Is Sabastian Sawe showing that the sport is cleaner than we thought?

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

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".

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."

Armstronglivs wrote:

From AI. The three dirtiest sports.

"Based on the Anti-Doping Statistics and recent testing figures published by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the three sports that consistently record the highest volume of doping violations and adverse analytical findings globally are:
Athletics (Track and Field): Consistently accounts for the highest number of overall positive tests and doping suspensions worldwide.
Weightlifting: Continues to be one of the highest-risk sports for severe substances like anabolic steroids.
Cycling: Historically a major area of concern for performance-enhancing drugs like EPO and blood doping. [1, 2, 3, 4]"

Bodybuilding also rates high, according to the percentage of violations as against tests.

Yet despite what the figures above might suggest, Howman says antidoping is "ineffective". So most dopers arent being caught and t and f will be worse than the numbers of violations indicate.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

From AI. The three dirtiest sports.

"Based on the Anti-Doping Statistics and recent testing figures published by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the three sports that consistently record the highest volume of doping violations and adverse analytical findings globally are:
Athletics (Track and Field): Consistently accounts for the highest number of overall positive tests and doping suspensions worldwide.
Weightlifting: Continues to be one of the highest-risk sports for severe substances like anabolic steroids.
Cycling: Historically a major area of concern for performance-enhancing drugs like EPO and blood doping. [1, 2, 3, 4]"

Bodybuilding also rates high, according to the percentage of violations as against tests.

Yet despite what the figures above might suggest, Howman says antidoping is "ineffective". So most dopers arent being caught and t and f will be worse than the numbers of violations indicate.

This is consistent with what I said. If you simply count AAFs and ADRVs, athletics will have the most, by virtue of the large number of samples tested.

However, if you rank the sports based on the ratio of AAFs/ADRVs to samples, as a percentage, you will find that athletics slips to #7, and is only marginally above the overall average.

Howman doesn't say "most dopers aren't being caught". That is your nonsense.

And this "ineffectiveness" will apply to all sports, not significantly changing the rankings.

Here is what AI says about 2023, when Athletics (and Cycling) fell below the global average:

ChatGPT wrote:

Using the 2023 [WADA Anti‑Doping Rule Violations (ADRV) Report](https://www.wada-ama.org/en/data-research/anti-doping-statistics?utm_source=chatgpt.com), I calculated the rate of Adverse Analytical Findings (AAFs) as:

> **AAF rate = total AAFs ÷ total samples tested**

To avoid tiny-sample distortions (e.g. sports with only a few dozen tests), I filtered to sports with at least ~400 samples in 2023.

## Highest AAF rates by sport (2023)

| Rank | Sport | Samples | AAFs | AAF rate |
| ---- | ------------------------- | ------: | ---: | ---------: |
| 1 | Bodybuilding | 865 | 101 | **11.68%** |
| 2 | Fitness | 516 | 50 | **9.69%** |
| 3 | Mixed Martial Arts | 461 | 34 | **7.38%** |
| 4 | Para-Powerlifting | 1,410 | 23 | **1.63%** |
| 5 | Boxing | 5,223 | 66 | **1.26%** |
| 6 | Judo | 4,812 | 40 | **0.83%** |
| 7 | Athletics (track & field) | 41,477 | 333 | **0.80%** |
| 8 | Basketball | 6,524 | 51 | **0.78%** |
| 9 | Cycling | 24,781 | 179 | **0.72%** |
| 10 | Rugby Union | 10,386 | 58 | **0.56%** |

These figures come directly from the sport-by-sport AAF tables in the 2023 report.

## Overall average across all sports

WADA reported:

* **271,775 total samples**
* **2,301 AAFs**

So the overall global AAF rate in 2023 was:

[
2301 / 271775 \approx 0.8467%
]

So the overall average was approximately:

> **0.85% of all samples tested produced an AAF**

A notable takeaway is that athletics had a very large absolute number of positives (333 AAFs), but because it is tested so heavily, its rate was lower than bodybuilding, combat sports, and several strength-focused sports.

Armstronglivs wrote:

What a load of meaningless waffle. However you try to minimize it athletics remains the worst doping offender in global sport. "The highest number of positive tests and doping suspensions world wide". What an appalling indictment. If it was a clean sport we would see far fewer violations in relation to the number of tests. We don't. It is a very dirty sport. Now construct an argument that doping isn't really a serious problem in Kenyan sport.

As far as Howman's comments are concerned, he wasn't saying most dopers are being caught if he was claiming antidoping is "ineffective". His comment means the opposite, that most aren't being caught. That must be the case if doping positives number 1% of tests and yet athlete surveys show at least 1 in 3 top athletes admit to doping, if not higher.

Your ridiculous arguments that try to minimize if not dismiss doping in running are like an argument that the Mafia are just a bunch of misunderstood but well meaning businessmen who have nothing to do with organized crime.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What a load of meaningless waffle. However you try to minimize it athletics remains the worst doping offender in global sport. "The highest number of positive tests and doping suspensions world wide". What an appalling indictment. If it was a clean sport we would see far fewer violations in relation to the number of tests. We don't. It is a very dirty sport. Now construct an argument that doping isn't really a serious problem in Kenyan sport.

As far as Howman's comments are concerned, he wasn't saying most dopers are being caught if he was claiming antidoping is "ineffective". His comment means the opposite, that most aren't being caught. That must be the case if doping positives number 1% of tests and yet athlete surveys show at least 1 in 3 top athletes admit to doping, if not higher.

Your ridiculous arguments that try to minimize if not dismiss doping in running are like an argument that the Mafia are just a bunch of misunderstood but well meaning businessmen who have nothing to do with organized crime.

It doesn't make much sense to count the positive samples without considering the total number of samples. It should be obvious, even to you, that if Athletics has 41,477 samples tested in a year, and Bodybuilding has 865 samples tested in a year, that Athletics will most likely find more AAFs. That, in and of itself, isn't an appaling indictment, when viewed in the context of total samples. Depending on the year of WADA's report, Athletics is +/- the overall average of all sports.

Howman's comment doesn't say either/or about "most dopers". That is still your nonsense. In fact, Howman calls such efforts to determine anti-doping effectiveness "ILLUSIVE".

Athlete survey methodologies need to be refined before they can be considered reliably accurate. And we need a more recent survey than 2011.

It does not "minimize" doping by ranking sports by AAFs per 100 samples tested. But it seems you are penalizing athletics unfairly because it is a collection of many disciplines (running, sprinting, throws, jumps, race-walking, combined events, road racing, ...) with many athletes providing many samples.

As ChatGPT explained:

"A notable takeaway is that athletics had a very large absolute number of positives (333 AAFs), but because it is tested so heavily, its rate was lower than bodybuilding, combat sports, and several strength-focused sports."

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

How can anything be "plausible" if it has no factual basis? Silly question - you never show anything you claim is plausible.

It is a silly question for one I presume has English as a first language.

It is most telling that the "Chair of the WADA Prevalence Committee" did not indicate the "plausible" estimate as one having an "evidence base".

"Plausible" is a synonym for "believable", and doesn't necessarily require a factual basis. It is enough to give the appearance or impression of fact or circumstance or evidence strong enough to form a presumption, but not strong enough to form a proof, that something might be real or true, but not necessarily so.

Perhaps these definitions will make it clearer for you:

plausible: seeming reasonable or probable

seeming: appearing to be real or true, but not necessarily being so; giving the impression of having a specified quality

reasonable: being in accordance with reason, fairness, duty, or prudence; supported or justified by fact or circumstance.

probable: supported by evidence strong enough to establish presumption but not proof

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

The detail of your post amounts only to your fixed view that doping is not a significant factor in t and f - which is demonstrably false - and where it does occur it does not aid performance. Everything you post amounts to that same position. It isn't rational and it isn't correct. It is your religion.

Are you saying you literally cannot understand why there are more positive results from a pool of 41,477 samples, than there are from a pool of 865 samples, and why the sport with by far the most samples tested wouldn't also end up with the most AAFs and ADRVs?

All of the details in my post come straight from the WADA ADRV report of 2023, and I've shown you my method and my math, with explanations what they mean. Regarding the significance, since Athletics is about the same as the global overall average of all sports, this suggests that doping is as much a significant factor in T&F, as it is in many other sports.

Regarding doping aiding performance, you said it best when you said "trying is not succeeding". Just provide the delta performance data to support your beliefs.