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.
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?
You've misinterpreted my observation about gym junkies. I wasn't claiming that their using couldn't be readily detected, it was to make the point that use is widespread because drugs are easily accessible. This will be the similar for competitive sports. As Howman and others have indicated, drug use in sport isn't being constrained because antidoping is "ineffective".
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.
I have known WADA officials and discussed doping with them. They have told me the dopers are ahead of them; WADA knows they are using but can't catch them - "they've gotten really good at it".
The biopassport is itself an acknowledgment that dopers know how to beat testing. Some also know how to beat the passport.
If antidoping was truly on top of doping sports would not have a doping problem.
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.
Howman doesn't have to give an exact figure to estimate that doping far exceeds the numbers caught. He has said that, when he says doping is always ahead of antidoping. It is impossible to obtain an exact figure of a practice that is clandestine. There isnt a "register" of dopers, as much as you somehow imagine there should be. His statement that doping control is "ineffective" - no ifs, buts or maybes - is also an acknowledgment that doping exceeds the numbers caught - or it would obviously be "effective".
Conte has made repeated comments that doping is right through sports at championship level. In 2012 before the Olympics he was asked how many of the 100m finalists will be on drugs. He said,"all of them. The difference between 9.7 and 10-flat is drugs". He was amongst those who held the view that there is no elite sport without drugs. He would know better than most as he provided many with drugs.
I don't know if anybody bothered to read any of that but quite frankly I wasn't one of them.
TL;DR version
I agreed with you when you quoted "We are not effective enough ...". I agreed with you when you quoted again, adding emphasis "We are not effective enough ...". I agreed with your logic "... antidoping isn't "effective enough" (...) suggests it is at least partially effective". I also agreed with you when you quoted "... ineffectiveness in dealing with those who are beating the rules ...".
Howman doesn't have to give an exact figure to estimate that doping far exceeds the numbers caught. He has said that, when he says doping is always ahead of antidoping. It is impossible to obtain an exact figure of a practice that is clandestine. There isnt a "register" of dopers, as much as you somehow imagine there should be. His statement that doping control is "ineffective" - no ifs, buts or maybes - is also an acknowledgment that doping exceeds the numbers caught - or it would obviously be "effective".
Conte has made repeated comments that doping is right through sports at championship level. In 2012 before the Olympics he was asked how many of the 100m finalists will be on drugs. He said,"all of them. The difference between 9.7 and 10-flat is drugs". He was amongst those who held the view that there is no elite sport without drugs. He would know better than most as he provided many with drugs.
Howman doesn't say "doping far exceeds the numbers caught".
So Conte said something (maybe) about 100m finalists in 2012? What does that have to do with Sawe in the marathon in 2026?
I don't know if anybody bothered to read any of that but quite frankly I wasn't one of them.
TL;DR version
I agreed with you when you quoted "We are not effective enough ...". I agreed with you when you quoted again, adding emphasis "We are not effective enough ...". I agreed with your logic "... antidoping isn't "effective enough" (...) suggests it is at least partially effective". I also agreed with you when you quoted "... ineffectiveness in dealing with those who are beating the rules ...".
Then you changed your position.
You're talking to yourself. Howman said antidoping is "ineffective". I would agree with that.
Howman doesn't have to give an exact figure to estimate that doping far exceeds the numbers caught. He has said that, when he says doping is always ahead of antidoping. It is impossible to obtain an exact figure of a practice that is clandestine. There isnt a "register" of dopers, as much as you somehow imagine there should be. His statement that doping control is "ineffective" - no ifs, buts or maybes - is also an acknowledgment that doping exceeds the numbers caught - or it would obviously be "effective".
Conte has made repeated comments that doping is right through sports at championship level. In 2012 before the Olympics he was asked how many of the 100m finalists will be on drugs. He said,"all of them. The difference between 9.7 and 10-flat is drugs". He was amongst those who held the view that there is no elite sport without drugs. He would know better than most as he provided many with drugs.
Howman doesn't say "doping far exceeds the numbers caught".
So Conte said something (maybe) about 100m finalists in 2012? What does that have to do with Sawe in the marathon in 2026?
Conte has talked about doping at the Olympics and expressed the view that most competitors will be doping. He didn't make an exception for any sport or running event. The number of Kenya athletes busted in recent years reinforces that view and shows that distance athletes are amongst the worst offenders.
Howman has said dopers will be more than 10% of championship athletes but not as many as those who claim virtually everyone is doping - he has said "somewhere in between". Since the numbers caught through tests will be less than 1% of dopers he is effectively saying the actual number of dopers far exceeds that. It has to follow. That is why he says antidoping is "ineffective". He would not make that claim if most dopers were being caught.
Everyone knows your position at this point. Just let Howman, WADA, the AIU do the work instead of completely taking statements out of context to suit your world view. We have Clothier’s comments on both Kenya and Sawe in an article here by Jonathan Gault. He is directly commenting on the regimen by the athlete, doping in Kenya by marathoners, testing in Kenya of marathoners, and Sawe himself. Of course he can’t definitively say he’s clean but he still says a whole lot in the piece. Way more than Howman/Conte and in way more specificity. So I’d suggest you absorb his comments and cite them because they are far more relevant than your magnifying of years-old generalized comments.
Sawe underwent 25 out-of-competition drug tests in the two months before winning last year's Berlin Marathon. We spoke to Sawe and the AIU's Brett Clothier about the impact Sawe's announcement has had on the sport, and their...
I agreed with you when you quoted "We are not effective enough ...". I agreed with you when you quoted again, adding emphasis "We are not effective enough ...". I agreed with your logic "... antidoping isn't "effective enough" (...) suggests it is at least partially effective". I also agreed with you when you quoted "... ineffectiveness in dealing with those who are beating the rules ...".
Then you changed your position.
You're talking to yourself. Howman said antidoping is "ineffective". I would agree with that.
I also agreed with Howman when he said "... ineffectiveness in dealing with those who are beating the rules ...".
Conte has talked about doping at the Olympics and expressed the view that most competitors will be doping. He didn't make an exception for any sport or running event. The number of Kenya athletes busted in recent years reinforces that view and shows that distance athletes are amongst the worst offenders.
Howman has said dopers will be more than 10% of championship athletes but not as many as those who claim virtually everyone is doping - he has said "somewhere in between". Since the numbers caught through tests will be less than 1% of dopers he is effectively saying the actual number of dopers far exceeds that. It has to follow. That is why he says antidoping is "ineffective". He would not make that claim if most dopers were being caught.
Again, why should I care what Conte says, unless it is directly about BALCO and the Clear and his sprinting and field athletes before 2004?
Assuming he actually said what you claim, did he provide any real bases for such claims?
The number of Kenyans busted tell us athletes are being caught by anti-doping, and nothing about dopers not being caught.
Nothing tells us, or tells Howman, how many dopers are not being caught.
It goes without saying that anti-doping is effective at catching dopers who don't beat anti-doping rules.
Howman quoted his expert saying, if we go by the evidence, then the dopers are just 0-5% overall. Anything more is just baseless and/or unreliable speculation, including from Howman.
Again, why should I care what Conte says, unless it is directly about BALCO and the Clear and his sprinting and field athletes before 2004?
Assuming he actually said what you claim, did he provide any real bases for such claims?
The number of Kenyans busted tell us athletes are being caught by anti-doping, and nothing about dopers not being caught.
Nothing tells us, or tells Howman, how many dopers are not being caught.
It goes without saying that anti-doping is effective at catching dopers who don't beat anti-doping rules.
Howman quoted his expert saying, if we go by the evidence, then the dopers are just 0-5% overall. Anything more is just baseless and/or unreliable speculation, including from Howman.
0-5%? in what world are you getting that set of numbers? At the 2012 games, athletes, in an anonymous survey SELF REPORTED they used PEDS at around 50%.
Fifty percent.
As much as I hate to agree with Conte, his comment on “without drugs, there is no elite sport” is true.
0-5%? in what world are you getting that set of numbers? At the 2012 games, athletes, in an anonymous survey SELF REPORTED they used PEDS at around 50%.
Fifty percent.
As much as I hate to agree with Conte, his comment on “without drugs, there is no elite sport” is true.
I was talking about going "by the evidence", which is described as "weak and fragmented". Anonymous surveys have not yet been established as providing reliable estimates. (And I suppose you mean the survey at the 2011 World Championship -- this is outdated now).
Those figures comes from David Howman at USADA's annual symposium last year in 2025, quoting the "Chair of the WADA Prevalence Committee", and making a distinction between "the evidence base" and what is "plausible" (i.e. "believable" but lacking "evidence"):
"I quote from the Chair of the WADA Prevalence Committee: "Despite the importance and abundance of cumulated data over time 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, and up to 30% as the most plausible estimate in sport- and method- specific analyses."
This post was edited 13 seconds after it was posted.
Conte has talked about doping at the Olympics and expressed the view that most competitors will be doping. He didn't make an exception for any sport or running event. The number of Kenya athletes busted in recent years reinforces that view and shows that distance athletes are amongst the worst offenders.
Howman has said dopers will be more than 10% of championship athletes but not as many as those who claim virtually everyone is doping - he has said "somewhere in between". Since the numbers caught through tests will be less than 1% of dopers he is effectively saying the actual number of dopers far exceeds that. It has to follow. That is why he says antidoping is "ineffective". He would not make that claim if most dopers were being caught.
Again, why should I care what Conte says, unless it is directly about BALCO and the Clear and his sprinting and field athletes before 2004?
Assuming he actually said what you claim, did he provide any real bases for such claims?
The number of Kenyans busted tell us athletes are being caught by anti-doping, and nothing about dopers not being caught.
Nothing tells us, or tells Howman, how many dopers are not being caught.
It goes without saying that anti-doping is effective at catching dopers who don't beat anti-doping rules.
Howman quoted his expert saying, if we go by the evidence, then the dopers are just 0-5% overall. Anything more is just baseless and/or unreliable speculation, including from Howman.
If doping is 0.5% of athletes then that means all dopers are being caught, because that is much the same number of positive tests. That cannot mean antidoping is "ineffective" and dopers "are getting away with it". Howman would be a laughing stock to suggest that antidoping is catching all the dopers. But he doesn't say that, despite your misinterpretation of what he has said. Because you always misrepresent to suit your arguments you left out the part of his comments when he acknowledged that up to 30% of athletes doping is "plausible". He cannot say how many dopers are not being caught, because they haven't been caught, but he (and others in antidoping) have a pretty good idea about the size of that iceberg - even if you don't.
So, in regard to your dismissing Conte, someone whose business was to actually dope top athletes has no credibility in discussing doping by top athletes. And what is yours?
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
0-5%? in what world are you getting that set of numbers? At the 2012 games, athletes, in an anonymous survey SELF REPORTED they used PEDS at around 50%.
Fifty percent.
As much as I hate to agree with Conte, his comment on “without drugs, there is no elite sport” is true.
I was talking about going "by the evidence", which is described as "weak and fragmented". Anonymous surveys have not yet been established as providing reliable estimates. (And I suppose you mean the survey at the 2011 World Championship -- this is outdated now).
Those figures comes from David Howman at USADA's annual symposium last year in 2025, quoting the "Chair of the WADA Prevalence Committee", and making a distinction between "the evidence base" and what is "plausible" (i.e. "believable" but lacking "evidence"):
"I quote from the Chair of the WADA Prevalence Committee: "Despite the importance and abundance of cumulated data over time 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, and up to 30% as the most plausible estimate in sport- and method- specific analyses."
"And up to 30% as the most plausible." So 1 in 3 athletes doping is "plausible". He has acknowledged estimates could be higher but he is choosing a conservative estimate because of the limited nature of the evidence available in a clandestine practice.
Everyone knows your position at this point. Just let Howman, WADA, the AIU do the work instead of completely taking statements out of context to suit your world view. We have Clothier’s comments on both Kenya and Sawe in an article here by Jonathan Gault. He is directly commenting on the regimen by the athlete, doping in Kenya by marathoners, testing in Kenya of marathoners, and Sawe himself. Of course he can’t definitively say he’s clean but he still says a whole lot in the piece. Way more than Howman/Conte and in way more specificity. So I’d suggest you absorb his comments and cite them because they are far more relevant than your magnifying of years-old generalized comments.
You will say that because you wish to believe Sawe is clean. But no series of tests prove Sawe is clean; they only prove he hasn't tested positive for drugs. That is the same for a lot of doped athletes. You ignore the fact that most tests do not produce a positive. Only 1% are positive but the estimated number of dopers is far higher than that - so most dopers aren't caught. That means antidoping is "ineffective", as Howman has said this year.
Sawe comes from one of the worst nations for doping in the sport - and a sport that has been ranked up there by WADA with bodybuilding for risk of doping. The stream of violations coming out of Kenya has gone on for years. Would you similarly trust a Russian athlete that has tested clean to be clean beyond doubt? Or any competitive body-builder? That is any top Kenyan distance runner today.
Of course Howman doesn't name any individual athlete but when he talks about the "ineffectiveness" of doping control and how dopers are "getting away with it" he is exactly describing athletes like Sawe. They are consistently beating antidoping. He doesn't say regularly tested Kenyans and other E Africans who happen to run outlandish times must be exceptions.
Again, why should I care what Conte says, unless it is directly about BALCO and the Clear and his sprinting and field athletes before 2004?
Assuming he actually said what you claim, did he provide any real bases for such claims?
The number of Kenyans busted tell us athletes are being caught by anti-doping, and nothing about dopers not being caught.
Nothing tells us, or tells Howman, how many dopers are not being caught.
It goes without saying that anti-doping is effective at catching dopers who don't beat anti-doping rules.
Howman quoted his expert saying, if we go by the evidence, then the dopers are just 0-5% overall. Anything more is just baseless and/or unreliable speculation, including from Howman.
0-5%? in what world are you getting that set of numbers? At the 2012 games, athletes, in an anonymous survey SELF REPORTED they used PEDS at around 50%.
Fifty percent.
As much as I hate to agree with Conte, his comment on “without drugs, there is no elite sport” is true.
Rekrunner left out the part of Howman's comment when he said "up to 30% is plausible". There are of course less conservative estimates than that, such as that indicated in confidential athlete surveys and by other sports professionals - like Jose Canseco, who said 85% of pro baseball players were doping. Baseball isn't ranked higher for doping by WADA than t and f, which is ranked with body-building, weightlifting and cycling for risk of doping.
"And up to 30% as the most plausible." So 1 in 3 athletes doping is "plausible". He has acknowledged estimates could be higher but he is choosing a conservative estimate because of the limited nature of the evidence available in a clandestine practice.
"plausible" is what someone is willing to "believe" without an "evidence base".
I'm really not interested in who acknowledges which estimates when they are not based on evidence.
If doping is 0.5% of athletes then that means all dopers are being caught, because that is much the same number of positive tests. That cannot mean antidoping is "ineffective" and dopers "are getting away with it". Howman would be a laughing stock to suggest that antidoping is catching all the dopers. But he doesn't say that, despite your misinterpretation of what he has said. Because you always misrepresent to suit your arguments you left out the part of his comments when he acknowledged that up to 30% of athletes doping is "plausible". He cannot say how many dopers are not being caught, because they haven't been caught, but he (and others in antidoping) have a pretty good idea about the size of that iceberg - even if you don't.
So, in regard to your dismissing Conte, someone whose business was to actually dope top athletes has no credibility in discussing doping by top athletes. And what is yours?
Your "if-then" hypotheticals are equally uninteresting.
The fact remains that statements like "dopers are getting away with it" are non-quantifiable. We could assume it is non-zero, as Howman claims, but beyond that, we cannot, and even Howman cannot, know if that quantity is significant, compared to the dopers that are caught. Any attempt to put any figure on that would be "faith based", and even Howman says determining the effectiveness of anti-doping is "ILLUSIVE". Your belief that anyone has a "pretty good idea about the size" is just more faith that even Howman rejected.
With respect to Conte, where is the basis for any of his statements? Without any basis in reality, he is no more expert than you -- just another travelling preacher. I will listen to his version of history with respect to athletes like Marion Jones and CJ Hunter, but that is where his expertise ends, and ended, in 2004. I get that you are a willing follower of all things doping, but I am not so gullible as to believe whatever anyone is willing to say to suit their own agenda.
