Why does everyone assume doping?

A little math reminder about percentages -- you cannot compare percentages of different things in a meaningful way. Just about every one of these statistics you reported is looking at something different. Here is some complimentary information to help readers make an informed opinion: 1) As you instructed, I went to see the Tübingen report on their survey results. Good thing too, as I might have been easily misled, going just by the figures your reported. Fast (suggesting hasty and careless) responses seem to increase the estimated prevalence, the numbers you reported, by a significant 15% points. That observation during their sensitivity analysis was too significant for the study conductors to ignore, so the authors wrote: "we would estimate 29-34% prevalence (at WCA) and 45-50% prevalence at PAG", and considered these values a conservative underestimate (see Tübingen/Harvard study). I noted too that the PAG survey included 965 participants, while in "our extremely dirty sport" there were only 295 (non-disabled) track athletes participating at PAG. Most of the PAG respondents must have come from some of the other 27 sporting events, like bodybuilding, weightlifting, and cycling. So we could conservatively say "roughly 1/3" at WCA, and, when looking at Pan-Arab athletes (which excludes KEN and ETH), and including more sports outside of "our extremely dirty sport", then we could say "roughly 1/2". 2) 14% is based on blood markers (i.e. Hgb and RET%), which would only indicate a partial subset of all doping. The Tübingen survey looked at all categories of doping, and not just the doping substances and techniques that would trigger abnormal blood values. So first we cannot really say "2/3" (see point 1), and second, some of the cheaters that don't get noticed by blood, might eventually get noticed by other tests, e.g. urine. Note also that 14% of abnormal blood values is not exactly the same as 14% blood doping. There can be false positives for non-doping reasons, as well as false negatives not detected by false positive thresholds. Actual blood doping prevalance among endurance athletes could be higher or lower than 14% of abnormal blood values. 3) It was 33% of medals won, not 33% of medal winners. 33% is counting medals, while 14% is counting athletes. If athletes with abnormal blood values win more than one medal, over the course of 12 years, this will increase the number of medals won, but not the number of athletes who won them. Note also that the IAAF blood values (1 in 7) also included throwers and sprinters, like the Tübingen surveys, while the medals won only came from endurance events. Note also that both 33% and 14% were based on an athlete with an abnormal value in the database, at any time in their career, and not necessarily during the event that the medal was won. 4) It is 2% of samples tested, not 2% of athletes. This is mitigated by taking more than 1 sample from athletes, over the course of their career. By the way, does Saugy participate in 3-person expert panels, handpicked by the IAAF? Do you have a link? This doesn't seem like a role he would play anymore, given his status in anti-doping research, and running a WADA lab. If you are not comparing the same things with the same units to each other, it is easy to get misled, or to mislead others, by an improper comparison of percentages.

casual obsever wrote:

Couple of reminders, for those who still pretend to not believe that we are in an extremely dirty sport, and it is easy to dope:

1) Roughly half of all championship athletes dope (likely underestimated, see Tübingen/Harvard study).

2) Only 14% have suspicious ABP values, thanks to the ridiculously generous thresholds. So 2/3 of the cheats don't even get noticed (example EPO cheat Poistogova), let alone banned (example EPO cheat Savinova, and the growing IAAF list of "likely dopers").

3) The better the athlete, the more suspicious (see IAAF leak/Seppelt: 33% of the medal winners had suspicious ABP values, compared to 14% overall).

4) Less than 2% get banned, among other things thanks to the complicated procedure and beyond-a-doubt unanimity requirement of the 3-person panel, hand-picked by IAAF (example plan-B Russian and Armstrong advisor and sample destroyer Saugy). So most cheats get away with it.

...

No, you're just clearly a racist that thinks all performances coming from Africans are doped. That's literally the definition of racial stereotyping.

Well, talking about one "suspicious" performance is not "casting wide suspicion on innocent athletes". It depends on the reasons that form the basis of your suspicion, and what you want to say, as to whether it belongs to a serious discussion of "African doping".

On the outside looking in wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Even when you read them, you didn't really understand them.

If you want to have a serious discussion about the African doping problem, try to do it without pointing the finger at innocent athletes.

Casting wide suspicion on innocent athletes is doing more harm than good. That is what is going to kill the sport.

You mean only tallk about positive doping cases with Kenyans? So, if we see a supicious performance we're suppose to not say anything?

As a matter of correctness, I don't think I ever defended Kiprop. If he doped, as indicated by the positive A-sample and B-sample confirmation, then he must be sanctioned, and any performances annulled, and money returned. It's also amusing that you put me and casual obsever in two different doping apologist camps, and portray us only "appearing to disagree". I actually agree with most of his facts, but find that they are often one-sided, leading to exaggerated conclusions, so I must often point out complementary facts. Nevertheless, it demonstrates a clear and serious comprehension issue on your side. Name calling with "doping apologist" appears to be its own "diversionary tactic" to avoid addressing the merits of what was under discussion, like your sweeping stereotypical generalizations. In my case, people often avoid discussing my doubts about causes and magnitudes of fast performances, by falsely equating it to a stance on the morality of taking banned substances or methods. Suggesting motives like "on somebody's payroll" is another "diversionary tactic" designed to attack the messenger, again due to an ability to address the merits of the message. For you to turn around and start using the term "diversionary tactic", and bounce back the label "racist", is an obvious copycat argument designed to generate confusion. If you want to talk about the African doping problem, and solutions, you should start talking about these things. But stop pointing a sweeping finger at innocent athletes -- that is not "talking about the solutions", and it is damaging to the sport.

Coevett wrote:

Others of them stridently deny Africans are cheats, even when they've been busted (for example Rekrunner and Canova's defence of Kiprop).

Both African doping apologist camps rely on the racism shaming card. Sometimes the two camps appear to disagree with each other, endlessly in the case of Casual Observer and RekRunner. I suspect this all might be staged as another diversionary tactic, to derail any rational discussion of solutions to the African doping problem.

TRIGGERED

a) "a conservative underestimate" - so you really shouldn't use 29%, if 29-34% is underestimated. Yet you continue doing so.

b) "too significant for the study conductors to ignore", but not significant enough to deserve being mentioned in the abstract or conclusion. There you find the key points as follows (cited in full):

Still don't get it? Estimated prevalence 44% at the IAAF Championship, unlikely to be overestimated.

Let that sink in - you really should stop pretending that the 44% are overestimated.

Cottonshirt wrote:

The idea that the Brits of the 80s were all blood doping and using steroids is all speculation with no evidence whatsoever on your part.

You can just go to the IAAF website and browse the all time list and see the ridiculous rise and fall in African times.

so, you're saying that browsing the IAAF results lists is conclusive proof that the Africans are doping, because of the rise and fall of their times, but no one has ANY evidence that the Brits of the 80's were doping.

there is no way you can believe both of things to be simultaneously true and still expect to be taken seriously.

cheers.

☝️You better not cast any suspicions on the Brits of the 80s or you'll have to bear the wrath of Covett.

By George Mate wrote:

Cottonshirt wrote:

so, you're saying that browsing the IAAF results lists is conclusive proof that the Africans are doping, because of the rise and fall of their times, but no one has ANY evidence that the Brits of the 80's were doping.

there is no way you can believe both of things to be simultaneously true and still expect to be taken seriously.

cheers.

☝️You better not cast any suspicions on the Brits of the 80s or you'll have to bear the wrath of Covett.

I would be surprised if Steve Ovett doped. I have no doubts about Seb Coe blood doping. The finish runners rise and fall have to do with every else figuring out blood doping. The Moroccans/Algerians are no doubt dirty. Kenyans and Ethiopians probably don't even realize they're doping, their Italian coaches/doctors probably tell them there taking vitamins. I wouldn't doubt if the clean world record is by Herb Elliott. 3:35 is probably the max for a clean athlete.

What I continue to do is to complement your presentation of half the facts, with more facts you have ignored. You instructed us to see the whole study, not limiting us to the abstract or conclusion. Your insistence that 44% is likely an underestimate is only possible by using the abstract, and willfully ignoring the actual contents of the study -- contents you surely already know. Yet you continue to ignore half the facts, and somehow suggest I'm wrong for quoting verbatim from the study you directed me to see. In any case, I find 29% mentioned in both the introduction and the conclusion of the report that the UK Parliament decided should be published. It's the first thing and the last thing the authors said. In the very first paragraph, I find "... we found that the prevalence of reported past-year doping was at least 29%, and at the 12th Quadrennial Pan-Arab Games (PAG) in Doha, Qatar, the prevalence was at least 45%". And in the closing paragraphs, the last estimates I find are: "In summary, our estimates of 29%-34% and 45%-50% likely represent lower bounds for the prevalence of past-year doping at WCA and PAG, respectively." They do not open or close with 44%, because it would be intellectually dishonest. I'll take your silence on PAG as your understanding and acceptance that the higher prevalance at the Pan-Arab Games is not representative, because it includes a very narrow subset of the population (e.g. no Americans, Europeans, or Kenyans, or Ethiopians), and because it appears to combine many sports outside of track and field. An overall finding of 29-34% seems plausible, given an estimate of 14% suspicious blood values, and estimating a similar prevalence of "non-blood" doping (e.g. for field, sprints, and strength events). This means roughly 1/3 and not roughly 1/2. The authors were not completely happy with the method, giving us their own beliefs and suggestions about the quality of the estimates supported by their data, and the further need to continue to refine their methodology.

Yes, you will find local cyclists with sustainable power of the top pros. And no, it doesn't follow that they would give up their job and lifetyle and move to France to live out of a suitcase for months at a time. That is the difference, the dedication required to be a pro cyclist.

And NO, EPO doesn't improve performance. The sustainable power is already there. And no Lance Armstrong et al didn't produce 7 watts per kilo on long climbs, try 6 watts per kilo. There is enough information out there for you to drag you and your peer group dullards out of the 90s and into reality.

You can't exceed your normal oxygen uptake by any means. Have a real think about it if you can, your homeostatic limits can't be exceeded. That, do I have to keep reminding you, is basic physiology? But I know you will stay on the bandwagon until another one comes along, that's your career on the line ain't it Luv2Run?

Doping = brainwashing. It's another form of religious dogma. People like you are the really naieve ones.

rekrunner wrote:

money returned.

Nice joke Rek, ?

RANK FINAL TIME 1999 1500m

Med 1.png Hicham El Guerrouj (MAR) 3:27.65 (CR)

Med 2.png Noah Ngeny (KEN) 3:28.73

Med 3.png Reyes Estévez (ESP) 3:30.57

4. Fermín Cacho (ESP) 3:31.34

5. Andrés Manuel Díaz (ESP) 3:31.83

RANK FINAL TIME 1999 5000m

Med 1.png Salah Hissou (MAR) 12:58.13 (CR)

Med 2.png Benjamin Limo (KEN) 12:58.72

Med 3.png Mohammed Mourhit (BEL) 12:58.80

4. Brahim Lahlafi (MAR) 12:59.09

5. Daniel Komen (KEN) 13:04.71

By your standards, that's actually quite good trolling. "quoting verbatim", yes, this time you didn't outright lie for a change, but you are trying to sell a casually mentioned hypothesis as the main message:

Yet the word "would" gives it away, troll. It was not an "observation". That sentence begins with two conditions/hypotheses that you chose to not cite, of course ("even if assuming conservatively that (a) ... and (b)...).

The real conclusion is:

Get it? No conditions, no "would". No matter what your British politicians made out of that. Estimated prevalence 44% at the IAAF Championship, unlikely to be overestimated.

Let that sink in - you really should stop pretending that the 44% are overestimated.

Not bad, "the authors", but everyone can see that you meant the British politicians "analysing" the study, not the authors of the study. Stick to the original, not to the politicians. Oh man...

Too funny. Fact: the key difference between you and me here is that you go with that extremely low number mentioned under two hypotheses, while I go with the official "estimated prevalence" as given in the results part of the abstract:

"The estimated prevalence of past-year doping was 43.6% (95% confidence interval 39.4–47.9) at WCA…. we were unlikely to have overestimated the true prevalence of doping."

and in the main discussion part (not "just" the abstract as you claimed):

"We obtained strikingly high estimates of the prevalence of past-year doping at both events: 43.6% (95% CI 39.4–47.9) at WCA..."

You could also have added the fact that the authors came to a higher prevalence of 63% under a different hypothesis as mentioned in Table 8, but alas, in contrast to my balanced approach you are always so extremely one-sided.

Next time you pretend only 29% were drug cheats, I might remind you that you could just as well go with 63%. Why don't you stick to the facts for a change?

You could do that. Or remember that I am not inclined to correct all your trolling. Or notice that I am merely talking about the WCA - the world championship in athletics, not your Pan-Arab Games.

The main message is surely NOT in the abstract, but in the paper itself. Compared to the paper it is describing, the abstract looks misleading -- just the way you like it. Again, I refer you back to your own paper, that opened and closed with 29-34%, and only mentioned 43.6% as the raw survey result, before a discussion of the many possible scenarios of respondent non-compliance that would cause a difference between the raw survey result and the true prevalence. The main message is surely NOT the raw survey results assuming 100% respondent compliance. Half of the report was a discussion that addresses different possible scenarios in which the raw survey results could be WRONG. They looked at six possible scenarios, in addition to the "hasty responses", which merited it's own section and figures (Supplementary Information, section 3 and Figures 3-4) before closing the paper indicating that 29-34% likely represents (their hypothesis?) a lower bound. It is correct and consistent with the study to say "at least 29%". Regarding hasty responses, they noted a 15% point difference in both events when including hasty responses with vary rapid response times, "suggesting possible carelessness or failure to adequately read the instructions" and after "touching "yes" twice on the screens" "mechanistically responding "yes" on successive screens". This wasn't a casually mentioned hypothesis, but acknowledged as a documented issue in these types of surveys: "Such behavioral rigidity has been documented in prior psychological studies. (22) (22) A. S. Lucins, E. H. Lucins, Rigidity of behavior: A variational approch to the effect of Einstellung" You follow the pattern of sticking with data that the authors themselves gave many reasons to be doubted, as if considering such doubts is optional, or even worse, not an option. If the data is hasty and careless, then so is your conclusion. I did not quote British politicians, but the persons who conducted the study: Ulrich, Pope Jr., CLeret, Petroczi, Nepusz, Schaffer, Kanayama, Comstock Rabin, Simon. The British politicians decided to make the paper public, but I quoted the paper and the words written by the original conductors of the study. And finally, you got the conclusion wrong. Here it is from the Abstract:

Why? Because people are stupid.

rekrunner wrote:

The main message is surely NOT in the abstract, but in the paper itself.

Let me guess: you have never ever written any kind of publication, let alone reviewed one.

To be clear: that wasn't a guess.

rekrunner wrote:

Compared to the paper it is describing, the abstract looks misleading -- just the way you like it. Again, I refer you back to your own paper, that opened and closed with 29-34%, and only mentioned 43.6% as the raw survey result

It most certainly does not. None of your statements is true. That paper, as peer-reviewed and published (DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4), doesn't even mention these 29% that you find so very important; "open and closed with 29-34%" - why do lie so much, so stupidly, for everyone to see?

No matter where you found that, UK parliament, IAAF propaganda, or completely made up, it is not in the original work. And it comes there too with the disclaimers of EVEN ASSUMING a and b and WOULD. So much for that being the most important result, troll.

What you can find in the actual article, is instead:

Abstract:

"The estimated prevalence of past-year doping was 43.6% (95% confidence interval 39.4–47.9) at WCA

...

we were unlikely to have overestimated the true prevalence of doping."

Results chapter:

"We obtained strikingly high estimates of the prevalence of past-year doping at both events: 43.6% (95% CI 39.4–47.9) at WCA"

Discussion chapter:

"Thus each of these three possible forms of noncompliance would have caused us to underestimate the true prevalence of doping."

Along those lines, remember that you can also find a prevalence of 63% under a different hypothesis as mentioned in Table 8.

Give it up, troll, as much fun as that was for me to correct you again and again and again and again and again.

I know you have lost when you say "troll", and it's sad that you think doubling down on the same mistakes is proving me wrong. You are consistently, and wrongly, presenting intermediate survey results as a final conclusion of the study. The survey results are an input to the analysis and conclusion of the study. An important aspect of the study is analyzing if these kinds of social science surveys can provide an accurate model for these estimates. After reading a discussion about all the things that can make survey results inaccurate, the most dishonest thing you can do is pretend the authors believed the net impact would be null, as their main message and final conclusion. The 29% estimate comes, not from me, but directly from the conductors of the study, and the authors of the report, for the 2011 World Championship Daegu, after discussing all the things that can cause the survey results to inaccurately represent the true prevalence. They had to have this discussion, because they themselves knew that 43.6% was very likely the wrong value, for many reasons they listed, and it would be dishonest to report that as a conclusion, without a proper discussion or mention of how many things can go wrong with a survey of this type. The words of the authors are available to the public for everyone to see (see PDF link below). If you doubt the truthfulness of these statements, you have to bring that up with the authors, not me. I am not the liar in this scenario. I doubt the authors are lying. Here is a PDF copy of the discussion of the survey results, where you can find the study conductors saying "at least 29%" in the very first paragraph, on page 2, and again in the second to last paragraph, on page 6 "our estimates of 29-34%".http://10ste93kec2i6oi6nlhmxd19.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/WADAs-athlete-doping-prevalence-survey.pdf It's not just me. What is the common and most obvious interpretation of the study? Most of the write-ups I've seen referencing this study reports 29%. For example, the New York Times is typical: "More than 2,000 track and field athletes participated in the study, and according to the findings, which were reviewed by The New York Times, an estimated 29 percent of the athletes at the 2011 world championships ..." When interpreting the study report, most sources report, by a crudely estimated factor of 14x, the revised estimates of 29-34% over the survey result of 43.6%: Google finds "974 results" when searching for: "29%" "34%" doping "world championship" daegu Google finds "69 results" when searching for: "43.6%" doping "world championship" daegu You seem to have trouble with the word "WOULD". Has that become an American thing since I left the country?

rekrunner wrote:

The main message is surely NOT in the abstract, but in the paper itself.

Yeah that's right. Scientists never want to put the main message of their published study into the abstract. Instead they prefer to bury it somewhere in some obscure sentence in the discussion ....

Something like that. Not sure whether to laugh or to cry. Oh boy.

Yes, I advised months ago to check the study. And yet, despite your repeated claims, you still haven't done it. Instead you go with some pdf from somewhere:

At least now you are calling it a "discussion of the survey results". That is not the published article, where you don't find the 29%, not even once.

I thought you read publications before? Was that a lie too? Nowadays, they have the correct journal name on top, often repeated on every page, along with year, volume, sometimes issue, page number(s). They are in a two column format, with the figures embedded at the right position, and no extra list of the figure captions, which instead appear directly under (seldom above) each figure.

Yours is a draft. Really, you should have seen that, even with just the lowest level of experience, such as that of a casual reader of scientific work. Troll.

Also, if you look close enough, you find on page 9, that the authors intended to submit this work to Nature (and maybe did, but then unsuccessfully):

"Supplementary information is linked to the online version at

;

Aside from learning that this work appeared in Sports Medicine instead, we can also see that the 29% - oh so important according to you, and embarrassingly to the New York Times - disappeared either (a) before final submission, or (b) because of the peer review.

If (a), then the authors considered its relevance even lower than in that draft; if (b), then there was something wrong with the authors' speculation, pointed out by the referees, and accepted by both the editor and the authors.

Free lesson for you, take it gracefully instead of further insulting my intelligence.