I base my views on what the data and experts say. When only 1% of tests are positive and yet the former head of WADA says doping control is "ineffective" that means dopers are mostly getting away with it. It isn't a few who "slip the net". That is naive wishful thinking. 25 years ago dopers like Marion Jones were able to beat the testers. Doping is always ahead of antidoping - that, too, from Howman. Antidoping is only window dressing, to give the appearance of clean sport. It isn't working.
Can you share some of this data?
I listen to what "experts" say, and then ask myself if it is supported by, and consistent with, the data.
If Howman were saying what you say, he is effectively admitting anti-doping is incompetent. If the effectiveness is catching only 1 in 50 dopers, and even then, mostly the slow and the stupid, maybe all of the countries should really reconsider whether it is worth all the investment.
But Howman wasn't saying things like "mostly getting away with it". That is purely your own imagination. What he was pitching was increasing the role of intelligence and investigations to improve effectiveness with target testing, rather than ADAs and ADOs just testing randomly 3x whenever to meet a quota. He was even offering to share what the AIU was doing in that respect, suggesting he wasn't talking so much about athletics anti-doping, under his leadership.
The reason you can only come up with examples like Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong, is because you are stuck in the past, thinking there are hundreds of BALCOs and thousands of Lance Armstrongs.
He doesn't have data. he just bases opinion on what he has heard WADA say, which in my intepretation is more to do with the policing and avoidance of tests. More testing and you will get more positives, but questioning the actual methodology and instrumentation with a person that literally was responsible for installing, servicing, supporting instruments in an actual WADA lab shows that he doesn't care about facts.
People don't 'beat the tests' because their drugs, or analogues, or ions thereof are 'not seen' by these extremely sensitive instruments. They walk a tight rope of avoidance and this is the opposite of what Sawe did.
So in a thread about Sawe, you cannot say , given his availability and amount of tests, that they cannot detect what he supposedly has.
As an aside, when customers complain about 'ghost peaks' in the chromatograph sending my guys into a rabbit hole of 'trying to fix' the instrument, I usually say "there is no such thing as a ghost peak...it is something in the sample that the instrument is detecting...or introduced in the testing procedure, just follow the path, its usually a Occams Razor solution". These instruments and methods are extremely sensitive.
They aren't "quantifying" anything; they are making estimates on the basis of the limited data they have. If the studies provided unarguable data on what improvements in actual times that would afford runners these threads speculating on what the shoes might enable wouldn't exist. The debate would be over.
We have posters claiming a 10 second improvement over a mile from wearing the shoes, and others saying it might only be a second - if that - for a top runner. That isn't data. It is conjecture - and it hasn't been resolved by the studies.
Are you thick. They are quantifying the O2 usage and other measurable parameters. However, runners are not machines, like a car engine where you can work out what that means in speed etc. You cannot determine how much it would affect a particular human, because there are decisions made, different footstrike etc, plus loads of uncontrollable variables in human.
The bottom line is that shoes are not providing an external source of energy.
We have posters claiming a 10 second improvement over a mile from wearing the shoes
He didn't claim that. You know he didn't claim that. He came back to clarify he didn't claim that. I quoted that part replying to you to show you he didn't claim that.
We have posters claiming a 10 second improvement over a mile from wearing the shoes
He didn't claim that. You know he didn't claim that. He came back to clarify he didn't claim that. I quoted that part replying to you to show you he didn't claim that.
Why are you lying knowingly?
He did claim exactly that. He didn't "clarify" - he shifted his position when I pointed out to him the ludicrous nature of that claim. I don't lie. You can't read.
They aren't "quantifying" anything; they are making estimates on the basis of the limited data they have. If the studies provided unarguable data on what improvements in actual times that would afford runners these threads speculating on what the shoes might enable wouldn't exist. The debate would be over.
We have posters claiming a 10 second improvement over a mile from wearing the shoes, and others saying it might only be a second - if that - for a top runner. That isn't data. It is conjecture - and it hasn't been resolved by the studies.
Are you thick. They are quantifying the O2 usage and other measurable parameters. However, runners are not machines, like a car engine where you can work out what that means in speed etc. You cannot determine how much it would affect a particular human, because there are decisions made, different footstrike etc, plus loads of uncontrollable variables in human.
The bottom line is that shoes are not providing an external source of energy.
More waffle. You can't say by how much the shoes will improve performance. No one can. It is conjecture still.
I listen to what "experts" say, and then ask myself if it is supported by, and consistent with, the data.
If Howman were saying what you say, he is effectively admitting anti-doping is incompetent. If the effectiveness is catching only 1 in 50 dopers, and even then, mostly the slow and the stupid, maybe all of the countries should really reconsider whether it is worth all the investment.
But Howman wasn't saying things like "mostly getting away with it". That is purely your own imagination. What he was pitching was increasing the role of intelligence and investigations to improve effectiveness with target testing, rather than ADAs and ADOs just testing randomly 3x whenever to meet a quota. He was even offering to share what the AIU was doing in that respect, suggesting he wasn't talking so much about athletics anti-doping, under his leadership.
The reason you can only come up with examples like Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong, is because you are stuck in the past, thinking there are hundreds of BALCOs and thousands of Lance Armstrongs.
He doesn't have data. he just bases opinion on what he has heard WADA say, which in my intepretation is more to do with the policing and avoidance of tests. More testing and you will get more positives, but questioning the actual methodology and instrumentation with a person that literally was responsible for installing, servicing, supporting instruments in an actual WADA lab shows that he doesn't care about facts.
People don't 'beat the tests' because their drugs, or analogues, or ions thereof are 'not seen' by these extremely sensitive instruments. They walk a tight rope of avoidance and this is the opposite of what Sawe did.
So in a thread about Sawe, you cannot say , given his availability and amount of tests, that they cannot detect what he supposedly has.
As an aside, when customers complain about 'ghost peaks' in the chromatograph sending my guys into a rabbit hole of 'trying to fix' the instrument, I usually say "there is no such thing as a ghost peak...it is something in the sample that the instrument is detecting...or introduced in the testing procedure, just follow the path, its usually a Occams Razor solution". These instruments and methods are extremely sensitive.
Howman didn't say dopers are getting away with it because they are ducking tests. If they duck tests they can incur a violation. They are getting away with it because tests don't always - in fact only rarely - detect doping. Far more than 1% of athletes are doping and only 1% of tests return a positive. It has been so since the Marion Jones era that athletes have been able to dope and yet pass drug tests. Athletes know how to mask their drug usage. That is why they can incur a violation if they are caught using masking drugs. If testing was effective there would be no need for the biopassport or to keep blood samples for 10 years. Antidoping is always trying to play catch up - and it is losing, which is why Howman says it is "ineffective".
I base my views on what the data and experts say. When only 1% of tests are positive and yet the former head of WADA says doping control is "ineffective" that means dopers are mostly getting away with it. It isn't a few who "slip the net". That is naive wishful thinking. 25 years ago dopers like Marion Jones were able to beat the testers. Doping is always ahead of antidoping - that, too, from Howman. Antidoping is only window dressing, to give the appearance of clean sport. It isn't working.
Can you share some of this data?
I listen to what "experts" say, and then ask myself if it is supported by, and consistent with, the data.
If Howman were saying what you say, he is effectively admitting anti-doping is incompetent. If the effectiveness is catching only 1 in 50 dopers, and even then, mostly the slow and the stupid, maybe all of the countries should really reconsider whether it is worth all the investment.
But Howman wasn't saying things like "mostly getting away with it". That is purely your own imagination. What he was pitching was increasing the role of intelligence and investigations to improve effectiveness with target testing, rather than ADAs and ADOs just testing randomly 3x whenever to meet a quota. He was even offering to share what the AIU was doing in that respect, suggesting he wasn't talking so much about athletics anti-doping, under his leadership.
The reason you can only come up with examples like Marion Jones and Lance Armstrong, is because you are stuck in the past, thinking there are hundreds of BALCOs and thousands of Lance Armstrongs.
Howman is saying dopers are mostly getting away with it. He has said it for years, that doping is always ahead of antidoping and doping is "more sophisticated" than antidoping. When you add to this his comments that antidoping is "ineffective" it says that the dopers are ahead in the game. He isn't saying - and has never said - that antidoping catches most dopers but a few get away with it. That would be success. When interviewed on the subject the best he could come up with to justify antidoping is that it might deter some from doping and make it just a bit harder to dope, to avoid a careless doping free-for-all. Enormous amounts of money are spent world-wide by athletes doping. Al Jazeera reported estimates of over over a billion dollars annually on the black market. It isn't money that athletes throw down the drain. But you can't cope with any of this because it would destroy all your illusions about the sport.
This post was edited 45 seconds after it was posted.