If all it takes is an increased number of tests doping would have been eradicated years ago. But the problem goes deeper than that. As Howman says - doping is more sophisticated than antidoping.
What an absurd comment. They are testing most athletes once a month if that. If you tested once every couple of days a huge number would slip up. This is clear from test refusals, positive tests, ABP cases and missed tests. Your blanked statement refers to the state of things at the current level of testing. It doesn’t become some blanket statement for every scenario/frequency of testing.
There is no such thing as a scenario that involves testing every athlete in the middle of the night. What would increase the likelihood of catching some dopers is simply not possible. You also naively think that that testing will be able to detect every drug. It can't. Masking has been a growing practice for over twenty five years. The fractional number of positives - only 1% of tests - isn't the result of testing practices that enable most dopers to avoid detection, it is that drugs are extremely difficult to detect because they are constantly evolving so as to avoid detection.
The bottom line is that antidoping cannot eradicate doping and catch all the dopers; all it can do is make it a bit harder and so deter some who would dope. But done expertly dopers won't be caught. And they aren't.
So if a Russian tested clean, despite the rampant doping amongst Russian athletes, you would be confident they were clean?
I wouldn't argue American athletes are clean based on the levels of corruption shown in the political leadership they've chosen. Their sport is part of the same culture.
This old poofter can’t resist bringing up Trump. Meanwhile, his nation voted in a corrupt hag who forced them to get vaxxed while she and other politicos received a totally different shot, no side effects for them! Not a peep from Army of his fellow sheeple for the most part. But that’s the socialist mindset, all while pointing fingers at those capable of independent thought.
Sawe? Look no farther than his coach. His coach dopes athletes. He’s had six caught, the rest have gotten away with doping. For sure.
I bring up your corrupt government because it shows that you won't be adhering to standards of integrity in other parts of your culture, like sports, when you have completely deserted such standards with your chosen leadership.
Your antivaxxer lies about Arden shows you argue everything from ignorance. NZ didn't lose a million people to COVID, as you did in the US because of the combined stupidity of your leadership and Americans generally.
There are lots of individualized arguments about why a specific runner might be clear or dirty, like their coach/agent/training partners, their progression, or of course a positive test. But ultimately, the reason a doping cloud hangs over the sport isn't that each runner is individually suspicious, but that the whole sport "must" be dirty. The argument goes as follows:
Suppose a marathoner runs 2:02, and that doping helps 4 minutes. Either he is a doper who would run 2:06 clean, or he's clean and would run 1:58 dirty. We know there are guys with 2:06 talent; probably some of them dope. We've never seen anyone run close to 1:58, and if this guy has 2:02-talent, shouldn't there be a bunch of 2:03 or 2:04-talent guys, some of whom will dope and run 1:59-2:00? Since this doesn't happen, the 2:02 guy must be doping. In other words, the performance level alone is suspicious.
Needless to say, this is an absolutely toxic argument for trust in the sport. It's why (in my opinion) most sports pretend doping doesn't exist. It's why one runner testing positive casts a shadow over everyone else.
But the contrapositive is true too: if we can prove that the 2:02 runner is clean, then one of my assumptions above is wrong. Maybe doping doesn't help 4 minutes. Maybe there are lots of guys with 2:03 talent, but they don't run 1:59 because they're actually clean. Maybe neither of those things are true, but the 2:02 guy is able to get to the top of the sport off transcendent talent and hard work anyway. Any of these explanations would highly encouraging!
There is no reason to suppose that doping can help the clean 2:06 runner by 4 minutes. Doping researchers have never studied the effect of doping on top marathon performances, for any runner, and there are no obvious performances anyone can point to that would suggest a 4-minute performance boost can be estimated for the clean 2:06 runner.
Recall Derek Clayton ran 2:09:36 in the 1960s, and by the 1980s, De Castella and Steve Jones and Carlos Lopes had run 2:07:51/2:07:13/2:07:12 respectively. Were these doped performances to the tune of 4 minutes? If not we should have expected to see some 2:05-2:03 performances before the supershoe era, also outside of Africa. What we saw outside of Africa were a bunch of 2:06 +/- runners, many from Japan. If so, then all the best sub-2:06 performances must be doped, and this suggests that the East Africans are far superior distance runners than their non-African competitors.
If all it takes is an increased number of tests doping would have been eradicated years ago. But the problem goes deeper than that. As Howman says - doping is more sophisticated than antidoping.
It's an issue of cost. If you triple the amount of testing you would need to triple the AIU's budget.
I finally found the David Howman statement that you have been continually quoting and refuse to link. He is fairly straightforwardly calling for an increase in the AIU's budget.
I always interpreted this David Howman quote as part of a fund-raising speech, and an admission of the limitations of doping testing based on limited resources, and a call for improving anti-doping science, and better anti-doping intelligence and investigations.
There is no way for Howman to estimate how many elite pinnacle dopers are getting away with it.
In this article, it seems he is talking about all sports, with the possible exception of athletics, as he proposes that others follow the model of the AIU.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.
Not sure what you want. Even the IAAF had to admit that at least 30% doped in the 12 months proceeding the 2011 World Championship. Faiss et al. showed 15-18% in-competition blood doping at the 2011 and 2013 World Championship. That is a) just blood doping, and b) only the boldest of the bold who doped directly at Worlds.
That includes the also-rans who never made it into the finals. Since, as you said, (equally talented) dopers will beat non-dopers, a lot more dopers than 30% will make it into the finals.
Example using the 30%: 46 athletes at Worlds over e.g. 1500 m -> 13 dopers. Typically 12 finalists, 3 medalists, 1 winner. Safe money is on dopers as medal winners, each and every time.
I don't recall the IAAF making any such explicit admission.
I always thought that the magnitude of 15%-18% was already intended to shock the world in comparison to the 1-2% positive tests. Although they are biological results, there are still several limitations and confounders, e.g. no altitude data available for Daegu and only partial altitude information available for Moscow. Furthermore, these figures are a result of comparing observed measurements with "simulated reference populations", lacking "an ideal reference population with a known zero prevalence of doping".
The "at least 30%" estimate has even more issues which I'd rather not get into here, but the bottom line is that anonymous surveys do not ensure that the responses are truthful, even after filtering out the fastest responses.
Armstronglivs quotes David Howman as an expert, and in an interview in 2015 (about cycling), his estimate then was "over 10%".
Today we are in 2026. A lot has happened since 2011, when this data was collected. The IAAF/Russia scandal resulted in banning Russia, and the creation of the AIU, who has been more aggressive at testing and enforcement. And since 2013, the ABP has also been widely used to sanction athletes.
It is well documented that Ullrich was a heavy EPO and blood doping. He however slipped up once with amphetamines of all things lol. The whole Team Telekom was on EPO for years, and no one of them ever tested positive for it.
Similarly, Armstrong himself slipped up with corticosteroids in the beginning (1999), but no official test thereafter got him, despite many witnesses pointing the finger at him, not even after the creation of the oh so tough USADA (they only got him post retirement, based on witnesses). Heavy user of EPO and steroids. He beat the ABP too.
There have been many attempts at some form of logical induction in this thread, both trying to demonstrate that is Sawe is either clean or dirty according to whichever inductive argument is used. It’s been something along these lines; If this is the case, then this is the case, then this, then this, then finally……He’s dirty, or clean according to that person’s belief in their inductive argument. Obviously the only to show that he even may be cheating is if he finally pops positive. Even positive test doesn’t necessarily amount to proof, when one considers all the excuses athletes give and then conspiracies of tampering. There’s no way with 100% accuracy that WADA or whatever agency can ever be completely certain someone is doping. The system is flawed and based on bad empiricism. It also limits the athlete’s right to privacy and freedom from a useless overbearing bureaucracy.
The best thing for the sport and athletes is the following. Let everyone dope and just allow PEDs as another form of performance boosters such as supplements and bicarb. If you let everyone do it, there is no longer an unfair advantage. It’s the simplest, easiest, most cost saving solution. Once people get used to it, the popularity of the sport will surge and we will have a higher fan base than ever, without this constant resentful skepticism. It’s the way to go.
It's called the Enhanced Games. And Kenya should be moved away from road races to compete in this event.
It is well documented that Ullrich was a heavy EPO and blood doping. He however slipped up once with amphetamines of all things lol. The whole Team Telekom was on EPO for years, and no one of them ever tested positive for it.
Similarly, Armstrong himself slipped up with corticosteroids in the beginning (1999), but no official test thereafter got him, despite many witnesses pointing the finger at him, not even after the creation of the oh so tough USADA (they only got him post retirement, based on witnesses). Heavy user of EPO and steroids. He beat the ABP too.
Question:
Is it fair to blame usada for not catching lance armstrong before 2005?
Answer:
Blaming USADA for not catching Lance Armstrong before 2005 is understandable—but it’s only partly fair.
A few realities matter:
First, USADA didn’t even exist in its current role until the early 2000s, and it didn’t have full authority over international cycling events like the Tour de France. Testing there was largely handled by international bodies like the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and French anti-doping authorities. So structurally, USADA wasn’t the main watchdog for many of Armstrong’s biggest wins.
Second, doping detection at the time was significantly weaker. Substances like EPO were hard to detect reliably in the late 1990s, and testing protocols lagged behind the sophistication of doping programs. Armstrong’s case wasn’t just about avoiding tests—it involved coordinated systems, timing, and methods designed specifically to stay ahead of detection.
Third, Armstrong and his team reportedly used intimidation and legal pressure to discourage whistleblowers. Several teammates and insiders later said they were afraid to speak out. That kind of environment makes it much harder for any anti-doping agency to act early.
Where USADA does deserve credit is what happened later. Their 2012 investigation, built largely on testimony from former teammates, is what ultimately exposed the full scope of the doping program. That suggests the key evidence simply wasn’t accessible—or provable—earlier.
So the balanced view:
It’s fair to criticize the system as a whole for failing to catch widespread doping earlier. It’s less fair to single out USADA, since it lacked both jurisdiction and the tools during Armstrong’s peak years. The bigger issue was a sport-wide culture and weak international enforcement, not one agency dropping the ball.
If you want, I can break down exactly how Armstrong managed to evade detection for so long—it’s a pretty revealing look at how anti-doping evolved.
It's an issue of cost. If you triple the amount of testing you would need to triple the AIU's budget.
I finally found the David Howman statement that you have been continually quoting and refuse to link. He is fairly straightforwardly calling for an increase in the AIU's budget.
I always interpreted this David Howman quote as part of a fund-raising speech, and an admission of the limitations of doping testing based on limited resources, and a call for improving anti-doping science, and better anti-doping intelligence and investigations.
There is no way for Howman to estimate how many elite pinnacle dopers are getting away with it.
In this article, it seems he is talking about all sports, with the possible exception of athletics, as he proposes that others follow the model of the AIU.
"There is no way for Howman to estimate how many elite pinnacle dopers are getting away with it."
That is an absurdity. If your claim were true - it isn't - he has absolutely no grounds for arguing for increased testing, improving antidoping science and requiring more funds for antidoping. Without a problem that has been identified there is nothing that requires rectification. His statement that "dopers are getting away with it" is effectively saying antidoping is losing.
It's an issue of cost. If you triple the amount of testing you would need to triple the AIU's budget.
I finally found the David Howman statement that you have been continually quoting and refuse to link. He is fairly straightforwardly calling for an increase in the AIU's budget.
Increased testing may act as a deterrent but it won't catch all the dopers. It has been known for over twenty five years that doping can be masked. It is also known that there are many substances that antidoping is at any one time unable to identify.
Could you please name these unidentifiable substances and perfect masking agents and methods to which you refer?
i think the abp is part of the problem and was supported by doping athletes as a way to help them avoid getting caught.
if you tell people exactly what you are going to measure, how often and how you are going to interpret it, then, as a cheat, you have just been told exactly what to avoid and when.
at its simplest you just set harder parameters for yourself in your abp, at its most complicated, we know dopers are always ahead of testers, so why should this be any different for abp?
the only thing that might start me beleiving it is if blood samples were kept indefinitely and doping applied restrospectively years later.
Has Sawe volunteered for his samples to be kept forever? of course not, because he knows that sooner or later, today's doping will be detectable.
I always interpreted this David Howman quote as part of a fund-raising speech, and an admission of the limitations of doping testing based on limited resources, and a call for improving anti-doping science, and better anti-doping intelligence and investigations.
There is no way for Howman to estimate how many elite pinnacle dopers are getting away with it.
In this article, it seems he is talking about all sports, with the possible exception of athletics, as he proposes that others follow the model of the AIU.
"There is no way for Howman to estimate how many elite pinnacle dopers are getting away with it."
That is an absurdity. If your claim were true - it isn't - he has absolutely no grounds for arguing for increased testing, improving antidoping science and requiring more funds for antidoping. Without a problem that has been identified there is nothing that requires rectification. His statement that "dopers are getting away with it" is effectively saying antidoping is losing.
The issue is one of resources. There are so many athletes versus only so many opportunities to test. If every top athlete were tested with the same frequency as Sawe, it would be virtually impossible to escape eventual detection.
Not sure what you want. Even the IAAF had to admit that at least 30% doped in the 12 months proceeding the 2011 World Championship. Faiss et al. showed 15-18% in-competition blood doping at the 2011 and 2013 World Championship. That is a) just blood doping, and b) only the boldest of the bold who doped directly at Worlds.
That includes the also-rans who never made it into the finals. Since, as you said, (equally talented) dopers will beat non-dopers, a lot more dopers than 30% will make it into the finals.
Example using the 30%: 46 athletes at Worlds over e.g. 1500 m -> 13 dopers. Typically 12 finalists, 3 medalists, 1 winner. Safe money is on dopers as medal winners, each and every time.
I don't recall the IAAF making any such explicit admission.
I always thought that the magnitude of 15%-18% was already intended to shock the world in comparison to the 1-2% positive tests. Although they are biological results, there are still several limitations and confounders, e.g. no altitude data available for Daegu and only partial altitude information available for Moscow. Furthermore, these figures are a result of comparing observed measurements with "simulated reference populations", lacking "an ideal reference population with a known zero prevalence of doping".
The "at least 30%" estimate has even more issues which I'd rather not get into here, but the bottom line is that anonymous surveys do not ensure that the responses are truthful, even after filtering out the fastest responses.
Armstronglivs quotes David Howman as an expert, and in an interview in 2015 (about cycling), his estimate then was "over 10%".
Today we are in 2026. A lot has happened since 2011, when this data was collected. The IAAF/Russia scandal resulted in banning Russia, and the creation of the AIU, who has been more aggressive at testing and enforcement. And since 2013, the ABP has also been widely used to sanction athletes.
Howman hasn't said doping will be 10% of elite sports. He has said it could be as low as 10% but it could also be up to 40%. In 2012 when some were suggesting that doping at the London Olympics could be as high as 90% while others were suggesting maybe 10% Howman said it will be "somewhere in between". That would easily match estimates from athlete surveys that suggest 1 in 2 championship athletes are likely doping.
Doping is an advanced science. It continues to develop because enormous amounts of money world wide are involved. Since 2012 Howman has spoken pessimistically of how doping remains ahead of antidoping and his comments this year about how dopers "are still getting away with it" is an admission that antidoping is losing the battle.
T and F is up there with the most likely suspects, as it has been lumped by WADA with bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling (you know - Lance Armstrong's sport) with risk of doping. Ambitious athletes will use everything available to them to succeed - equipment, technique, training methods, nutrition and supplements. It is naive beyond belief to think they won't use drugs that they know will give them an advantage - and that they know their competitors are using.
Increased testing may act as a deterrent but it won't catch all the dopers. It has been known for over twenty five years that doping can be masked. It is also known that there are many substances that antidoping is at any one time unable to identify.
Could you please name these unidentifiable substances and perfect masking agents and methods to which you refer?
That's as dumb a question as you could ask. If I could name them then so could WADA. But antidoping has admitted there are substances being used they can't as yet identify. That is why they can't catch athletes using them. That is also why antidoping holds blood samples for up to 8 years, in the hope that improved testing over time may retroactively identify these drugs.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
i think the abp is part of the problem and was supported by doping athletes as a way to help them avoid getting caught.
if you tell people exactly what you are going to measure, how often and how you are going to interpret it, then, as a cheat, you have just been told exactly what to avoid and when.
at its simplest you just set harder parameters for yourself in your abp, at its most complicated, we know dopers are always ahead of testers, so why should this be any different for abp?
the only thing that might start me beleiving it is if blood samples were kept indefinitely and doping applied restrospectively years later.
Has Sawe volunteered for his samples to be kept forever? of course not, because he knows that sooner or later, today's doping will be detectable.
Athletes have found ways to get around the passport.
"There is no way for Howman to estimate how many elite pinnacle dopers are getting away with it."
That is an absurdity. If your claim were true - it isn't - he has absolutely no grounds for arguing for increased testing, improving antidoping science and requiring more funds for antidoping. Without a problem that has been identified there is nothing that requires rectification. His statement that "dopers are getting away with it" is effectively saying antidoping is losing.
The issue is one of resources. There are so many athletes versus only so many opportunities to test. If every top athlete were tested with the same frequency as Sawe, it would be virtually impossible to escape eventual detection.
It wouldn't. Not all substances are revealed through tests. Masking agents have been used for over two decades now. The holding of blood samples for up to 8 years shows that antidoping knows testing won't necessarily catch athletes when they are doping. They hope that improved testing over time may retroactively identify the masked drugs.
This post was edited 5 minutes after it was posted.
It is well documented that Ullrich was a heavy EPO and blood doping. He however slipped up once with amphetamines of all things lol. The whole Team Telekom was on EPO for years, and no one of them ever tested positive for it.
Similarly, Armstrong himself slipped up with corticosteroids in the beginning (1999), but no official test thereafter got him, despite many witnesses pointing the finger at him, not even after the creation of the oh so tough USADA (they only got him post retirement, based on witnesses). Heavy user of EPO and steroids. He beat the ABP too.
Question:
Is it fair to blame usada for not catching lance armstrong before 2005?
Answer:
Blaming USADA for not catching Lance Armstrong before 2005 is understandable—but it’s only partly fair.
A few realities matter:
First, USADA didn’t even exist in its current role until the early 2000s, and it didn’t have full authority over international cycling events like the Tour de France. Testing there was largely handled by international bodies like the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI) and French anti-doping authorities. So structurally, USADA wasn’t the main watchdog for many of Armstrong’s biggest wins.
Armstrong retired finally in 2011, not 2005. And as ChatGPT writes correctly, UCI and the French tested during the TdF, sure, but USADA was reported to have tested Armstrong about 50 times on American soil. 9 times between 2009 and 2011. ChatGPT told me that. Why so little, especially during his comeback? Ask Tygart.
Could you please name these unidentifiable substances and perfect masking agents and methods to which you refer?
That's as dumb a question as you could ask. If I could name them then so could WADA. But antidoping has admitted there are substances being used they can't as yet identify. That is why they can't catch athletes using them. That is also why antidoping holds blood samples for up to 8 years, in the hope that improved testing over time may retroactively identify these drugs.
Could you please reveal the cost and time required to engineer a new drug that is both impossible to detect via today’s methods and also yields measurable gains in performance?
The issue is one of resources. There are so many athletes versus only so many opportunities to test. If every top athlete were tested with the same frequency as Sawe, it would be virtually impossible to escape eventual detection.
It wouldn't. Not all substances are revealed through tests. Masking agents have been used for over two decades now. The holding of blood samples for up to 8 years shows that antidoping knows testing won't necessarily catch athletes when they are doping. They hope that improved testing over time may retroactively identify the masked drugs.
If it were that simple, the best women’s shot putters in the world today wouldn’t be more than a metre back of women from 40 years ago.