So with only 1% of tests returning a positive, what percentage of dopers are being caught (given that confidential athlete surveys have suggested anywhere from 30% to over 50% of international athletes dope)? Athletes are very rarely caught except through a failed test (except whereabouts breaches) so can you confidently maintain that because no NOP athlete was caught through the investigation that none were doping? Indeed, if that were so it would be unique in the history of sports doping, as it appears a bare fraction of dopers get caught - "only the dumb and the careless", according to a former WADA head (and he wasn't just talking about tests).
Since we are wondering things, I wonder what percentage of dopers are even tested? I wonder if testing is a deterrent? Maybe detecting 1% of athletes tested is about right, because the untested ones dope significantly more because they know they won't be tested.
When you have 1% knowledge (composed of true and false positives) and 99% ignorance, you can fabricate many arguments from ignorance, with an imagination that wonders.
The significant point that seems to be passing way over your head - don't look up - is that NOP wasn't just "tested". One way to improve the percentages significantly is to conduct a multi-year investigation with whistleblowers and witnesses and increased target testing over several years.
Have I yet mentioned that USADA used 30 witnesses, and a wide range of evidence including eye-witness proof, testimonies, contemporaneous emails, and patient records, more than 2,000 exhibits, and 5,780 pages of transcripts?
And your feeble response is "testing sucks".
That wasn't my "feeble response" - it is the logical inference from the WADA statement that "only the dumb and the careless" amongst dopers get caught. No one has said the NOP investigation changed that.
But now I see that you think that doping is no more than the 1% positives. I can hear the guffaws from anyone who has investigated the issue (including WADA) - not to mention countless athletes, coaches and trainers.
Again, none of that tells us the pork ingredients of the chorizo other than that it contained some pork stomach. Below are links to four chorizo products with salivary glands and lymph nodes. Some other chorizo products don’t specify what pig organs or glands or meat is used. Its obviously cheaper to not waste parts of the pig and that is why cheaper chorizo is often not just pig stomach. Restaurants saving money by using cheaper products and/or many parts of the pig would be expected (IMO) during the pandemic.
Again, it was called a pork stomach burrito.
Again, Shelburrito has seen the receipts, and wisely did not speculate about additional secret ingredients.
Again, Shelburrito had some burritos tested in January, one month after getting caught with nandro, still very much in the pandemic. And yet, she found no raised androgen levels that would support your (not Shelby's!) theory of additional, secret, metabolically active ingredients.
Also, salivary glands? Where does it say that they would yield such high nandro levels, especially if they are only one ingredient of a 140 - 180 g pork stomach burrito (that wasn't even completely eaten)? I only found kidney, testes, and to a minor extent liver mentioned in the CAS report.
And furthermore, they found no such CIR in any of the tested burritos, despite your alleged 40% false positive rate. Your speculations - that even Shelby didn't dare to bring up - are proven false by the reality, over and over again.
No one knows the levels of nandrolone metabolites obtained from eating salivary glands, lymph nodes or even pig stomach. WADA didn’t bother to study these organs/glands even though they have known for years that absurdly high levels can be obtained from some organs. Instead of actual research, prosecution witnesses just speculate on ingredients and further speculate on levels of nandrolone that might or might not be obtained. It all sounds very convincing until you realize that there is no actual research at all behind their guesses about nandrolone from pork stomach and the “research” on non-organ (non-gland) meat is based on measurements of only 3-4 people.
WADA refuses to conduct even small studies of 20-80 people, for example and often doesn’t conduct any research in this area. The prosecution witnesses are forced to speculate on possible test results. The defense witnesses are also forced to speculate as there is little published data that either side can rely on. Then it becomes a game of who can have more convincing speculation. Unfortunately, CAS tends to believe WADA witnesses even if the witness provided false/inaccuate testimony in the past.
The 40% false positive study from Europe is another WADA gem with only five subjects. The true false positive rate may be larger or smaller and may be different in the U.S. But WADA doesn’t actually want to conduct a large study to determine what the false positive rate might be. This allows the prosecution witnesses to speculate that the false positives won’t exist in the U.S. But WADA didn’t stop there. They put an alternative testing route (before the GC/C/IRMS test) to protect the athletes from false positives. Rather than using that alternative testing route, they ignore it and argue against its use at hearings. Is it WADA policy to put statements in their Technical Documents to protect the athlete only to later ignore those statements at their convenience? I think so.
A young athlete who has dedicated their life to success at their sport is told, there is something that will help you do even better. It might win you that state championship, it could help you become a pro, it could make you an Olympian, it will be the difference between going out in the heats and making the finals - or even getting a medal. They are also told if they do it right they won't be caught. The clincher is when they are also told, their competition will be taking it so they will have no chance if they don't also - so it's only fair that they should also take it. It isn't cheating. So what do you think that ambitious young athlete will choose?
When I have run this scenario past older recreational athletes they have responded - "where can I get this stuff!" Even musicians have said to me, if it would make them a better piano player they would take it.
That is why doping is everywhere in sports today. It is rooted in the ever-present human desire to succeed, to be the best at what you do. If it makes you more talented than you naturally are, better than what your training can achieve - better than the next guy, and make you famous and rich, then people will do it. Without hesitation. If we wait for statistics to confirm this we will never see it. And so it is is with the utterly deluded deniers here.
Bravo, you fixed the units, but it is still the wrong amount -- Al Jazeera didn't say "a billion". Did you even watch it? Here's a short term cognitive quiz: do you remember the name?
Looks like you still want to flip the burden as a tacit concession that you cannot prove your own data. You are the one claiming the amount is relevant, not me.
What you fail to comprehend is that I can't accept any figure until it is established who estimated it, how they estimated it, and the scope of what the estimate represents. Until then, no amount can really be considered "correct".
The documentary I saw did make a claim of a billion Euros. Apparently you didn't see it. You maintain the Al Jazeera figure is wrong yet you have no idea what the correct figure might be. I wonder why they didn't seek your opinion?
They don't seek my opinion because their goal was to trigger the emotions of the most "persuadables" and I would advise them to be Spock-like with cold facts, and explaining with further context how to interpret the figure and why it is relevant. I don't make for great tabloid TV.
Can you tell us the name of the documentary you saw, and the year?
We recently discussed this about a month and a half ago, and I gave you both the name of the documentary, and the amount of the unattributed estimate of something. It is something I already told you once, and I am unsurprised you have forgotten how far off you were.
To be sure, I just rewatched it, and the estimate given by an unnamed narrator most certainly did not say "a billion Euros" -- far from it, and he gave no attribution, or no description of who arrived at that estimate, how they arrived at that estimate, or the scope of products covered by that estimate, or the nature of the consumers.
Whether the figure is correct or not is not the issue, but rather what the "correct figure" actually means with respect to WADA banned doping in elite athletics. WADA doesn't spend money on the non-competing bodybuilders at the local gym who simply want to look good in the mirror.
Once you have established what the "correct figure" actually, and what it means, the next question is why you believe it is relevant. A high amount of spending on doping only confirms what I have said all along -- the faith in doping is high and wide and broad and deep.
A young athlete who has dedicated their life to success at their sport is told, there is something that will help you do even better. It might win you that state championship, it could help you become a pro, it could make you an Olympian, it will be the difference between going out in the heats and making the finals - or even getting a medal. They are also told if they do it right they won't be caught. The clincher is when they are also told, their competition will be taking it so they will have no chance if they don't also - so it's only fair that they should also take it. It isn't cheating. So what do you think that ambitious young athlete will choose?
When I have run this scenario past older recreational athletes they have responded - "where can I get this stuff!" Even musicians have said to me, if it would make them a better piano player they would take it.
That is why doping is everywhere in sports today. It is rooted in the ever-present human desire to succeed, to be the best at what you do. If it makes you more talented than you naturally are, better than what your training can achieve - better than the next guy, and make you famous and rich, then people will do it. Without hesitation. If we wait for statistics to confirm this we will never see it. And so it is is with the utterly deluded deniers here.
My problem is that all will not do so which is what you appear to say.
My problem is that the rules catch those that have not cheated.
My problem is that there are those who evaluate the latter under the assumption of the former.
Thus they live in a tautology of circular arguments. Thus they said that because all cheat all those caught under the rules must be cheats and if asked if the rules are wrong and they are not cheats then say but everybody cheats.
The sort of people that can’t grasp that are those that have never read the rules; think that the bladder is part of the digestive system and that Asprin has no side effects.
A young athlete who has dedicated their life to success at their sport is told, there is something that will help you do even better. It might win you that state championship, it could help you become a pro, it could make you an Olympian, it will be the difference between going out in the heats and making the finals - or even getting a medal. They are also told if they do it right they won't be caught. The clincher is when they are also told, their competition will be taking it so they will have no chance if they don't also - so it's only fair that they should also take it. It isn't cheating. So what do you think that ambitious young athlete will choose?
When I have run this scenario past older recreational athletes they have responded - "where can I get this stuff!" Even musicians have said to me, if it would make them a better piano player they would take it.
That is why doping is everywhere in sports today. It is rooted in the ever-present human desire to succeed, to be the best at what you do. If it makes you more talented than you naturally are, better than what your training can achieve - better than the next guy, and make you famous and rich, then people will do it. Without hesitation. If we wait for statistics to confirm this we will never see it. And so it is is with the utterly deluded deniers here.
Again, Shelburrito has seen the receipts, and wisely did not speculate about additional secret ingredients.
Again, Shelburrito had some burritos tested in January, one month after getting caught with nandro, still very much in the pandemic. And yet, she found no raised androgen levels that would support your (not Shelby's!) theory of additional, secret, metabolically active ingredients.
Also, salivary glands? Where does it say that they would yield such high nandro levels, especially if they are only one ingredient of a 140 - 180 g pork stomach burrito (that wasn't even completely eaten)? I only found kidney, testes, and to a minor extent liver mentioned in the CAS report.
And furthermore, they found no such CIR in any of the tested burritos, despite your alleged 40% false positive rate. Your speculations - that even Shelby didn't dare to bring up - are proven false by the reality, over and over again.
Again with all the half-truths.
The claim was that the pork stomach burrito containeding offal. Offal can be many things and not just stomach. Pork stomach burritos contain many ingredients, and not just stomach.
McGlone's "offal" search was not exhaustively covering all the ingredients in these burritos, not to mention nandrolone in stomach hasn't been studied.
Regarding levels and CIR, Prof. Ayotte has published for more than a decade, studies with these levels and average CIR of -23.6, and Prof. McGlone conceded that soy in the diets was temporary, at about the right (wrong) time.
The fact that intact boar is rare (1 in 10000), and that soy was temporary, means that any search 1 month later, may require testing more than 10,000 burritos, from pigs whose diets have returned back to corn.
While Ross may be neutral, I am not convinced Profs Ayotte and McGlone are being 100% honest.
Ross called the CAS decision one-sided -- I think he was right.
Rather than avoiding that, I already addressed that the first time. This was asked and answered in the AAA Panel report to the satisfaction of the AAA Panel, and conceded by USADA Chief Travis Tygart.
So having said it once you can't say it again? So what did the Panel and Tygart say? Was Salazar seeking to help his athletes with his doping experiments - yes or no?
I am reluctant to say things twice, because as we see with the Al Jazeera estimate, I already told you what you cannot answer now, and you are just not listening.
The AAA Panel was convinced there was genuine concern of sabotage.
Tygart said with regard to NOP athletes, he left no stone unturned. Did I mention a multi-year investigation with 30 witnesses, 2 whistleblowers, ...?
Depends on what you mean by "help". According to the AAA Panel report, Salazar was not seeking to dope his athletes, but seeking to help his NOP athletes avoid testing positive due to external sabotage.
Recently, in another documentary, Seppelt showed us how easy that was, and how "strict liability" is a train that would railroad the victim to a 4-year ban.
A young athlete who has dedicated their life to success at their sport is told, there is something that will help you do even better. It might win you that state championship, it could help you become a pro, it could make you an Olympian, it will be the difference between going out in the heats and making the finals - or even getting a medal. They are also told if they do it right they won't be caught. The clincher is when they are also told, their competition will be taking it so they will have no chance if they don't also - so it's only fair that they should also take it. It isn't cheating. So what do you think that ambitious young athlete will choose?
When I have run this scenario past older recreational athletes they have responded - "where can I get this stuff!" Even musicians have said to me, if it would make them a better piano player they would take it.
That is why doping is everywhere in sports today. It is rooted in the ever-present human desire to succeed, to be the best at what you do. If it makes you more talented than you naturally are, better than what your training can achieve - better than the next guy, and make you famous and rich, then people will do it. Without hesitation. If we wait for statistics to confirm this we will never see it. And so it is is with the utterly deluded deniers here.
This reminds me of Lord Leverhulme when addressing his advertising spend when he said that he knew half his spend was a waste but just did not know which half.
That wasn't my "feeble response" - it is the logical inference from the WADA statement that "only the dumb and the careless" amongst dopers get caught. No one has said the NOP investigation changed that.
But now I see that you think that doping is no more than the 1% positives. I can hear the guffaws from anyone who has investigated the issue (including WADA) - not to mention countless athletes, coaches and trainers.
If they are intelligent, they will not see what you see, but understand what I wrote. "Guffaw" then becomes a kind of intelligence test.
I was merely wondering how wide the uncertainty is, since testing is both limited, and ineffective, there is just a lot that experts like David Howman don't really know.
But your response is both "feeble" and ignorant. Testing didn't catch Lance or Salazar, but investigations and whistleblowers did. Look at how many Russians were caught by testing, versus caught by a whistleblowers and the McClaren report.
1% positive tests means ignorance about the remaining 99% -- a figure that leaves it wide open for rumors, speculation, and innuendo.
And the 99% ignorance is only among those who are tested -- it doesn't count the athletes WADA/ADAs/ADOs do not test, like a complete survey would.
What we do know:
- because anti-doping funding for testing is limited, as you just strongly argued, testing itself is also limited. Many athletes are never tested, and even among the best, not all athletes are tested all the time.
- because of "strict liability" allowing guilt to be presumed, and other human errors, even the 1% includes both true positives and false positives, that is up to the athlete to investigate.
- most athletes are not OOC tested. It stands to reason that if testing is a deterrent, athletes who know they will not be tested, are not deterred, and the rate of doping among the untested will surely be higher than the rate among the tested. The untested will not appear among the 1% positive test results, or the 99% negative test result, but in another uncounted pool where David Howman and the rest of anti-doping are also ignorant.
That wasn't my "feeble response" - it is the logical inference from the WADA statement that "only the dumb and the careless" amongst dopers get caught. No one has said the NOP investigation changed that.
But now I see that you think that doping is no more than the 1% positives. I can hear the guffaws from anyone who has investigated the issue (including WADA) - not to mention countless athletes, coaches and trainers.
If they are intelligent, they will not see what you see, but understand what I wrote. "Guffaw" then becomes a kind of intelligence test.
I was merely wondering how wide the uncertainty is, since testing is both limited, and ineffective, there is just a lot that experts like David Howman don't really know.
But your response is both "feeble" and ignorant. Testing didn't catch Lance or Salazar, but investigations and whistleblowers did. Look at how many Russians were caught by testing, versus caught by a whistleblowers and the McClaren report.
1% positive tests means ignorance about the remaining 99% -- a figure that leaves it wide open for rumors, speculation, and innuendo.
And the 99% ignorance is only among those who are tested -- it doesn't count the athletes WADA/ADAs/ADOs do not test, like a complete survey would.
What we do know:
- because anti-doping funding for testing is limited, as you just strongly argued, testing itself is also limited. Many athletes are never tested, and even among the best, not all athletes are tested all the time.
- because of "strict liability" allowing guilt to be presumed, and other human errors, even the 1% includes both true positives and false positives, that is up to the athlete to investigate.
- most athletes are not OOC tested. It stands to reason that if testing is a deterrent, athletes who know they will not be tested, are not deterred, and the rate of doping among the untested will surely be higher than the rate among the tested. The untested will not appear among the 1% positive test results, or the 99% negative test result, but in another uncounted pool where David Howman and the rest of anti-doping are also ignorant.
What is encompassed with the word athlete?
world top x
national top x
or the multi millions in each nation who are subject to the Wada Code.
A young athlete who has dedicated their life to success at their sport is told, there is something that will help you do even better. It might win you that state championship, it could help you become a pro, it could make you an Olympian, it will be the difference between going out in the heats and making the finals - or even getting a medal. They are also told if they do it right they won't be caught. The clincher is when they are also told, their competition will be taking it so they will have no chance if they don't also - so it's only fair that they should also take it. It isn't cheating. So what do you think that ambitious young athlete will choose?
When I have run this scenario past older recreational athletes they have responded - "where can I get this stuff!" Even musicians have said to me, if it would make them a better piano player they would take it.
That is why doping is everywhere in sports today. It is rooted in the ever-present human desire to succeed, to be the best at what you do. If it makes you more talented than you naturally are, better than what your training can achieve - better than the next guy, and make you famous and rich, then people will do it. Without hesitation. If we wait for statistics to confirm this we will never see it. And so it is is with the utterly deluded deniers here.
You are describing faith.
That you know something about. It is all you have. Your doping denial is a form of religious devotion.
A young athlete who has dedicated their life to success at their sport is told, there is something that will help you do even better. It might win you that state championship, it could help you become a pro, it could make you an Olympian, it will be the difference between going out in the heats and making the finals - or even getting a medal. They are also told if they do it right they won't be caught. The clincher is when they are also told, their competition will be taking it so they will have no chance if they don't also - so it's only fair that they should also take it. It isn't cheating. So what do you think that ambitious young athlete will choose?
When I have run this scenario past older recreational athletes they have responded - "where can I get this stuff!" Even musicians have said to me, if it would make them a better piano player they would take it.
That is why doping is everywhere in sports today. It is rooted in the ever-present human desire to succeed, to be the best at what you do. If it makes you more talented than you naturally are, better than what your training can achieve - better than the next guy, and make you famous and rich, then people will do it. Without hesitation. If we wait for statistics to confirm this we will never see it. And so it is is with the utterly deluded deniers here.
This reminds me of Lord Leverhulme when addressing his advertising spend when he said that he knew half his spend was a waste but just did not know which half.
You have just confirmed you understand nothing of how people will do what they can to achieve what they can. Understandable. You will have achieved nothing.
So having said it once you can't say it again? So what did the Panel and Tygart say? Was Salazar seeking to help his athletes with his doping experiments - yes or no?
I am reluctant to say things twice, because as we see with the Al Jazeera estimate, I already told you what you cannot answer now, and you are just not listening.
The AAA Panel was convinced there was genuine concern of sabotage.
Tygart said with regard to NOP athletes, he left no stone unturned. Did I mention a multi-year investigation with 30 witnesses, 2 whistleblowers, ...?
Depends on what you mean by "help". According to the AAA Panel report, Salazar was not seeking to dope his athletes, but seeking to help his NOP athletes avoid testing positive due to external sabotage.
Recently, in another documentary, Seppelt showed us how easy that was, and how "strict liability" is a train that would railroad the victim to a 4-year ban.
So Salazar was high-mindedly trying to help his athletes avoid testing positive through external sabotage of their tests? What a guy. For that he gets a 4 year ban? Apparently the adjudicators weren't taken in by that bs, as you obviously were.
A young athlete who has dedicated their life to success at their sport is told, there is something that will help you do even better. It might win you that state championship, it could help you become a pro, it could make you an Olympian, it will be the difference between going out in the heats and making the finals - or even getting a medal. They are also told if they do it right they won't be caught. The clincher is when they are also told, their competition will be taking it so they will have no chance if they don't also - so it's only fair that they should also take it. It isn't cheating. So what do you think that ambitious young athlete will choose?
When I have run this scenario past older recreational athletes they have responded - "where can I get this stuff!" Even musicians have said to me, if it would make them a better piano player they would take it.
That is why doping is everywhere in sports today. It is rooted in the ever-present human desire to succeed, to be the best at what you do. If it makes you more talented than you naturally are, better than what your training can achieve - better than the next guy, and make you famous and rich, then people will do it. Without hesitation. If we wait for statistics to confirm this we will never see it. And so it is is with the utterly deluded deniers here.
My problem is that all will not do so which is what you appear to say.
My problem is that the rules catch those that have not cheated.
My problem is that there are those who evaluate the latter under the assumption of the former.
Thus they live in a tautology of circular arguments. Thus they said that because all cheat all those caught under the rules must be cheats and if asked if the rules are wrong and they are not cheats then say but everybody cheats.
The sort of people that can’t grasp that are those that have never read the rules; think that the bladder is part of the digestive system and that Asprin has no side effects.
Your problem is that you understood nothing of what I said. But that is because you have no understanding of achievers, having never achieved anything yourself.
The documentary I saw did make a claim of a billion Euros. Apparently you didn't see it. You maintain the Al Jazeera figure is wrong yet you have no idea what the correct figure might be. I wonder why they didn't seek your opinion?
They don't seek my opinion because their goal was to trigger the emotions of the most "persuadables" and I would advise them to be Spock-like with cold facts, and explaining with further context how to interpret the figure and why it is relevant. I don't make for great tabloid TV.
Can you tell us the name of the documentary you saw, and the year?
We recently discussed this about a month and a half ago, and I gave you both the name of the documentary, and the amount of the unattributed estimate of something. It is something I already told you once, and I am unsurprised you have forgotten how far off you were.
To be sure, I just rewatched it, and the estimate given by an unnamed narrator most certainly did not say "a billion Euros" -- far from it, and he gave no attribution, or no description of who arrived at that estimate, how they arrived at that estimate, or the scope of products covered by that estimate, or the nature of the consumers.
Whether the figure is correct or not is not the issue, but rather what the "correct figure" actually means with respect to WADA banned doping in elite athletics. WADA doesn't spend money on the non-competing bodybuilders at the local gym who simply want to look good in the mirror.
Once you have established what the "correct figure" actually, and what it means, the next question is why you believe it is relevant. A high amount of spending on doping only confirms what I have said all along -- the faith in doping is high and wide and broad and deep.
You know nothing of their goals; they didn't state them and your views on that are mere assumptions. I recorded the documentary and later made notes of what it said. Apart from claiming the black market in drugs amounted to a billion Euros - which was based on estimates provided by WADA and others it referred to who were involved in anti-doping - the programme said there are believed to be at least a hundred products available on the black market for which there are currently no tests. The programme also gave a breakdown on which sports and which countries were amongst the worst doping offenders. Running sports were up there, as well as many of the countries often discussed in these boards. Clearly, you didn't see it. But it would have made no difference to a mind closed like yours.
If they are intelligent, they will not see what you see, but understand what I wrote. "Guffaw" then becomes a kind of intelligence test.
I was merely wondering how wide the uncertainty is, since testing is both limited, and ineffective, there is just a lot that experts like David Howman don't really know.
But your response is both "feeble" and ignorant. Testing didn't catch Lance or Salazar, but investigations and whistleblowers did. Look at how many Russians were caught by testing, versus caught by a whistleblowers and the McClaren report.
1% positive tests means ignorance about the remaining 99% -- a figure that leaves it wide open for rumors, speculation, and innuendo.
And the 99% ignorance is only among those who are tested -- it doesn't count the athletes WADA/ADAs/ADOs do not test, like a complete survey would.
What we do know:
- because anti-doping funding for testing is limited, as you just strongly argued, testing itself is also limited. Many athletes are never tested, and even among the best, not all athletes are tested all the time.
- because of "strict liability" allowing guilt to be presumed, and other human errors, even the 1% includes both true positives and false positives, that is up to the athlete to investigate.
- most athletes are not OOC tested. It stands to reason that if testing is a deterrent, athletes who know they will not be tested, are not deterred, and the rate of doping among the untested will surely be higher than the rate among the tested. The untested will not appear among the 1% positive test results, or the 99% negative test result, but in another uncounted pool where David Howman and the rest of anti-doping are also ignorant.
What is encompassed with the word athlete?
world top x
national top x
or the multi millions in each nation who are subject to the Wada Code.
"Doping is prevalent in all sports at elite levels and in all countries, with the collusion of many sports governance bodies."
Ann Shirley, Jamaican whistle blower and anti-doping expert assisting WADA.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.