Why does everyone assume doping?

I have read publications before. I don't recall ever saying that though before now. If I did, it was not a lie. I don't know why you bring it up, except as another attempted distraction. Calling the PDF I wrote, a draft, and highlighting it's form, rather than content, looks like a similar attempt at distraction. This PDF was written by the authors and represented their interpretation of the survey data, and the kind of post-analysis necessary to make any accurate conclusions. I'll try and muster all my grace. Let's talk about the final paper. The concern of the effects of non-compliance remained in the final paper, and remains unchanged. Nothing in the paper says that authors' main message is that it is OK to ignore all 13 sources of effects they went to the trouble to identify and model, and stick with 43.6%, assuming no over-estimation or under-estimation. The data and observations have not changed between a 2015 public posting of the "PDF" by the UK Parliamentary Select Committee, and the publication in Sports Medicine in Jan. 2018. The concern of over-estimation errors due to "hasty responses" is still present in the final study. What looks like has changed is that 29-34% became 31.4%. In the Appendix dated July 6, 2017, (which can be found in the Supplementary Information), we find out what the authors presumed was necessary to eliminate over-estimation from "hasty response" errors: 4.6 Effects of Automatic Responding Regardless of the Question Received "Therefore, as already described in the main text and also in Section 2 above, we performed an analysis in which we incrementally deleted subgroups of fast responders, in order to exclude athletes who may have responded automatically (cf. Table 4). As noted in the main text, the prevalence estimates generated by the UQM declined with the exclusion of the fastest responders, but reached a plateau and showed no further declines after approximately 30% of the fastest responders were excluded. It appears likely that the exclusion of the fastest 30% of responders would almost certainly eliminate individuals who responded hastily and automatically, thus generating a group no longer contaminated by automatic responding." 4.10 Summary and Evaluation of the Effects of Various Possible Forms of Noncompliance "This leaves automatic “yes” responding as the only remaining possibility. Although this scenario would theoretically cause substantial overestimates of the prevalence of doping, this is not a serious problem because our exercise of deleting up to 30% of fast responders (see Section 3) almost certainly excluded virtually all of the automatic “yes” responders. Thus our “pure” samples of the remaining 70% of responders would presumably not be vulnerable to error from automatic “yes” responding. Our exercise would also presumably eliminate virtually all of the automatic “no” responders as well, and elimination of these individuals would of course work in the opposite direction and cause our prevalence estimate to be overly conservative. Therefore, our estimates generated on the basis of excluding 30% of the fastest responders in each case would likely represent a lower bound for the estimated prevalence of doping at each event." They informed us in three places, in the main text, and in the Appendix sections 4.6 and 4.10, to exclude the fastest 30% of responses to remove the vulnerability to this kind of error. Looking at Table 4, we see eliminating 30% as recommended corresponds to an estimated prevalence of 31.4% (or 26.5-36.3 with 95% confidence interval). This is what they are calling their lower bound. This is not much different than the range of 29-34%. 31.4% appears to be right in the middle of that range. The 29-34% looks like it came from the same table, looking at deleting the fastest 20%-50%, or maybe a different range, like 31.4 +/- SE of 2.5 (see Table 4), giving 28.9% to 33.9%, or 29-34%. In Section 3, they say "The major findings from our primary analysis of the UQM results are summarized in Table 4." One could say that "major finding from our primary analysis" was also the "main message".

staminat93 wrote:

I understand scepticism and some of it is warranted, especially regarding athletes who have giant leaps in PR's in a short amount of time (MO, Mak...etc) But assuming that someone is a drug cheat shouldn't be the assumption for anyone who has ever run a fast time . It dilutes the achievements of these pro's so much , wake the f*** up to yourselves

There isn't a proper Bioenergetics model of energy output during sporting performance that the World recognizes or is aware of.

Example, a popular misconception is that stimulants such as amphetamines or caffeine give you more energy. They do no such thing.

A correct bioenergetics model will show a trend such that athletes can consistently improve performance using less total energy due to improved efficiency. This is not recognized by most exercise physiologists simply because they lack the education to figure it out. They believe that drugs allow more energy to be used which as a general trend is a bioenergetic impossibilty. The human body does not have the capacity to do that without decreasing efficiency.

here is the red flag. from here onward, the athlete is doing something radically different.

2008 3:39.66 Birmingham (GBR) 13 JUL 2008

in a period past his physical prime, is a 338 1500 runner, he becomes in the class of ovett and coe.

while his 5000 m time does not reflect it, he really went from 1308 to 1240, again in a period after his prime.

also bolt went on a new program somewhere around 20 years of age going from mid pack to way out front.

....2006, in one year and a couple of months, he went from no 100m time at all to

9.69.

this is perfectly normal. there is nothing suspicious about this at all.

instruct your athletes to do the same.

Would it be too difficult to have an "Unlimited Category" classification of professional competition where anything goes for the athlete? No drug testing, just let the athlete take his/her chances with their health and let the times roll. They just couldn't compete with the regulated athletes.

alien observer wrote:

Would it be too difficult to have an "Unlimited Category" classification of professional competition where anything goes for the athlete? No drug testing, just let the athlete take his/her chances with their health and let the times roll. They just couldn't compete with the regulated athletes.

People would get paid to experiment on their bodies with high dosages of drugs. Legally, how do you think that would go?

Dont try to reason with these crazy people. You're not supposed to be better than them. You're not supposed to make improvements. That's how twisted their psychology is. In a relatively short time they will be gone because they and their psychology is not natural, doesnt follow natural order, laws or rhythm.

What about SFH

2004 4:09.74 Sacramento (USA) 16 JUL 2004

2003 4:01.69 Roma (ITA) 11 JUL 2003

2002 3:59.10 Zürich (SUI) 16 AUG 2002

2001 4:00.38 Monaco (MON) 20 JUL 2001

2000 3:57.40 Oslo (NOR) 28 JUL 2000⬅

1998 3:58.38 Monaco (MON) 08 AUG 1998⬅

1997 4:03.50 Sheffield (GBR) 29 JUN 1997⬅

1996 4:08.18 Eugene, OR (USA) 26 MAY 1996

1995 4:10.28 Göteborg (SWE) 07 AUG 1995

1994 4:09.26 Lausanne (SUI) 06 JUL 1994

1992 4:22.36 Barcelona (ESP) 05 AUG 1992

1991 4:10.06 Lausanne (SUI) 10 JUL 1991

1990 4:08.00 Lausanne (SUI) 12 JUL 1990

1989 4:12.29 Houston, TX (USA) 17 JUN 1989

1988 4:13.91 Eugene, OR (USA) 01 JUN 1988

1987 4:09.10 San José (USA) 27 JUN 1987

1986 4:23.83 Athina (GRE) 20 JUL 1986