Sports Scientist Ross Tucker breaks downs the Shelby Houlihan case for us

You are an optimist. Here is a peer-reviewed paper from 2020 (summarizing a 2018 article, and others, it's worth reading the whole article):
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2020.00160/full

For example, doping (in all forms) prevalence is said to range between 39 and 62% based on anonymous questionnaires answered by athletes competing in two 2011 competitions of the World Athletics [WA, formerly International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF)] (Ulrich et al., 2018).

Confidential athlete surveys taken at international championships have borne out the 30-60% estimate I refer to. (Casual obsever has spelt this out in detail in previous posts). What those sorts of figures against the number of positives show is that it is extremely difficult to be caught doping at an elite or championship level - unless an athlete is "dumb or careless" (Richard Pound). Former WADA head David Howman concedes doping remains "more sophisticated than anti-doping". So we are left with the question, if athletes perceive they will gain an advantage through doping - and so possibly become more successful and earn more - with only a slim chance of being caught, what will many of them choose? To be more successful or lose to those that make the choice to dope? As difficult as it may be to accept, reason suggests that doping is now an accepted and necessary part of elite and professional sport.

But they didn't accept that Salazar was simply trying to protect his athletes from "sabotage". His experiments were intended for their benefit, which would have meant they could dope without being caught. His experiments had no other purpose. He could not justify his breaches of the rules to the Panel, and so received a 4 year ban. There was nothing "innocent" in what Salazar did. We have to believe that somehow he failed to involve his athletes. Lucky them.

I don't speak for those thousands of athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians who have been involved in doping. I simply draw the necessary inference that the practice could not have become as enduring and as widespread as it has - and of concern to those governing sports - without producing results for athletes. There is nothing you can adduce that shows they are all deluded. The difference with religion is that athletes aren't seeking salvation in the next world but to become faster in this one. It doesn't require faith for them to see results. If they didn't get them doping would be no different from eating popcorn - and irrelevant to athletes. But that's what you effectively reduce doping to. Popcorn.

Without doubt they work!

The question is as to which athletes Wada actually catch for their budget.

Is is the cheats or is it the inadvertent?

I find it deceptive to look for and highlight the results of one paper that conducted doping surveys in two events, in the introduction of another paper that estimates blood doping with a biological method. For context, it's worth reading just the whole paragraph where you extracted and bolded the extreme estimates:

"The true prevalence of doping among athletes competing at the highest level remains virtually unknown ..."

"Surveys of athletes may represent an attractive alternative while truthful answers from top-level athletes tempted to deflect any suspicions toward themselves or their sport are far from guaranteed."

and (when compared with less than 2% adverse or atypical results from WADA testing)

"Notwithstanding the surprisingly big values, these results shall first underline the large variability and heterogeneity in the determination of doping prevalence with a questionable significance."

To find the results of the survey, wouldn't it would be better to go to the 2018 paper itself, and gain a better understanding of what these figures mean? There we would learn that the 62% wasn't from the WA (IAAF), as the 2020 paper says, but from the Pan Arab Games (an Arab Olympic Games of 29 different sports), and that attempts to remove a visible positive bias from the fastest responses yields a more conservative estimate (at least 29%).

The truly interested reader would attempt to see if the survey method used is widely considered reliably accurate, as proposed by its authors, for sensitive questions like doping, or whether these results are potentially inflated, also proposed by one of its authors. The question is, can anonymity guarantee honest responses compliant with survey instructions, without addressing apathy or annoyance? Do superior methods exist, which measure the degree of survey non-compliance, or ability to cancel out sources of errors?

Let's see if the AAA Panel agrees with you ...

Lucky for us that USADA proposed this very scenario to the AAA Panel for consideration. See AAA Panel report paragraphs 420 and again 435 "this same experiment can be used to further the nefarious purpose of evading doping control".

The AAA Panel considered both Salazar's and USADA's submissions and wrote in paragraph 428:

"the Panel accepts (Salazar’s) contention that the experiment was designed to protect athletes of the NOP"

and in paragraph 461:

"The Panel accepts most of the facts and contentions as presented by (Salazar), i.e. ... that the contemporaneous emails evidence that the incident leading to the experiment was a potential act of sabotage, and that the purpose of the experiment was to prevent sabotage, that the experiment only centered around (Salazar’s) concern about the potential for sabotage, that the protocol for the experiment was consistent with sabotage prevention and inconsistent with a doping scheme ...".

Anyone can call their unsubstantiated beliefs "necessary inference" "without producing results for athletes".

Meanwhile, I currently draw my "necessary inferences" comprehensively from decades of studies, with their expressed and implied caveats and limitations, and decades of all time performances and known patterns of doping, while considering milestones of anti-doping, and considering other external factors.

Blah blah. You are still saying generations of athletes, their coaches trainers and physicians were doing little more than taking popcorn because you are convinced that doping of itself doesn't enhance performance except as a placebo. So how many dopers have made themselves subjects of these studies you rely on? None. You form conclusions from nothing.

On the other hand your oft-quoted Travis Tygart had this to say.

"The athletes in these cases found the courage to speak out and ultimately exposed the truth," said USADA CEO Travis T. Tygart. "While acting in connection with the Nike Oregon Project, Mr. Salazar and Dr. Brown demonstrated that winning was more important than the health and wellbeing of the athletes they were sworn to protect."

The intentional and the careless.

There have been studies where there was a double blind crossover with a placebo.

Placebo was useless whilst the proper drug was excellent.

I find I'm neither a cynic nor an optimist with doping in our sport. A couple of notes on the 2011 surveys on doping based on my experiences with the sport.

- I could totally believe the 30% figure from these studies, and could see 2011 being about 30-40%.

- it is worth noting that the second largest team that year was Russia (about as large a team as Canada and Great Britain combined) who would shortly be exposed for running a comprehensive state operated doping program. It's totally reasonable to believe that the doping rate in that population was 80%+ or possibly even over 90%. This would skew the positive response rate by several percentage points.

- On a much smaller scale than Russia, several other key countries have become cleaner since 2011. Kenya notably has had their anti doping structure forcibly overhauled which has seen many world class and mediocre athletes alike get popped. I'd add to that, China. There have been lots of accusations shady stuff surrounding Beijing 2008, so a 2011 games would have wrapped up athletes who would tick yes based off of their Beijing experiences (see how China's Olympic performance spiked in 2008 and has been a shadow of that ever since). These shifts could maybe knock off a percentage point or two.

- the big one - blood passports. IAAF only introduced Blood Passports in 2009. By 2011, they didn't have enough data to make a single ban based off of passports. It's impact on deterring dopers in 2011 is therefore going to be next to zero. Between 2012 and 2016 there were 80+ bans handed out based on the ABP. That's a massive figure, and while you would be naive to imagine that many dopers would have found ways to get around the passport and increased testing, you'd also be a cynic to think that such gains did not act as deterrent psychologically or logistically (ie people who would consider to dope but lack the resources to give them the confidence to beat the tests and passport).

- "well if 30% are doping, it's going to be the top 30%." I could see it skewing to the higher end for sure, but anecdotally I don't believe clean athletes can't beat dopers. A while back I worked with a college athlete (Non US). Good, never went fully pro, but made one lesser national team and went to FISU and were lucky enough to medal there. They retired shortly after college, and we have marveled as multiple athletes they beat over the course of that FISU have been banned for doping infractions. My athlete was never the most talented in their country in high school or university, so I hardly view them as the peak of clean human performance. You could definitely have someone run way faster clean. My take away isn't that PEDs don't work, it's just that a talented and hardworking athlete can beat a doper if the doper isn't talented enough or working smart/hard enough.

Again, I still think doping is too prevalent, but less than in 2011. At best I'd put the figure at 2/10 athletes at a major champs, more cynically at 3/10. Where there is doping I believe there are definitely going to be events where it is much more prevalent than others (say 100m vs high jump) and that doping is clustered around certain groups, coaches and agencies.

Pretty much that, but I think the published 43.6% is rather an underestimation than an overestimation - because typically dopers don't readily admit to doping even if anonymity is promised. That brings us to 50 - 60% dopers at the 2011 worlds, and maybe 2/3 - 3/4 of that nowadays.

Low end: 2/3 * 50% = 33.3%; high end: 3/4 * 60% = 45%

While a minority, that's still a lot. Consider an event with 40 athletes (see thread topic). That would be by my count 13 - 18 dopers, by your count 8 - 12 dopers.

Now there can only 3 medal winners. Granted, "a talented and hardworking athlete can beat a doper if the doper isn't talented enough or working smart/hard enough", but there will be talented and hardworking dopers too.

Four decades of research is wanting, but not nothing.

Six decades of all time performances is something.

Where there is nothing, I will wait for statistical confirmation.

You are the one speaking on behalf of the silent generations of athletes, their coaches trainers and physicians, putting words in their mouths. This is no basis for inference.

Maybe you missed this ...

Bottomline.

Over 98 percent of people in her position would train for the 1500 and provide test results every single week during that training and all she would have to do is run 3:59 or below and we all would believe her..

Is it literally that hard to comprehend?

Here i'll put it in steps.

1. Train for the 1500.

2. Get tested every single week.

3. Run 3:59 or faster.

It's really not that hard to understand what she needs to do to prove us all wrong. Because we're all wrong and she's right.

So show us.

The only lab results for her weekly tests that would have any possible meaning would be Wada tests and they won’t do them.

So your point is moot.

Have you bothered to look at the world ranking list and it’s depth for ten years before Big Ben got busted?