and doesn't aid those who do it. You don't debate doping; you are a propagandist who seeks to deny the truth about it.
As a former 'chemist' I find it quite hard to believe that backyard chemists, coaches, trainers etc are somehow concocting magic potions that not only enhance performance, but is also non life threatening, no side effects and at dosage levels below what multi million dollar GC and LC Mass Specs methods developed by researchers with years of experience and qualification can even 'detect' let alone quantify. You can literally detect PFAS contamination in the arctic waters, yet not see this in blood or urine.
You are wrong. There were estimates at the London Olympics that virtually all competitors were doping. Confidential athlete surveys range from 1 in 3 top athletes to more than 1 in 2. Since fewer than 1% of athletes test positive that means most dopers aren't caught. You continue to evade the view of antidoping that "only the dumb and the careless" are caught.
By arguing semantic nonsense about what "partial" means you continue to avoid the fact that doping is endemic in sports, including running, and most dopers aren't being caught. Howman wouldn't recognize your absurd misinterpretation of what he has said. But you have always shown why you do it; it is your purpose to reduce doping to an insignificance, a practice that scarcely exists and doesn't aid those who do it. You don't debate doping; you are a propagandist who seeks to deny the truth about it.
Or you are wrong.
Whoever said "at the London Olympics that virtually all competitors were doping"? Was it an "expert"? Based on what evidence?
Confidential surveys are not necessarily accurate estimates of prevalence.
In any case, these "estimates" are all outdated. Do you have any updated estimates post-AIU creation, when it was led by Howman?
Who said fewer than 1% of athletes test positive? ADRV reports are always in terms of "samples" tested, and not athletes. Dopers providing more than one sample will skew that percentage upwards.
Again, it is you giving us multiple interpretations of "partially effective". Just make up your mind.
I don't misinterpret Howman, but always quote him directly. Surely he will recognize his own words. But he just doesn't say all the things you say, and he says many things you are choosing to ignore.
How can you pretend to know the truth, while simultaneously completely lacking any supporting evidence?
As a former 'chemist' I find it quite hard to believe that backyard chemists, coaches, trainers etc are somehow concocting magic potions that not only enhance performance, but is also non life threatening, no side effects and at dosage levels below what multi million dollar GC and LC Mass Specs methods developed by researchers with years of experience and qualification can even 'detect' let alone quantify. You can literally detect PFAS contamination in the arctic waters, yet not see this in blood or urine.
Mind boggling.
Doping isn't done in the "backyard", like some amateur operation, as you suggest. It is expert and advanced and far ahead of doping control - as is conceded by antidoping (Howman dt al). It is also easy. Countless athletes in gyms are using. It is calculated that over a billion dollars per year are spent on the doping black-market in sports. It is found in every sport and in every country, and it continues to defeat the best efforts of antidoping to combat it.