I believe that the samples taken were also used to evaluate testo levels for the purposes of determining its effects on performance and then on to the decision to restrict certain females from certain events.
I just quoted it for you -- they were tested "as part (of) the routine anti-doping procedure". Not research, but routine anti-doping. No duress due to research. No breach of ethics.
You selectively quote.
So what was it : research or anti doping.?If it was anti doping why was it stated a giving advance notice? Did the results go down on the athletes records or Adams.?
I selected just the quotes to completely debunk you. Notably you keep saying things like "they were told ...", while selecting no quotes. Can you quote who was told what by whom? Otherwise it never happened.
It is not either/or. The blood collection was both "routine anti-doping" and the data was later used for "research".
Why wouldn't in-competition testing be advanced notice? We are not talking about no-notice out-of-competition testing.
The IAAF has confirmed that since the ABP, they put all post-2009 blood data in WADA's ADAMs database. This would include both the 2011 and 2013 World Championships.
So what was it : research or anti doping.?If it was anti doping why was it stated a giving advance notice? Did the results go down on the athletes records or Adams.?
I selected just the quotes to completely debunk you. Notably you keep saying things like "they were told ...", while selecting no quotes. Can you quote who was told what by whom? Otherwise it never happened.
It is not either/or. The blood collection was both "routine anti-doping" and the data was later used for "research".
Why wouldn't in-competition testing be advanced notice? We are not talking about no-notice out-of-competition testing.
The IAAF has confirmed that since the ABP, they put all post-2009 blood data in WADA's ADAMs database. This would include both the 2011 and 2013 World Championships.
The sample giving was not in competition; why do you invent stuff so?
Even if in competition it would not be by request and no chaperoning.Would it?
So what was it : research or anti doping.?If it was anti doping why was it stated a giving advance notice? Did the results go down on the athletes records or Adams.?
I selected just the quotes to completely debunk you. Notably you keep saying things like "they were told ...", while selecting no quotes. Can you quote who was told what by whom? Otherwise it never happened.
It is not either/or. The blood collection was both "routine anti-doping" and the data was later used for "research".
Why wouldn't in-competition testing be advanced notice? We are not talking about no-notice out-of-competition testing.
The IAAF has confirmed that since the ABP, they put all post-2009 blood data in WADA's ADAMs database. This would include both the 2011 and 2013 World Championships.
So if it is was for research and people were not to know who the samples came from then how on earth did they get in individuals Adams? Come on Del Boy ; solve that one.
Can you stop repeating it? Or can you create a new thread dedicated to repeating it there?
This thread is about the validity of the research.
My questions are about such.
You responded and then I pointed out the illogical nature of your response.
You then try and run away. Are you actually Armstronglivs? Or Del Shannon ? …. my little runaway, runaway.
Indeed this thread is about "Estimated doping prevalence at the 2011 World Championships Athletics". It would be different if you were actually talking about the actual research or the estimates.
I have already explained everything with quotes to back it up. You have explained nothing and provided no quotes. So basically its like it never happened outside of your mind. You have fabricated a series of non-issues that seem to impact and concern no-one.
The samples were collected in the ordinary course of anti-doping. The athletes have an obligation to provide samples at an event when asked by the testing authority. Everyone seems on board with that and no one has objected.
Subsequently, a group of researchers used data from the population of anonymized samples to do a bunch of math, and make a bunch of graphs.
This thread is about the validity of the research.
My questions are about such.
You responded and then I pointed out the illogical nature of your response.
You then try and run away. Are you actually Armstronglivs? Or Del Shannon ? …. my little runaway, runaway.
Indeed this thread is about "Estimated doping prevalence at the 2011 World Championships Athletics". It would be different if you were actually talking about the actual research or the estimates.
I have already explained everything with quotes to back it up. You have explained nothing and provided no quotes. So basically its like it never happened outside of your mind. You have fabricated a series of non-issues that seem to impact and concern no-one.
The samples were collected in the ordinary course of anti-doping. The athletes have an obligation to provide samples at an event when asked by the testing authority. Everyone seems on board with that and no one has objected.
Subsequently, a group of researchers used data from the population of anonymized samples to do a bunch of math, and make a bunch of graphs.
Not part of a normal doping control process; no normal doping control forms; athletes to to attend at a precise appointment time ( advanced notice) and told they had to give a sample for research otherwise they could not complete.
Not part of a normal doping control process; no normal doping control forms; athletes to to attend at a precise appointment time ( advanced notice) and told they had to give a sample for research otherwise they could not complete.
Sorry -- you continue to be demonstrably wrong, and you continue to fail to provide one single supporting quote.
The study says it was "part of routine anti-doping" -- I already quoted that. That is uncontested by all parties.
As part of routine anti-doping, the DCFs were entered into ADAMs. This is also public information confirmed by a WADA committee. (See WADA IC Report #2 from 2016, specifically and explicitly confirming DCFs entered into ADAMs from January 2009 onwards, including for 1880 tests in Daegu 2011, leading to 186 atypical ABP passports -- i.e. routine anti-doping process).
Including the data in a subsequent study doesn't negate that the primary purpose was routine anti-doping conducted according to WADA ABP guidelines.
Giving "Advanced notice" doesn't really mean anything. Testing authorities for an event can give advanced notice for event testing as part of the routine anti-doping process.
And finally, outside of your imagination, no one was ever told "they had to give a sample for research otherwise they could not complete." Unless you can provide a supporting quote, that just never happened, and you are just making things up.
So yes, routine anti-doping process; yes, normal DCFs; yes entered into ADAMs; yes, athletes instructed by event testing authority to be tested at event; yes, with advance notice as part of routine process; and no, athletes were not told they had to give a sample for research as a condition for competing.
Not part of a normal doping control process; no normal doping control forms; athletes to to attend at a precise appointment time ( advanced notice) and told they had to give a sample for research otherwise they could not complete.
Sorry -- you continue to be demonstrably wrong, and you continue to fail to provide one single supporting quote.
The study says it was "part of routine anti-doping" -- I already quoted that. That is uncontested by all parties.
As part of routine anti-doping, the DCFs were entered into ADAMs. This is also public information confirmed by a WADA committee. (See WADA IC Report #2 from 2016, specifically and explicitly confirming DCFs entered into ADAMs from January 2009 onwards, including for 1880 tests in Daegu 2011, leading to 186 atypical ABP passports -- i.e. routine anti-doping process).
Including the data in a subsequent study doesn't negate that the primary purpose was routine anti-doping conducted according to WADA ABP guidelines.
Giving "Advanced notice" doesn't really mean anything. Testing authorities for an event can give advanced notice for event testing as part of the routine anti-doping process.
And finally, outside of your imagination, no one was ever told "they had to give a sample for research otherwise they could not complete." Unless you can provide a supporting quote, that just never happened, and you are just making things up.
So yes, routine anti-doping process; yes, normal DCFs; yes entered into ADAMs; yes, athletes instructed by event testing authority to be tested at event; yes, with advance notice as part of routine process; and no, athletes were not told they had to give a sample for research as a condition for competing.
You selectively quote out of context.
The athletes were said to be requested to participate. How does this fit with Anti-Doping?
And even in your own terms how can you generalise when you could take part or not.?
Sorry -- you continue to be demonstrably wrong, and you continue to fail to provide one single supporting quote.
The study says it was "part of routine anti-doping" -- I already quoted that. That is uncontested by all parties.
As part of routine anti-doping, the DCFs were entered into ADAMs. This is also public information confirmed by a WADA committee. (See WADA IC Report #2 from 2016, specifically and explicitly confirming DCFs entered into ADAMs from January 2009 onwards, including for 1880 tests in Daegu 2011, leading to 186 atypical ABP passports -- i.e. routine anti-doping process).
Including the data in a subsequent study doesn't negate that the primary purpose was routine anti-doping conducted according to WADA ABP guidelines.
Giving "Advanced notice" doesn't really mean anything. Testing authorities for an event can give advanced notice for event testing as part of the routine anti-doping process.
And finally, outside of your imagination, no one was ever told "they had to give a sample for research otherwise they could not complete." Unless you can provide a supporting quote, that just never happened, and you are just making things up.
So yes, routine anti-doping process; yes, normal DCFs; yes entered into ADAMs; yes, athletes instructed by event testing authority to be tested at event; yes, with advance notice as part of routine process; and no, athletes were not told they had to give a sample for research as a condition for competing.
You selectively quote out of context.
The athletes were said to be requested to participate. How does this fit with Anti-Doping?
And even in your own terms how can you generalise when you could take part or not.?
And I was there!
The “ test” was not in completion thus you can’t give notice : can you?
So simply reading the study gives you a "deep understanding"? And the IAAF and those who reported it don't have that? But your "deep understanding" has also shown you (but only you it seems) the "limitations" of the study. And these are?
Oh no. Like anything else educational, it also requires applying the intellectual effort necessary to process the facts and statements and concepts, not to mention the necessary foundational background. Of course the IAAF (sic) and other researchers who reported the "limitations" understand what they reported. That is why I provided the link, and directed you to the respective papers and sections -- for you to read about them in their own words. (I didn't link the study on the population of IAAF blood samples, but can on request).
Once you have read the linked material with deep comprehension, you might be able to understand and explain why one anonymous survey, based on birthdays and doping questions, gives a range of 12.5%-30%, while another, also based on birthdays and doping questions, gives two empirical estimates: a lower-bound of 31.4% in addition to the survey result of 43.6%.
I am just going with your previous assertion that cautions against forming conclusions based on anonymised surveys. If your comments accurately represent your views any conclusions formed about such research can only be speculation. I didn't think you were into that. Yet that is what you have invited with this thread.
Sorry -- you continue to be demonstrably wrong, and you continue to fail to provide one single supporting quote.
The study says it was "part of routine anti-doping" -- I already quoted that. That is uncontested by all parties.
As part of routine anti-doping, the DCFs were entered into ADAMs. This is also public information confirmed by a WADA committee. (See WADA IC Report #2 from 2016, specifically and explicitly confirming DCFs entered into ADAMs from January 2009 onwards, including for 1880 tests in Daegu 2011, leading to 186 atypical ABP passports -- i.e. routine anti-doping process).
Including the data in a subsequent study doesn't negate that the primary purpose was routine anti-doping conducted according to WADA ABP guidelines.
Giving "Advanced notice" doesn't really mean anything. Testing authorities for an event can give advanced notice for event testing as part of the routine anti-doping process.
And finally, outside of your imagination, no one was ever told "they had to give a sample for research otherwise they could not complete." Unless you can provide a supporting quote, that just never happened, and you are just making things up.
So yes, routine anti-doping process; yes, normal DCFs; yes entered into ADAMs; yes, athletes instructed by event testing authority to be tested at event; yes, with advance notice as part of routine process; and no, athletes were not told they had to give a sample for research as a condition for competing.
You selectively quote out of context.
The athletes were said to be requested to participate. How does this fit with Anti-Doping?
And even in your own terms how can you generalise when you could take part or not.?
The athletes were said to be requested to participate. How does this fit with Anti-Doping?
And even in your own terms how can you generalise when you could take part or not.?
And I was there!
The “ test” was not in completion thus you can’t give notice : can you?
In completion?
Not me, but yes -- the Event testing authority is empowered by the WADA Code (2009) to initiate and direct testing during the Event Period, including advanced notice in exceptional circumstances.
The athletes were said to be requested to participate. How does this fit with Anti-Doping?
And even in your own terms how can you generalise when you could take part or not.?
And I was there!
My quotes are in context. And they are uncontested.
You don't select any quotes in any context, so have yet to raise any point.
The quote in context says that athletes were requested to participate in routine anti-doping.
Athletes are obliged by WADA to participate in routine anti-doping -- and the athletes have agreed to be subject to WADA.
This includes their agreement and informed consent that their routine anti-doping samples and results can be used for research purposes if anonymized.
Therefore athletes have agreed and consented to be both subject to anti-doping and have their anti-doping results subject to research.
Now you are here, trying to suggest there is a controversy where there is none, because routine anti-doping was subsequently used for research.
Your quotes can’t be found anywhere in the paper at the head of this thread. You are exposed as a charlatan of the highest order.More so than Armstronglivs as he never ever pretends to have done any reading.
Now; even in your own terms, can you make one reference in the Wada code or any of its international standards were there is a request to attend in 24 hrs.You have been asked this many many times.
And, would you be satisfied as a researcher covered by a University’s research ethics requirements that joining a sports club gives informed consent to an unknown research project ten years down the line? Note “ informed consent”.
The “ test” was not in completion thus you can’t give notice : can you?
In completion?
Not me, but yes -- the Event testing authority is empowered by the WADA Code (2009) to initiate and direct testing during the Event Period, including advanced notice in exceptional circumstances.
How interesting, let’s assume you can provide more and better detail, we are still left with no Anti-Doping forms being issued.
Oh no. Like anything else educational, it also requires applying the intellectual effort necessary to process the facts and statements and concepts, not to mention the necessary foundational background. Of course the IAAF (sic) and other researchers who reported the "limitations" understand what they reported. That is why I provided the link, and directed you to the respective papers and sections -- for you to read about them in their own words. (I didn't link the study on the population of IAAF blood samples, but can on request).
Once you have read the linked material with deep comprehension, you might be able to understand and explain why one anonymous survey, based on birthdays and doping questions, gives a range of 12.5%-30%, while another, also based on birthdays and doping questions, gives two empirical estimates: a lower-bound of 31.4% in addition to the survey result of 43.6%.
I am just going with your previous assertion that cautions against forming conclusions based on anonymised surveys. If your comments accurately represent your views any conclusions formed about such research can only be speculation. I didn't think you were into that. Yet that is what you have invited with this thread.
Isn't that a universal truth? Where there is uncertainty, especially with these indirect methods, you should always exercise caution. It seems like it goes without saying that any conclusion in any domain is subject to the validity of its assumptions, and any limitations of the observations and methodologies. That is why a deep understanding of the assumptions and limitations are so important. We are fortunate here that all three studies have explicitly stated their limitations.
I'm not asking anyone to blindly accept any conclusion over another, but rather suggesting not to blindly accept any conclusions at all. Putting the three studies covering the same event together in one thread gives everyone another opportunity to reflect on any prior conclusions that they may have blindly accepted, in light of the wide range of different results from the different approaches.
For example, you have frequently rounded up one survey result to "one in two" as if it were established fact. If we consider the reported 95% confidence intervals, you could be forgiven for rounding up 47.9% to 50%. But "one in two" is beyond the upper extreme of all the estimates of the three studies combined, for WCA 2011. At the lower extreme, we have a 95% CI estimate of 12.5%, or "one in eight". I have seen no reasons to prefer "one in two" over "one in eight", beyond personal preference, and in fact, the UQM authors themselves gave us empirical reasons to doubt "one in two", as they themselves recommended an exercise based on measured observations to produce a lower bound estimate closer to "one in three".
For blood doping in men's distance running, we have seen this lower extreme drop to 9%, or "one in eleven" (the 95% CI from "one in seven"). The blood doping estimate might be more relevant when accusing Kenyan men of dominating with EPO in the EPO-era, than an estimate that combines male and female sprinters, jumpers, throwers, vaulters, and distance runners into one consolidated estimate. If another study averaged all of their weights into one figure, would you use that average to estimate the weight of a Kenyan marathon runner, as well as the American shotputter?