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In any case, these "estimates" are all outdated.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?
Victor Conte, who had for years supplied drugs to athletes, was one of those who said virtually everyone at the London Olympics was doping. There were others who had competed or coached at that level who claimed the same.
Confidential surveys don't have to be exact to show that the numbers of athletes doping is vastly greater than the numbers caught. The official figure is around 1% of tests are positive. What will skew that figure is the number of athletes who aren't even tested who will be doping. They will outnumber those who are tested more than once.
We know that the numbers doping are much greater than the numbers caught. Quite apart from the confidential surveys we have the statements that antidoping is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it", "only the dumb and the careless are being caught", and doping is always ahead of antidoping. These statements have been reiterated this year.
Development of drugs didn't stop a decade ago. It is ongoing and as Howman has conceded, is more sophisticated than antidoping.
I don't say antidoping is "partially effective" in the way you choose to interpret it. If the majority of dopers aren't being caught it is ineffective. That is why Howman, who is usually cautious in his statements, issued a telling warning about doping in sport only a few months ago.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
With all the positive tests coming out of Kenya i assume that they are getting caught on purpose and being used as guinea pigs for the truly top athletes on the teams like Sawe. Hypothetically the agent or coach has the lower ranked members on a team take drug a,b, or c knowingly or unknowingly and see it they pass testing. If some pop 5 days after taking the drug but those tested after 6 or 7 days all pass then have the top athletes to be safe have 8 or 9 days pass before testing .yes the testing is random to us but probably not so random to those participating in it. Just like all the other sports once there is an agreed method of testing in place finding the ways to navigate and circumvent it become very easy and drug testing becomes more of an IQ test.
Victor Conte, who had for years supplied drugs to athletes, was one of those who said virtually everyone at the London Olympics was doping. There were others who had competed or coached at that level who claimed the same.
Confidential surveys don't have to be exact to show that the numbers of athletes doping is vastly greater than the numbers caught. The official figure is around 1% of tests are positive. What will skew that figure is the number of athletes who aren't even tested who will be doping. They will outnumber those who are tested more than once.
We know that the numbers doping are much greater than the numbers caught. Quite apart from the confidential surveys we have the statements that antidoping is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it", "only the dumb and the careless are being caught", and doping is always ahead of antidoping. These statements have been reiterated this year.
Development of drugs didn't stop a decade ago. It is ongoing and as Howman has conceded, is more sophisticated than antidoping.
I don't say antidoping is "partially effective" in the way you choose to interpret it. If the majority of dopers aren't being caught it is ineffective. That is why Howman, who is usually cautious in his statements, issued a telling warning about doping in sport only a few months ago.
If you don't provide us exact quotes, then Victor Conte and other athletes and coaches didn't say anything -- you did, based on your own recollection, which has a proven track record of misremembering facts and quotes, and embellishing the reality, with non-specific phrases like "virtually all" and "vastly greater" and "far less".
For example, I found a quote from Victor Conte estimating that "60 percent of athletes at the Games were on drugs".
And the real question is, what is his basis for such an estimate? Victor Conte wouldn't have a clue about "virtually everyone", and especially for distance runners. He was out of the loop after 2004, and even then, he just worked with a handful of his own athletes, with no real insight beyond sprinting and field athletes.
Confidential surveys do need to be reliable before we can conclude "vastly greater".
If we don't know how many are doping, we cannot know that "the numbers doping are much greater than the numbers caught". Howman called these attempts to conclude anti-doping effectiveness ILLUSIVE.
Any alleged development of drugs is immaterial, until such drugs are established to improve upon natural performance.
Regarding your words "partially effective" I'm just asking you make up your mind and pick one interpretation and stick with it. Regardless, I'm sticking with Howman's words "not effective enough" (something you denied he said, and something you originally equated to "partially effective") and "ineffective" for the qualified subset of just the dopers who are beating anti-doping rules. Howman doesn't quantify, or attempt to quantify, how many are doping, and how many are getting away with it, compared to how many are caught.
Howman's message to the other anti-doping agencies is that that they can benefit from copying what the AIU is already doing, using better intelligence to test the right athletes at the right time, to improve their effectiveness.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Victor Conte, who had for years supplied drugs to athletes, was one of those who said virtually everyone at the London Olympics was doping. There were others who had competed or coached at that level who claimed the same.
Confidential surveys don't have to be exact to show that the numbers of athletes doping is vastly greater than the numbers caught. The official figure is around 1% of tests are positive. What will skew that figure is the number of athletes who aren't even tested who will be doping. They will outnumber those who are tested more than once.
We know that the numbers doping are much greater than the numbers caught. Quite apart from the confidential surveys we have the statements that antidoping is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it", "only the dumb and the careless are being caught", and doping is always ahead of antidoping. These statements have been reiterated this year.
Development of drugs didn't stop a decade ago. It is ongoing and as Howman has conceded, is more sophisticated than antidoping.
I don't say antidoping is "partially effective" in the way you choose to interpret it. If the majority of dopers aren't being caught it is ineffective. That is why Howman, who is usually cautious in his statements, issued a telling warning about doping in sport only a few months ago.
If you don't provide us exact quotes, then Victor Conte and other athletes and coaches didn't say anything -- you did, based on your own recollection, which has a proven track record of misremembering facts and quotes, and embellishing the reality, with non-specific phrases like "virtually all" and "vastly greater" and "far less".
For example, I found a quote from Victor Conte estimating that "60 percent of athletes at the Games were on drugs".
And the real question is, what is his basis for such an estimate? Victor Conte wouldn't have a clue about "virtually everyone", and especially for distance runners. He was out of the loop after 2004, and even then, he just worked with a handful of his own athletes, with no real insight beyond sprinting and field athletes.
Confidential surveys do need to be reliable before we can conclude "vastly greater".
If we don't know how many are doping, we cannot know that "the numbers doping are much greater than the numbers caught". Howman called these attempts to conclude anti-doping effectiveness ILLUSIVE.
Any alleged development of drugs is immaterial, until such drugs are established to improve upon natural performance.
Regarding your words "partially effective" I'm just asking you make up your mind and pick one interpretation and stick with it. Regardless, I'm sticking with Howman's words "not effective enough" (something you denied he said, and something you originally equated to "partially effective") and "ineffective" for the qualified subset of just the dopers who are beating anti-doping rules. Howman doesn't quantify, or attempt to quantify, how many are doping, and how many are getting away with it, compared to how many are caught.
Howman's message to the other anti-doping agencies is that that they can benefit from copying what the AIU is already doing, using better intelligence to test the right athletes at the right time, to improve their effectiveness.
Wreckrunner, get over it. You're beating of word's definitions to death doesn't change the fact that no way in he|| are only 1% of elite athletes doping. You know also that Conte's estimate is a huge number, and he has pretty daym reliable insider awareness. Most people don't have 24/7/365 in their mom's basement to revisit everything they've read over the past 30 years. You don't have to provide direct quotes to get the idea, and since your database has them, you're obviously looking it up anyway. Partially Effective is also Partially Ineffective, and most educated people (not American football meatheads) believe that's no bueno. Not until someone leaves their anti-doping position can they give the real (dismal) story.
Wreckrunner, get over it. You're beating of word's definitions to death doesn't change the fact that no way in he|| are only 1% of elite athletes doping. You know also that Conte's estimate is a huge number, and he has pretty daym reliable insider awareness. Most people don't have 24/7/365 in their mom's basement to revisit everything they've read over the past 30 years. You don't have to provide direct quotes to get the idea, and since your database has them, you're obviously looking it up anyway. Partially Effective is also Partially Ineffective, and most educated people (not American football meatheads) believe that's no bueno. Not until someone leaves their anti-doping position can they give the real (dismal) story.
I'm not beating definitions so much as asking Armstronglivs to commit to one position. First he suggests Howman's words mean "partially effective". When I agreed with him, he changed his tune, and started another song and dance, telling me that Howman didn't say what he said, or that Armstronglivs didn't say what he said, or that these things don't mean what he said it means.
I partially agree with you. No one says, including me, that only 1% of athletes are doping, or that only some 2-3% of dopers are being caught.
I also agree with "partially ineffective". It is our mutual friend who cannot accept that.
Whatever Conte's number is is not relevant. He was neither reliable, nor an insider, but was just pretending to be. It was in his interest to give shocking numbers as a scare tactic designed to prey on the fears of the gullible.
I'm waiting for some real stories. Until then, we are just spinning a merry-go-round of mythology.
With all the positive tests coming out of Kenya i assume that they are getting caught on purpose and being used as guinea pigs for the truly top athletes on the teams like Sawe. Hypothetically the agent or coach has the lower ranked members on a team take drug a,b, or c knowingly or unknowingly and see it they pass testing. If some pop 5 days after taking the drug but those tested after 6 or 7 days all pass then have the top athletes to be safe have 8 or 9 days pass before testing .yes the testing is random to us but probably not so random to those participating in it. Just like all the other sports once there is an agreed method of testing in place finding the ways to navigate and circumvent it become very easy and drug testing becomes more of an IQ test.
Kenyans are being tested much more than other countries. There is hardly any testing happening in Europe and North America.
Victor Conte, who had for years supplied drugs to athletes, was one of those who said virtually everyone at the London Olympics was doping. There were others who had competed or coached at that level who claimed the same.
Confidential surveys don't have to be exact to show that the numbers of athletes doping is vastly greater than the numbers caught. The official figure is around 1% of tests are positive. What will skew that figure is the number of athletes who aren't even tested who will be doping. They will outnumber those who are tested more than once.
We know that the numbers doping are much greater than the numbers caught. Quite apart from the confidential surveys we have the statements that antidoping is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it", "only the dumb and the careless are being caught", and doping is always ahead of antidoping. These statements have been reiterated this year.
Development of drugs didn't stop a decade ago. It is ongoing and as Howman has conceded, is more sophisticated than antidoping.
I don't say antidoping is "partially effective" in the way you choose to interpret it. If the majority of dopers aren't being caught it is ineffective. That is why Howman, who is usually cautious in his statements, issued a telling warning about doping in sport only a few months ago.
If you don't provide us exact quotes, then Victor Conte and other athletes and coaches didn't say anything -- you did, based on your own recollection, which has a proven track record of misremembering facts and quotes, and embellishing the reality, with non-specific phrases like "virtually all" and "vastly greater" and "far less".
For example, I found a quote from Victor Conte estimating that "60 percent of athletes at the Games were on drugs".
And the real question is, what is his basis for such an estimate? Victor Conte wouldn't have a clue about "virtually everyone", and especially for distance runners. He was out of the loop after 2004, and even then, he just worked with a handful of his own athletes, with no real insight beyond sprinting and field athletes.
Confidential surveys do need to be reliable before we can conclude "vastly greater".
If we don't know how many are doping, we cannot know that "the numbers doping are much greater than the numbers caught". Howman called these attempts to conclude anti-doping effectiveness ILLUSIVE.
Any alleged development of drugs is immaterial, until such drugs are established to improve upon natural performance.
Regarding your words "partially effective" I'm just asking you make up your mind and pick one interpretation and stick with it. Regardless, I'm sticking with Howman's words "not effective enough" (something you denied he said, and something you originally equated to "partially effective") and "ineffective" for the qualified subset of just the dopers who are beating anti-doping rules. Howman doesn't quantify, or attempt to quantify, how many are doping, and how many are getting away with it, compared to how many are caught.
Howman's message to the other anti-doping agencies is that that they can benefit from copying what the AIU is already doing, using better intelligence to test the right athletes at the right time, to improve their effectiveness.
I'm not going to bother going around and around your mulberry bush and your manipulative distortions and representations of everything I and everyone else says. Itemizing your falsehoods would take pages. Your posts are nothing more than variations on a doping deniers manifesto. They are as far from reality as Alice in Wonderland.
Wreckrunner, get over it. You're beating of word's definitions to death doesn't change the fact that no way in he|| are only 1% of elite athletes doping. You know also that Conte's estimate is a huge number, and he has pretty daym reliable insider awareness. Most people don't have 24/7/365 in their mom's basement to revisit everything they've read over the past 30 years. You don't have to provide direct quotes to get the idea, and since your database has them, you're obviously looking it up anyway. Partially Effective is also Partially Ineffective, and most educated people (not American football meatheads) believe that's no bueno. Not until someone leaves their anti-doping position can they give the real (dismal) story.
I'm not beating definitions so much as asking Armstronglivs to commit to one position. First he suggests Howman's words mean "partially effective". When I agreed with him, he changed his tune, and started another song and dance, telling me that Howman didn't say what he said, or that Armstronglivs didn't say what he said, or that these things don't mean what he said it means.
I partially agree with you. No one says, including me, that only 1% of athletes are doping, or that only some 2-3% of dopers are being caught.
I also agree with "partially ineffective". It is our mutual friend who cannot accept that.
Whatever Conte's number is is not relevant. He was neither reliable, nor an insider, but was just pretending to be. It was in his interest to give shocking numbers as a scare tactic designed to prey on the fears of the gullible.
I'm waiting for some real stories. Until then, we are just spinning a merry-go-round of mythology.
I haven't changed my position. I have referred to Howman's description of antidoping as being "ineffective" - and adhere to the same view, while repeatedly explaining why. You ignore that because you are consumed with your own fabrications and with distorting what others say. You have to do that, because you would otherwise lose every argument on the facts and logic.
I'm not going to bother going around and around your mulberry bush and your manipulative distortions and representations of everything I and everyone else says. Itemizing your falsehoods would take pages. Your posts are nothing more than variations on a doping deniers manifesto. They are as far from reality as Alice in Wonderland.
Now you can understand why my posts responding to you are so long.
It would help if you just bothered to get the facts right. Conte never said "virtually all". That was just your misremembered embellishment.
It would help if you bothered to just substantiate anything that you say. For example, how about itemizing the top-3 falsehoods?
I don't deny doping occurs. I see that reality in annual testing reports and ADRV reports from WADA and the AIU every year. I have no doubt that they are not catching 100% of the dopers due to a number of limitations in their approach. But no one, not even Howman, can estimate how many dopers they are not catching.
With all the positive tests coming out of Kenya i assume that they are getting caught on purpose and being used as guinea pigs for the truly top athletes on the teams like Sawe. Hypothetically the agent or coach has the lower ranked members on a team take drug a,b, or c knowingly or unknowingly and see it they pass testing. If some pop 5 days after taking the drug but those tested after 6 or 7 days all pass then have the top athletes to be safe have 8 or 9 days pass before testing .yes the testing is random to us but probably not so random to those participating in it. Just like all the other sports once there is an agreed method of testing in place finding the ways to navigate and circumvent it become very easy and drug testing becomes more of an IQ test.
Kenyans are being tested much more than other countries. There is hardly any testing happening in Europe and North America.
I haven't changed my position. I have referred to Howman's description of antidoping as being "ineffective" - and adhere to the same view, while repeatedly explaining why. You ignore that because you are consumed with your own fabrications and with distorting what others say. You have to do that, because you would otherwise lose every argument on the facts and logic.
I didn't ignore "ineffective". On the contrary, I agreed with it.
For context, recall what Howman said: "... ineffectiveness in dealing with those who are beating the rules ...".
This is essentially a tautology: Howman is saying it is ineffective for those athletes where anti-doping hasn't been effective. Who could disagree? In any case not me.
In post #113, I even wrote: "It is ineffective because ...".
I agreed and agree with Howman's statement about "ineffectiveness". This was never in dispute.
I'm glad to hear now you haven't changed your position. Let me remind you what your explicitly stated position was 2+ weeks ago -- one I also agreed with:
In post #112, you quoted Howman saying (in part): "We are not effective enough nowadays in catching cheats."
In post #149, you reminded us again what Howman said -- even highlighting this text in BOLD font: "We are not effective enough nowadays in catching cheats."
In post #153, you equated "isn't effective enough" to "partially effective": "... antidoping isn't "effective enough", which suggests it is at least partially effective".
I agreed with Howman's quotes and your suggested consequence: "anti-doping is partiallly effective". "Partially effective" is also corroborated by both the AIU and WADA in annual reports -- some dopers are being caught.
You say you haven't changed your position, but in your post #153 you appear to begin to ignore, and deny, Howman ever said "We are not effective enough ...", despite your previous posts #112 and #149 quoting Howman saying just that, including adding BOLD emphasis.
And you have been denying your own suggestion of "at least partially effective" ever since I said I agreed with you.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
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.
When compared to the expertise on the side of detection you could say it is 'backyard'. It is not a literal meaning mate. But it 'is' backyard in the sense that no one knows by who or where this is done.
Have you ever stepped into a WADA lab, have you spoken to researchers in this field, to analysts? Have you read or even seen any of the thousands of papers written in support of PhD's in this field? Do you think that the doping side is more resourced in that respect?
Do you know how a GC-MS-MS or (LC-MS) detects analytes. Are you aware of how low the LOD's of these instruments are? As I said, someting like PFAS contamination in our run off waters is even detectable in arctic waters. That does not necessarily mean that they can quantify the exact dosage levels, but the mere presence of analytes would be cause for suspicion on a broader level and warrant further investigation, resources and analyses.
The argument that chemists for dopers are somehow 'working in the dark', with unpublished work, outnumbering and outwitting people with professions in the field using much more powerful instrumentation, simply does not stack up.
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.
Just a note on this bolded part.
'Athletes' in gyms do not have a requirement for testing, yet the WADA lab (in Sydney) according to a senior analyst, finds more positives in those 'athletes' or gym junkies via police samples, workplace requirement tests etc than in all the professional sportspeople via regulatory tests. They find it despite those drugs not necessarily even being on the requirements of the police or workplaces.
So it is not like they don't know that these gym junkies use. If every gym required you to be tested, they would have to build more labs. There is an infinitesimally low proportionality of professional athlete positives to gym junky positives, which in fact falsifies your argument that "the dopers are ahead of testers". If these drugs are detectable en masse in gym junkies, why are they undetectable in real athletes?
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
When compared to the expertise on the side of detection you could say it is 'backyard'. It is not a literal meaning mate. But it 'is' backyard in the sense that no one knows by who or where this is done.
Have you ever stepped into a WADA lab, have you spoken to researchers in this field, to analysts? Have you read or even seen any of the thousands of papers written in support of PhD's in this field? Do you think that the doping side is more resourced in that respect?
Do you know how a GC-MS-MS or (LC-MS) detects analytes. Are you aware of how low the LOD's of these instruments are? As I said, someting like PFAS contamination in our run off waters is even detectable in arctic waters. That does not necessarily mean that they can quantify the exact dosage levels, but the mere presence of analytes would be cause for suspicion on a broader level and warrant further investigation, resources and analyses.
The argument that chemists for dopers are somehow 'working in the dark', with unpublished work, outnumbering and outwitting people with professions in the field using much more powerful instrumentation, simply does not stack up.
you are confusing a lot of different things.
I work in detection of contaminants. there is a difference between LOD and threshold. sure if we applied LOD to many substances then we would all fail. PFAS (one of the ones i work with) is an egregious example since it is a 'forever chemical' to quote the media - it is persistant and resistant to degradation, like other POPs i work with - PCB etc. In my line of work we wouldnt be able to put crew on ships because they would fail for PCB content, especially the dutch (mother's milk).
that is why we have detection standards and threshold values, otherwise, for example with PCBs we could just test for a tinieth amount of the most persistant congener and declare contaminated.
So, we dont operate at LOD - which is a moving goalpost by the way (cf COVID detection via multiplied PCR) - and the dopers know this.
so, i am guessing what dopers do is this - they troll through all the related scientific papers, published by drug companies, for good looking chemicals. they look at effective doseage, clearance rates and testing methods. then they start from there.
they therefore save themselves vast amounts of money, and all the purported arguments you put forward start to fall away.
I work in detection of contaminants. there is a difference between LOD and threshold. sure if we applied LOD to many substances then we would all fail. PFAS (one of the ones i work with) is an egregious example since it is a 'forever chemical' to quote the media - it is persistant and resistant to degradation, like other POPs i work with - PCB etc. In my line of work we wouldnt be able to put crew on ships because they would fail for PCB content, especially the dutch (mother's milk).
that is why we have detection standards and threshold values, otherwise, for example with PCBs we could just test for a tinieth amount of the most persistant congener and declare contaminated.
So, we dont operate at LOD - which is a moving goalpost by the way (cf COVID detection via multiplied PCR) - and the dopers know this.
so, i am guessing what dopers do is this - they troll through all the related scientific papers, published by drug companies, for good looking chemicals. they look at effective doseage, clearance rates and testing methods. then they start from there.
they therefore save themselves vast amounts of money, and all the purported arguments you put forward start to fall away.
I did not say that the LOD was a pass/fail indication. I specifically said it was an indication of 'presence' and would be cause for further research etc.
By the way, PCB detection was part of my data for M.Eng and whilst I did not work in detction of contaminants, I did end up , as part of my job in supply of this high end instrumentation to customers like yourself, doing the training on usage and support of instrument up time for guys like you.
On clearance rates etc, one would have to believe that the drugs were still effective well after clearance and no testing was done before. Plus of course it is such a big secret that we still don't know 'exactly' what they are using
The podcast transcript was actually a good and very plausible summary of reasons for Sawe being clean
Let's celebrate what's been achieved instead of continuous speculation without evidence
I haven't changed my position. I have referred to Howman's description of antidoping as being "ineffective" - and adhere to the same view, while repeatedly explaining why. You ignore that because you are consumed with your own fabrications and with distorting what others say. You have to do that, because you would otherwise lose every argument on the facts and logic.
I didn't ignore "ineffective". On the contrary, I agreed with it.
For context, recall what Howman said: "... ineffectiveness in dealing with those who are beating the rules ...".
This is essentially a tautology: Howman is saying it is ineffective for those athletes where anti-doping hasn't been effective. Who could disagree? In any case not me.
In post #113, I even wrote: "It is ineffective because ...".
I agreed and agree with Howman's statement about "ineffectiveness". This was never in dispute.
I'm glad to hear now you haven't changed your position. Let me remind you what your explicitly stated position was 2+ weeks ago -- one I also agreed with:
In post #112, you quoted Howman saying (in part): "We are not effective enough nowadays in catching cheats."
In post #149, you reminded us again what Howman said -- even highlighting this text in BOLD font: "We are not effective enough nowadays in catching cheats."
In post #153, you equated "isn't effective enough" to "partially effective": "... antidoping isn't "effective enough", which suggests it is at least partially effective".
I agreed with Howman's quotes and your suggested consequence: "anti-doping is partiallly effective". "Partially effective" is also corroborated by both the AIU and WADA in annual reports -- some dopers are being caught.
You say you haven't changed your position, but in your post #153 you appear to begin to ignore, and deny, Howman ever said "We are not effective enough ...", despite your previous posts #112 and #149 quoting Howman saying just that, including adding BOLD emphasis.
And you have been denying your own suggestion of "at least partially effective" ever since I said I agreed with you.
Very soon they will agree to each other - I'm sure..
Very soon they will agree to each other - I'm sure..
The question I have is, does he agree with himself?
He originally quoted Howman, and told us what it all meant. As I noted above, I agreed with his selected quotes, and his suggestion of what one of the quotes meant.
But I guess any agreement is too much for him, because then he started denying what he previously quoted, and denying his suggestion of what it meant.
I haven't changed my position. I have referred to Howman's description of antidoping as being "ineffective" - and adhere to the same view, while repeatedly explaining why. You ignore that because you are consumed with your own fabrications and with distorting what others say. You have to do that, because you would otherwise lose every argument on the facts and logic.
I didn't ignore "ineffective". On the contrary, I agreed with it.
For context, recall what Howman said: "... ineffectiveness in dealing with those who are beating the rules ...".
This is essentially a tautology: Howman is saying it is ineffective for those athletes where anti-doping hasn't been effective. Who could disagree? In any case not me.
In post #113, I even wrote: "It is ineffective because ...".
I agreed and agree with Howman's statement about "ineffectiveness". This was never in dispute.
I'm glad to hear now you haven't changed your position. Let me remind you what your explicitly stated position was 2+ weeks ago -- one I also agreed with:
In post #112, you quoted Howman saying (in part): "We are not effective enough nowadays in catching cheats."
In post #149, you reminded us again what Howman said -- even highlighting this text in BOLD font: "We are not effective enough nowadays in catching cheats."
In post #153, you equated "isn't effective enough" to "partially effective": "... antidoping isn't "effective enough", which suggests it is at least partially effective".
I agreed with Howman's quotes and your suggested consequence: "anti-doping is partiallly effective". "Partially effective" is also corroborated by both the AIU and WADA in annual reports -- some dopers are being caught.
You say you haven't changed your position, but in your post #153 you appear to begin to ignore, and deny, Howman ever said "We are not effective enough ...", despite your previous posts #112 and #149 quoting Howman saying just that, including adding BOLD emphasis.
And you have been denying your own suggestion of "at least partially effective" ever since I said I agreed with you.
I don't know if anybody bothered to read any of that but quite frankly I wasn't one of them.