Half Marathon WR holder Abraham Kiptum busted by Bio Passport!!!!!!!!

"pretends", "hypothetical scenario", and "ignoring the others" are your words. To understand the authors, I recommend you read and understand the Appendix, which concludes with a summary evaluation of all the various forms of non-compliance. The original source for phrases like "at least 29%" and "29-34%" are also the authors, representing their most conservative lower bound estimate of all the various identified forms of non-compliance. This value can still be found hidden in Table 4 (by following the authors' recommendation and then conservatively subtracting one standard error of estimate). You know all this.

casual obsever wrote:

So, 43.6% estimated prevalence* during the IAAF World Championship 2011, unlikely to be overestimated based on sensitivity analyses under numerous hypothetical scenarios (see discussion in the article for details).

Rek pretends the real result is either 29 or 30%, depending on his mood, based on his one preferred hypothetical scenario found in the main text and the appendix, ignoring the others found in the main text and the appendix.

*Note this includes only the previous 12 months, not those who doped earlier and stopped.

rekrunner wrote:

"pretends", "hypothetical scenario", and "ignoring the others" are your words.

You are lying.

rekrunner wrote:

To understand the authors, I recommend you read and understand the Appendix, which concludes with a summary evaluation of all the various forms of non-compliance.[quote]

That's a joke, right?

[quote]rekrunner wrote:

The original source for phrases like "at least 29%" and "29-34%" are also the authors, representing their most conservative lower bound estimate of all the various identified forms of non-compliance. This value can still be found hidden in Table 4 (by following the authors' recommendation and then conservatively subtracting one standard error of estimate).

You are lying.

rekrunner wrote:

You know all this.

Lolz. Try harder next time.

Arggh, I got trolled again.

Same as it ever was... wrote:

The ABP thresholds are way to generous -- it's free ride for micro-doping.

Of course. By design. And it's a lot more than "micro"doping...

What's almost funny that Poistogova et al. weren't even "suspicious" like Keitany, let alone "likely doping" like Ingebrigtsen, Radcliffe, Farah, Jager, Kiprop, Hassan, and Rupp.

casual obsever wrote:

Same as it ever was... wrote:

The ABP thresholds are way to generous -- it's free ride for micro-doping.

Of course. By design. And it's a lot more than "micro"doping...

What's almost funny that Poistogova et al. weren't even "suspicious" like Keitany, let alone "likely doping" like Ingebrigtsen, Radcliffe, Farah, Jager, Kiprop, Hassan, and Rupp.

Or Dibaba and Soulimon (or Makhloufi for that matter). I'm pretty sure Don Caitlin has indicated that some shady samples have been cleared by authorities over the years. Look at Jamaica's tainted samples from 2008 being covered up with only the slowest guy in the team being busted. The Fancy Bears crowd must have been unbeliably filthy or careless to set off high level red flags.

Thanks for the link, but having witnessed some 100+ threads endind up into the WW1 type trench warfare with no progress but only waste of resources, I will recuse myself from taking any position on this one.

casual obsever wrote:

Arggh, I got trolled again.

That is rich, considering you trolled me twice before I responded.

You are the one who keeps bringing up me and the Tuebingen study.

casual obsever wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

The original source for phrases like "at least 29%" and "29-34%" are also the authors, representing their most conservative lower bound estimate of all the various identified forms of non-compliance. This value can still be found hidden in Table 4 (by following the authors' recommendation and then conservatively subtracting one standard error of estimate).

You are lying.

No. I guess you mean what 29% represents, since these are direct quotes from the authors.

You are mistaken that the other factors were ignored.

What makes it a lower bound is that the other non-compliance factors were assumed, conservatively, to be negligible.

It is precisely these conservative assumptions that form the basis for any "unlikely to have over-estimated" suggestions.

Understood.

Aragon wrote:

Thanks for the link, but having witnessed some 100+ threads endind up into the WW1 type trench warfare with no progress but only waste of resources, I will recuse myself from taking any position on this one.

Last response for this week, troll somebody else.

rekrunner wrote:

No. I guess you mean what 29% represents, since these are direct quotes from the authors.

You are mistaken that the other factors were ignored.

What makes it a lower bound is that the other non-compliance factors were assumed, conservatively, to be negligible.

To prove that you are lying, again, look at the title of your preferred scenario (Table 4), which, again, considers only one hypothetical scenario (which, again, is a direct quote from the article).

Table 8, for example, presents a different assumption. Others are detailed in the main article.

rekrunner wrote:

Maybe you understood "top" to be performances not near the top, but further down the list.

Number 3 man all-time is from 1988, and top-2 women from mid-1980s.

My all time list for women stops at 50.99 (3074 performances) -- so no, not familiar with these women.

Jerome Young's best performance is outside top-100 and Yousef Al-Masrahi's best performance is outside top-50, versus number 3 , and number 42, and also number 53, all from 1988.

"Al-Masrahi's best performance is outside top-50?" I thought per your guidelines you count "performers not performances?"(i.e., in the case of multiple performances you take the best one?). Otherwise, MJ has 14 "performances" in the top 50. So, have your guidelines changed now for this illustration? Do I count performers or performances? Like I said earlier, Saudi superstar Al-Masrahi is the 15th fastest performer at that discipline, which is an event that has enormous depth:

Btw, your "number 3" man from 1988 served a ban for doping:

So, you make the statement: "I noticed that the choice of 400m is also an event that seems to be unimpacted at the top by the introduction of EPO into the sport."

I respond with the 15th fastest man currently at that distance who used EPO to assist with and improve his training load to run faster, and you say he's "outside the top-50." Lol.

I guess you would call EPO an all-purpose PED.

See also Marion Jones etc.

Count it however you want. I just couldn't be bothered to count performers. I showed you #3 was from 1988. Only two men were ever faster over the next 30 years. If the best you can do is #15, it's like you are arguing my point. Your #15 would have tied for #3 in 1988.

It is interesting that there are two very different lessons to take home from the fact that athletes of every second sports appear to have used EPO.

1) It can mean that one can extrapolate the presumed c:a 4 % boost almost one-to-one to all types of sports from shot put to ultra-marathon.

2) Or it can mean that all types of athletes use all methods where there is some type of potential boost where the health risks and the risk of getting caught isn't too high. It follows logically that that one can't conclude pretty much anything about efficacy of any method alone from the fact that athletes take it.

You could have completely avoided this by not trolling me in the first place, and in the second place. Table 4 is not like Table 8, or any Tables 7-12. Table 4 is the result of their primary analysis of all their raw data -- the result of all the things they measured in the study. It is not a model of a hypothetical non-compliance scenario. The sensitivity analysis performed, as a function of response time, produces new prevalence estimates -- and the authors recommended choosing the one under 30%. Table 8, and all Tables 7-12, are models of non-compliance as a function of some unknown percentage (c%, g%, or a%) of non-compliance. Non-compliance is not something the authors could measure. In each case, and in total, it could be 0%, 1%, 10%, 30%, or more. The authors have no way of knowing something they did not, or could not, measure. This is why new estimates (results of the sensitivity analysis) pulled from Table 4 can be called a lower bound -- with a very conservative assumption of full compliance from the data that remains. Then it can be argued that these new estimates from Table 4 likely underestimate true prevalence -- with a more likely and less conservative assumption that there was some non-compliance, but not knowing how much, individually, or in aggregate. It is nonsense to say that 43.6% is likely an underestimate, because there is no way for the authors to compare what is known (the over-estimate removed by the sensitivity analysis) against what is not known (any and all percentages of any form of non-compliance).

casual obsever wrote:

Last response for this week, troll somebody else.

rekrunner wrote:

No. I guess you mean what 29% represents, since these are direct quotes from the authors.

You are mistaken that the other factors were ignored.

What makes it a lower bound is that the other non-compliance factors were assumed, conservatively, to be negligible.

To prove that you are lying, again, look at the title of your preferred scenario (Table 4), which, again, considers only one hypothetical scenario (which, again, is a direct quote from the article).

Table 8, for example, presents a different assumption. Others are detailed in the main article.

Agreed. If it were 1), I imagine we would see it in performances. This was one motivation for my other lengthy performance thread last year. I guess the rational is not the one often portrayed "athletes/coaches use, because they know", but more like you said in 2), something like, "It might help, but it certainly can't hurt", or more simply, "because Lance".

Aragon wrote:

It is interesting that there are two very different lessons to take home from the fact that athletes of every second sports appear to have used EPO.

1) It can mean that one can extrapolate the presumed c:a 4 % boost almost one-to-one to all types of sports from shot put to ultra-marathon.

2) Or it can mean that all types of athletes use all methods where there is some type of potential boost where the health risks and the risk of getting caught isn't too high. It follows logically that that one can't conclude pretty much anything about efficacy of any method alone from the fact that athletes take it.

yes,we're watching a huge number of cyborgs,and lab experiments doping for gold across all events.as for the sprints,the men and women are on much stronger drugs today,than in the past,and theres a lot more of them competing.the east german women werent nearly as muscular as todays women,and actually didnt look as masculine.todays male sprinters are vastly bigger and more muscular than those in the early 1980s.weight training alone does not do that.ive watched videos of athletes in the 70s,and early 80s,and was suprised at how lean,and not muscular they were.bodybuilding morphed into a freak show,in the 90s,and other sports followed suit.

False dichotomy, obviously.

a) it could be 1% for the 400, 3% for the 5000, and 2% for the marathon, for example.

b) whatever the percentage is, it is in comparison to the clean runner. But we know that blood transfusions and roids were commonly used since either the 60s or the 70s, depending on the source. Compared to that era, there have been huge improvements across the board, well above 2%.

Finally, we are about to enter, or have already entered, the 4th decade of Epo. It's trial and error for the athletes and their teams, as is with training or nutrition. A method that doesn't work would hardly have survived that long especially considering the consequences. World record holders, Olympic champs, world champs, marathon major winners, millionaires, i.e. people with a lot of knowledge and experience and resources continue to use it - let's not ignore these facts.

Agreed. Just look into any video of baseball, basketball, football or soccer from the good old times.

Rekrunner has to toss in clean caucasian athletes to be PC, and chooses to ignore most Africans while pretending to want to make the sport fair. LOL