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.
Baseball is not subject to WADA and wouldn't be ranked by WADA.
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.
No. I just cite the most relevant and applicable source on the topic. There’s no projection or reasoning necessary. You don’t need to stroke your logic. If you want to say outright Clothier is a know-nothing fool, go for it. Read the article and then get back to me.
This post was edited 26 seconds after it was posted.
"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.
Wrong. "Plausible" exactly has to have an evidentiary basis or it is mere speculation or supposition. It does not mean it is proven but that there is a credible basis to it. Howman wouldn't say 30% of the sport may be doping is "plausible" without evidence to support that estimate. Accordingly, by the same reasoning, he hasn't claimed that 100% are doping is plausible. The evidence doesn't support that estimate.
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.
Baseball is not subject to WADA and wouldn't be ranked by WADA.
Nor is bodybuilding subject to WADA, but it is used as a comparison by WADA for prevalence of doping. Baseball is just another professional sport - like running. There is no sport that is free from doping.
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.
No. I just cite the most relevant and applicable source on the topic. There’s no projection or reasoning necessary. You don’t need to stroke your logic. If you want to say outright Clothier is a know-nothing fool, go for it. Read the article and then get back to me.
I am not saying Clothier is a fool. What I am doing is showing that in a sport that has serious doping issues, in which a top antidoping official says dopers are getting away with it, no top athlete gets a pass. No exceptions are made for record-breaking marathon runners from Kenya. Doping remains a possibility if not a likelihood and especially so for an athlete coming from a country that is amongst the worst doping offenders. We also know that testing does not guarantee any athlete is clean. The best you can do is hope that Sawe is clean. He may not be. I and others would argue that on the basis of where the sport is it is more likely he isn't.
Wrong. "Plausible" exactly has to have an evidentiary basis or it is mere speculation or supposition. It does not mean it is proven but that there is a credible basis to it. Howman wouldn't say 30% of the sport may be doping is "plausible" without evidence to support that estimate. Accordingly, by the same reasoning, he hasn't claimed that 100% are doping is plausible. The evidence doesn't support that estimate.
Is English your first language?
plausible: "seeming reasonable or probable"
Nothing in there about about having to have an evidentiary basis.
"credible basis" doesn't apply either, as "credible" is another synonym for "believable", and a "basis" isn't necessary to "seem reasonable or probable".
Howman didn't say that, but he quoted someone else. That someone else said the suggested prevalence range with an "evidence base" is 0-5%.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Baseball is not subject to WADA and wouldn't be ranked by WADA.
Nor is bodybuilding subject to WADA, but it is used as a comparison by WADA for prevalence of doping. Baseball is just another professional sport - like running. There is no sport that is free from doping.
Wrong. "Plausible" exactly has to have an evidentiary basis or it is mere speculation or supposition. It does not mean it is proven but that there is a credible basis to it. Howman wouldn't say 30% of the sport may be doping is "plausible" without evidence to support that estimate. Accordingly, by the same reasoning, he hasn't claimed that 100% are doping is plausible. The evidence doesn't support that estimate.
Is English your first language?
plausible: "seeming reasonable or probable"
Nothing in there about about having to have an evidentiary basis.
"credible basis" doesn't apply either, as "credible" is another synonym for "believable", and a "basis" isn't necessary to "seem reasonable or probable".
Howman didn't say that, but he quoted someone else. That someone else said the suggested prevalence range with an "evidence base" is 0-5%.
What is "plausible" is probable and probability is necessarily based on facts - which are evidence - or it wouldn't be probable. That is why civil courts use the balance of probabilities as a standard of proof. But I realize this is all over your head.
What Howman and antidoping experts agree on is the probability of doping far exceeding the numbers caught. If it wasn't so neither he nor anyone else would be concerned about doping because they would be catching all the dopers, who would number no greater than the number of positive tests - which are only 1% of tests. That would be virtually a dope-free sport. But he says antidoping is "ineffective".
Nor is bodybuilding subject to WADA, but it is used as a comparison by WADA for prevalence of doping. Baseball is just another professional sport - like running. There is no sport that is free from doping.
Bodybuilding is subject to WADA.
Then it isn't very effective, is it?
This from AI.
'Professional bodybuilding is widely considered to be heavily influenced by performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), with usage rampant in top-level competitions. While not every single competitor may use them, the use of steroids, growth hormones, insulin, and other substances is essentially standard for achieving the extreme muscle mass, extreme definition, and low body fat required to compete at the elite "pro" level.'
And this is one of the sports WADA groups t and f with for risk of doping. It isn't very hard to dope if all you want to do is run fast. The others at that level are weightlifting and cycling. All proof that doping control is "ineffective".
What is "plausible" is probable and probability is necessarily based on facts - which are evidence - or it wouldn't be probable. That is why civil courts use the balance of probabilities as a standard of proof. But I realize this is all over your head.
What Howman and antidoping experts agree on is the probability of doping far exceeding the numbers caught. If it wasn't so neither he nor anyone else would be concerned about doping because they would be catching all the dopers, who would number no greater than the number of positive tests - which are only 1% of tests. That would be virtually a dope-free sport. But he says antidoping is "ineffective".
Which civil court uses "seems probable" without any "evidence base" as a standard of proof?
'Professional bodybuilding is widely considered to be heavily influenced by performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), with usage rampant in top-level competitions. While not every single competitor may use them, the use of steroids, growth hormones, insulin, and other substances is essentially standard for achieving the extreme muscle mass, extreme definition, and low body fat required to compete at the elite "pro" level.'
And this is one of the sports WADA groups t and f with for risk of doping. It isn't very hard to dope if all you want to do is run fast. The others at that level are weightlifting and cycling. All proof that doping control is "ineffective".
Anti-doping in bodybuilding is comparatively quite effective, with around 11% samples testing positive.
What does that have to do with your claims that "Baseball isn't ranked higher for doping by WADA" and "Nor is bodybuilding subject to WADA"?
As an aside, you keep saying WADA groups "t and f" with other sports, but have never provided any such statement coming from WADA. We don't really know what you are referring to, nor what WADA really said, nor if it was WADA who said it. But it seems that any such statement would based on absolute number of AAFs/ADRVs, rather than a percentage based on the number of athletes and tests. Cycling and Athletics predictably have a higher number of AAFs/ADRVs simply because there are more athletes with more tests. But they have a significantly lower percentage than weightlifing or bodybuilding.
Assuming for argument that WADA made such a ranking, it would be based on the number of ADRVs -- i.e. the number of cases where anti-doping was "effective". This is because even WADA doesn't know to what extent anti-doping is "ineffective". How did Howman put it again? "Without a measure for doping behaviour reliably, evaluating the effectiveness of anti-doping programs is ILLUSIVE."
Assuming for argument that WADA made such a ranking, it would be based on the number of ADRVs ...
To better illustrate how "percentage" ranking tells a very different story than "absolute" number of positives, based on recent WADA Testing Reports, if we rank sports in order of % of AAFs, we get:
Here is another study which looked at testing figures from 2003-2015, when Cycling was at at 3.3% +/- 1.0, higher than Weightlifting, 3.0% +/- 0.6, and Athletics, 1.6% +/- 0.3:
The goal of this investigation was to evaluate the number of samples analyzed and the proportion of adverse/atypical findings found in some of the most popular sports using data on samples analyzed by World Anti-Doping Agency...
19 pages of speculation, lots of use of the word 'plausible', yet not one, not a single chemical PED actually named. These people must just be swigging down strange unknown mutis
19 pages of speculation, lots of use of the word 'plausible', yet not one, not a single chemical PED actually named. These people must just be swigging down strange unknown mutis
How about years of antidoping and Howman doesn't name a single ped when he says doping control is "ineffective" and dopers are "getting away with it"? So what is he and others in antidoping swigging?
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
The most obvious demonstration that Sawe will not be clean (and neither will be Kejelcha, Kiplimo or anyone else near 2 hours) is that runners today are achieving unprecedented performances far superior to the legion of dopers in the sport, who go back decades and trained just as hard. So "clean" now beats drugs - and by miles? Sure. If that's the case I don't know what Howman is bothered about when he says doping control is failing. Dopers are slower. I have some real estate to sell you on the moon.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
What is "plausible" is probable and probability is necessarily based on facts - which are evidence - or it wouldn't be probable. That is why civil courts use the balance of probabilities as a standard of proof. But I realize this is all over your head.
What Howman and antidoping experts agree on is the probability of doping far exceeding the numbers caught. If it wasn't so neither he nor anyone else would be concerned about doping because they would be catching all the dopers, who would number no greater than the number of positive tests - which are only 1% of tests. That would be virtually a dope-free sport. But he says antidoping is "ineffective".
Which civil court uses "seems probable" without any "evidence base" as a standard of proof?
Sorry, I forgot. Nothing - no facts of any kind - is "evidence" unless you accept it is. Trouble is, you always end up on the losing side - as Houlihan showed.
'Professional bodybuilding is widely considered to be heavily influenced by performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), with usage rampant in top-level competitions. While not every single competitor may use them, the use of steroids, growth hormones, insulin, and other substances is essentially standard for achieving the extreme muscle mass, extreme definition, and low body fat required to compete at the elite "pro" level.'
And this is one of the sports WADA groups t and f with for risk of doping. It isn't very hard to dope if all you want to do is run fast. The others at that level are weightlifting and cycling. All proof that doping control is "ineffective".
Anti-doping in bodybuilding is comparatively quite effective, with around 11% samples testing positive.
What does that have to do with your claims that "Baseball isn't ranked higher for doping by WADA" and "Nor is bodybuilding subject to WADA"?
As an aside, you keep saying WADA groups "t and f" with other sports, but have never provided any such statement coming from WADA. We don't really know what you are referring to, nor what WADA really said, nor if it was WADA who said it. But it seems that any such statement would based on absolute number of AAFs/ADRVs, rather than a percentage based on the number of athletes and tests. Cycling and Athletics predictably have a higher number of AAFs/ADRVs simply because there are more athletes with more tests. But they have a significantly lower percentage than weightlifing or bodybuilding.
Assuming for argument that WADA made such a ranking, it would be based on the number of ADRVs -- i.e. the number of cases where anti-doping was "effective". This is because even WADA doesn't know to what extent anti-doping is "ineffective". How did Howman put it again? "Without a measure for doping behaviour reliably, evaluating the effectiveness of anti-doping programs is ILLUSIVE."
Do you even read? How can you understand the following quoted above suggests doping control in bodybuilding is "quite effective"?
"Professional bodybuilding is widely considered to be heavily influenced by performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), with usage rampant in top-level competitions."
The claim about WADA grouping t and f with bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling for risk of doping comes from WADA. If you read more widely you would know this.
This post was edited 27 seconds after it was posted.
Based on Sawe testing routine, it would be very difficult to dope. (I think he is clean!) - With that said, I don't blame anyone for being suspicious, Kenya has earned peoples lack of trust.
