Well then, if the questions have answers, what are they:
1) How many of these 70,000 are capable of producing elite performances?
2) How many of those performances are better because they are doped?
Sure, some of the best performances are doped, as are many more of the worst performances.
Religion is widespread, and has endured for thousands of years, despite the lack of concrete real-world evidence and feedback.
The pool of 70,000 will include that percentage that is typically identifiable as elite. If 28,000 of that pool have doped, as official estimates have indicated is possible, and doping will be found amongst the elites, then the usual proportion of athletes who are elite will be found amongst the 28,000 who are doping.
Of the 28,000 who were doping we cannot say definitively how many will have experienced an definitive improvement in performance or how much. The latter will likely vary. However, everything - from the history of doping, to the studies of its effects, the estimation by experts on how peds work and the anecdotes of athletes - indicates that some benefit in performance will be more likely than not.
To say as you do, that "some of the best and the worst performances are doping" is, firstly, a mere and unproven assertion on your part, and is, secondly, simply another way of saying doping doesn't affect or enhance performance - in popular parlance, "it doesn't work". That is consistent with being a doping denier. It is also pure nonsense.
Doping is not like religion, where faith is placed in that which cannot be factually proven; it is a science and can be measured empirically - by results - and especially by the athletes who engage in it. You have absolutely no basis for assuming coaches and athletes who follow the science of the sport with regard to training, nutrition and technique are suddenly naive and gullible mystics when it comes to pharmaceuticals.
This does not really answer "how many" for either question, leaving both questions, as I said, unanswered. For the first question you just say "will include" a "percentage" and then for the second question, ironically enough, you say "we cannot say ... how many".
Your friend Howman is the one who said he was more worried about the up and coming athletes doping, moreso than the elite. You think the up and coming athletes are not among the worst performances of that 70,000? Are you calling Howman a "doping denier"?
If doping is not a religion, as you claim, and it is a science that can be empirically measured, why can't you point me to some of these empirical measurements establishing the improvements of some of the included percentage of elite athletes that we cannot say how many of improved?
But they don't follow, and I do attempt to argue that thousands of athletes, if not hundreds of thousands, want to believe in a mythology more suited for comic books. Characters from Popeye to Asterix to Underdog are nothing more than cartoons. To the extent we can say it is rational, the decisions of athletes to dope are based on hope and faith and rumors mingled in with incomplete information.
In any case, applying your own standard to yourself, your assumptions and inferences must be dismissed, as having never been published for review by experts.
As I have said above, your arguments that athletes really have no idea what they are doing when they are doping is based on your own fictional and quite unsubstantiated view of the practice. Elite and professional athletes are very serious about what they do - as are the coaches trainers, physios and doctors who work with them. They are guided by the science of their sport in the direction that most likely will favour success. This applies to training, technique, equipment and nutrition. The same will apply to the use of pharmaceuticals that they may take to improve performance. They don't suddenly become like children who believe in fairy stories. But it appears you have constructed your own such stories.
Unlike you, I base my views on doping on what most experts in the area indicate about the practice. Since you largely reject that consensus the obligation falls on you to offer some credible validation beyond your own eccentric inclinations.
I'm not arguing that athletes have no idea, but that you have no idea. You keep pretending to share the same ideas of athletes who have thus far said nothing.
This doesn't sound like the descriptions of doping in Africa, where it was proven by WADA that it is unsophisticated, uncoordinated and opportunistic.
Maybe this describes doping in richer countries in Europe and America and Russia.
But if all of what you said were true -- empirically measurable by science, no less -- then why aren't non-Africans performing better because of it? Do they not believe enough? Are they less serious? Do they understand the science and pharmeceuticals less?
The pool of 70,000 will include that percentage that is typically identifiable as elite. If 28,000 of that pool have doped, as official estimates have indicated is possible, and doping will be found amongst the elites, then the usual proportion of athletes who are elite will be found amongst the 28,000 who are doping.
Of the 28,000 who were doping we cannot say definitively how many will have experienced an definitive improvement in performance or how much. The latter will likely vary. However, everything - from the history of doping, to the studies of its effects, the estimation by experts on how peds work and the anecdotes of athletes - indicates that some benefit in performance will be more likely than not.
To say as you do, that "some of the best and the worst performances are doping" is, firstly, a mere and unproven assertion on your part, and is, secondly, simply another way of saying doping doesn't affect or enhance performance - in popular parlance, "it doesn't work". That is consistent with being a doping denier. It is also pure nonsense.
Doping is not like religion, where faith is placed in that which cannot be factually proven; it is a science and can be measured empirically - by results - and especially by the athletes who engage in it. You have absolutely no basis for assuming coaches and athletes who follow the science of the sport with regard to training, nutrition and technique are suddenly naive and gullible mystics when it comes to pharmaceuticals.
This does not really answer "how many" for either question, leaving both questions, as I said, unanswered. For the first question you just say "will include" a "percentage" and then for the second question, ironically enough, you say "we cannot say ... how many".
Your friend Howman is the one who said he was more worried about the up and coming athletes doping, moreso than the elite. You think the up and coming athletes are not among the worst performances of that 70,000? Are you calling Howman a "doping denier"?
If doping is not a religion, as you claim, and it is a science that can be empirically measured, why can't you point me to some of these empirical measurements establishing the improvements of some of the included percentage of elite athletes that we cannot say how many of improved?
I have said that the number of elites doping amongst the 70,000 will be at least the same proportion as amongst the 28,000 estimated to be doping. Indeed, I would expect it to be more, because amongst the 70,000 will be recreational athletes who are less serious about the sport and less inclined to dope. We know that elites in all sports dope. If elites are proportionately 10% (an estimate) of the runners included amongst the 70,000 then that means 2800 elites or more are likely to be doping amongst the 28,000 believed to be possibly doping. However I could well have underestimated the number of elites in the pool of 70,000 so the figure for those doping could be quite a bit higher. In essence, thousands of elite athletes are likely doping at any given time.
David Howman saying he is concerned about "up and coming athletes doping" is not an observation that they will outnumber elite athletes or he would have said that. Indeed, up and coming athletes are typically made of elite material. This is a feeble attempt on your part to suggest doping is less of a feature amongst top athletes than the mediocre and the recreational. It is not.
As I have said above, your arguments that athletes really have no idea what they are doing when they are doping is based on your own fictional and quite unsubstantiated view of the practice. Elite and professional athletes are very serious about what they do - as are the coaches trainers, physios and doctors who work with them. They are guided by the science of their sport in the direction that most likely will favour success. This applies to training, technique, equipment and nutrition. The same will apply to the use of pharmaceuticals that they may take to improve performance. They don't suddenly become like children who believe in fairy stories. But it appears you have constructed your own such stories.
Unlike you, I base my views on doping on what most experts in the area indicate about the practice. Since you largely reject that consensus the obligation falls on you to offer some credible validation beyond your own eccentric inclinations.
I'm not arguing that athletes have no idea, but that you have no idea. You keep pretending to share the same ideas of athletes who have thus far said nothing.
This doesn't sound like the descriptions of doping in Africa, where it was proven by WADA that it is unsophisticated, uncoordinated and opportunistic.
Maybe this describes doping in richer countries in Europe and America and Russia.
But if all of what you said were true -- empirically measurable by science, no less -- then why aren't non-Africans performing better because of it? Do they not believe enough? Are they less serious? Do they understand the science and pharmeceuticals less?
You haven't really been following events, have you? The rate of doping busts in Kenya is clear evidence that doping amongst distance runners in Kenya is far worse than most other countries. It is unsurprising that non-Africans have not performed at the same level as Africans/Kenyans.
As far as saying I have no idea about the attitudes athletes have with regard to doping, what is your evidence that despite these athletes being science-led with every other part of their professional lives they are like naive uneducated bushmen when it comes to using modern pharmaceuticals? That they typically gravitate to the same sorts of drugs shows they are very aware of what they doing. They don't confuse EPO with aspirin.
EPO doesn't work on elite athletes, particularly Kenyans. That's why so many are caught taking it. And all the other pharmaceuticals they ingest, mere placebos. Done.
This does not really answer "how many" for either question, leaving both questions, as I said, unanswered. For the first question you just say "will include" a "percentage" and then for the second question, ironically enough, you say "we cannot say ... how many".
Your friend Howman is the one who said he was more worried about the up and coming athletes doping, moreso than the elite. You think the up and coming athletes are not among the worst performances of that 70,000? Are you calling Howman a "doping denier"?
If doping is not a religion, as you claim, and it is a science that can be empirically measured, why can't you point me to some of these empirical measurements establishing the improvements of some of the included percentage of elite athletes that we cannot say how many of improved?
I have said that the number of elites doping amongst the 70,000 will be at least the same proportion as amongst the 28,000 estimated to be doping. Indeed, I would expect it to be more, because amongst the 70,000 will be recreational athletes who are less serious about the sport and less inclined to dope. We know that elites in all sports dope. If elites are proportionately 10% (an estimate) of the runners included amongst the 70,000 then that means 2800 elites or more are likely to be doping amongst the 28,000 believed to be possibly doping. However I could well have underestimated the number of elites in the pool of 70,000 so the figure for those doping could be quite a bit higher. In essence, thousands of elite athletes are likely doping at any given time.
David Howman saying he is concerned about "up and coming athletes doping" is not an observation that they will outnumber elite athletes or he would have said that. Indeed, up and coming athletes are typically made of elite material. This is a feeble attempt on your part to suggest doping is less of a feature amongst top athletes than the mediocre and the recreational. It is not.
This still doesn't answer "how many" -- despite your multiple attempts and long-winded verbiage, the unanswered questions remain unanswered.
Whatever you have said, you are just making it up as you go, piling on one brown tinged assumption after another.
28,000 estimated dopers is your own invention, by assuming 40% of the whole 70,000, down to club runners, are doping. The limited data that has been published on prevalence, is based on small populations of elites, like surveys from 1203 World Championship Athletes. It hardly makes sense to project any prevalence rate from these World Champion athletes onto the remaining 68,800, especially given your assumption that elites are doping more.
And earlier you said 10%, or 7,000. Howman also said 10%. Given your assumption that elite athletes will be doping more, your range of 7,000-28,000 doesn't follow.
Another unanswered question is what is the value of injecting non-elite club athletes, where prevalence is unknown, and non distance events like sprints, and field events, where doping patterns are not comparable, into the discussion?
I'm not arguing that athletes have no idea, but that you have no idea. You keep pretending to share the same ideas of athletes who have thus far said nothing.
This doesn't sound like the descriptions of doping in Africa, where it was proven by WADA that it is unsophisticated, uncoordinated and opportunistic.
Maybe this describes doping in richer countries in Europe and America and Russia.
But if all of what you said were true -- empirically measurable by science, no less -- then why aren't non-Africans performing better because of it? Do they not believe enough? Are they less serious? Do they understand the science and pharmeceuticals less?
You haven't really been following events, have you? The rate of doping busts in Kenya is clear evidence that doping amongst distance runners in Kenya is far worse than most other countries. It is unsurprising that non-Africans have not performed at the same level as Africans/Kenyans.
As far as saying I have no idea about the attitudes athletes have with regard to doping, what is your evidence that despite these athletes being science-led with every other part of their professional lives they are like naive uneducated bushmen when it comes to using modern pharmaceuticals? That they typically gravitate to the same sorts of drugs shows they are very aware of what they doing. They don't confuse EPO with aspirin.
I have been following these events. Increased doping busts do not help your claims of doping related performance, or claims that you possess the knowledge and experience of these athletes. You need to inject your own baseless assumed inferences.
My evidence was a 2017 WADA study that says doping is unsophisticated -- the opposite of your sophisticated high tech scenario. In countries which might have such sophisticated doping, they are not outperforming themselves.
I have said that the number of elites doping amongst the 70,000 will be at least the same proportion as amongst the 28,000 estimated to be doping. Indeed, I would expect it to be more, because amongst the 70,000 will be recreational athletes who are less serious about the sport and less inclined to dope. We know that elites in all sports dope. If elites are proportionately 10% (an estimate) of the runners included amongst the 70,000 then that means 2800 elites or more are likely to be doping amongst the 28,000 believed to be possibly doping. However I could well have underestimated the number of elites in the pool of 70,000 so the figure for those doping could be quite a bit higher. In essence, thousands of elite athletes are likely doping at any given time.
David Howman saying he is concerned about "up and coming athletes doping" is not an observation that they will outnumber elite athletes or he would have said that. Indeed, up and coming athletes are typically made of elite material. This is a feeble attempt on your part to suggest doping is less of a feature amongst top athletes than the mediocre and the recreational. It is not.
This still doesn't answer "how many" -- despite your multiple attempts and long-winded verbiage, the unanswered questions remain unanswered.
Whatever you have said, you are just making it up as you go, piling on one brown tinged assumption after another.
28,000 estimated dopers is your own invention, by assuming 40% of the whole 70,000, down to club runners, are doping. The limited data that has been published on prevalence, is based on small populations of elites, like surveys from 1203 World Championship Athletes. It hardly makes sense to project any prevalence rate from these World Champion athletes onto the remaining 68,800, especially given your assumption that elites are doping more.
And earlier you said 10%, or 7,000. Howman also said 10%. Given your assumption that elite athletes will be doping more, your range of 7,000-28,000 doesn't follow.
Another unanswered question is what is the value of injecting non-elite club athletes, where prevalence is unknown, and non distance events like sprints, and field events, where doping patterns are not comparable, into the discussion?
28,000 is not my invention, it is the application of the official estimates that put doping as high as 40% of tested athletes. As you have argued that doping occurs amongst non-elites and recreational athletes (and could even be more amongst the latter) it is a percentage that could apply across the board. I find it a bit rich that you now conveniently argue the estimates only apply to elites. It is known that doping extends beyond them and is a problem there, too. The 28,000 would be the higher figure; as I said previously, the lowest figure would still be at around 7000.
Your arguments are nothing more than a patent attempt to wish doping away. Despite your claim you recognize the "prevalence" of doping, in any discussion about what that might actually mean it airily disappears in your hands. Your "caution" is denial.
EPO doesn't work on elite athletes, particularly Kenyans. That's why so many are caught taking it. And all the other pharmaceuticals they ingest, mere placebos. Done.
You are at least succinct, which cannot be said for the one you so adeptly satirize - er, summarize.
You haven't really been following events, have you? The rate of doping busts in Kenya is clear evidence that doping amongst distance runners in Kenya is far worse than most other countries. It is unsurprising that non-Africans have not performed at the same level as Africans/Kenyans.
As far as saying I have no idea about the attitudes athletes have with regard to doping, what is your evidence that despite these athletes being science-led with every other part of their professional lives they are like naive uneducated bushmen when it comes to using modern pharmaceuticals? That they typically gravitate to the same sorts of drugs shows they are very aware of what they doing. They don't confuse EPO with aspirin.
I have been following these events. Increased doping busts do not help your claims of doping related performance, or claims that you possess the knowledge and experience of these athletes. You need to inject your own baseless assumed inferences.
My evidence was a 2017 WADA study that says doping is unsophisticated -- the opposite of your sophisticated high tech scenario. In countries which might have such sophisticated doping, they are not outperforming themselves.
Of course. Increased doping isn't related to performance. It fits with your oft-maintained view that doping is some kind of weird religion without basis in reality.
Doping doesn't have to be sophisticated to be prevalent. But avoiding detection does and that is where the Kenyans don't do so well. But drugs like EPO are as "sophisticated" as any available - and there are many. These athletes are not buying snake oil.
What rekrunner and the doping deniers cannot and will not recognize is that doping is science applied to sport; it is the cutting edge that is constantly evolving - and more so than training, techniques and nutrition, because it is capable of much further and more varied development. This isn't my supposition but what is being said by professional athletes and experts on the subject. Indeed, the next stage beyond peds is predicted to be gene-doping. Which of course the deniers will choose to remain oblivious to or refer to it as a "placebo".
28,000 is not my invention, it is the application of the official estimates that put doping as high as 40% of tested athletes. As you have argued that doping occurs amongst non-elites and recreational athletes (and could even be more amongst the latter) it is a percentage that could apply across the board. I find it a bit rich that you now conveniently argue the estimates only apply to elites. It is known that doping extends beyond them and is a problem there, too. The 28,000 would be the higher figure; as I said previously, the lowest figure would still be at around 7000.
Your arguments are nothing more than a patent attempt to wish doping away. Despite your claim you recognize the "prevalence" of doping, in any discussion about what that might actually mean it airily disappears in your hands. Your "caution" is denial.
28,000 is the composite product of several of your inventions.
No one said the 70,000 athletes were "tested". In 2019, WADA labs tested 278,000 samples across at least 83 sports/disciplines and at least 115 nations. It would be surprising to find that WA alone is testing 70,000 athletes a week -- a rate that would exceed WADA's annual testing in less than 4 weeks.
"Official estimate" is also your invention, and it is not as high as 40% of "tested athletes". The 40% comes from an anonymized indirect survey (not tests) from one event from 1203 world championship athletes, and excluded the rest of the 68,800 athletes in that week.
It was you who assumed that elite athletes would dope more than recreational athletes. Holding you to your own assumption suggests both of your inventions of 7,000 and 28,000 would be drastically over-estimated. You also estimated that elite athletes (10%) would be vastly outnumbered by the remaining 90%.
If you discuss what prevalence might mean, don't forget that "might mean" doesn't rule out "might not mean". I only deny what you invent in your fantasies, when not backed up by real world facts and observations.
I have been following these events. Increased doping busts do not help your claims of doping related performance, or claims that you possess the knowledge and experience of these athletes. You need to inject your own baseless assumed inferences.
My evidence was a 2017 WADA study that says doping is unsophisticated -- the opposite of your sophisticated high tech scenario. In countries which might have such sophisticated doping, they are not outperforming themselves.
Of course. Increased doping isn't related to performance. It fits with your oft-maintained view that doping is some kind of weird religion without basis in reality.
Doping doesn't have to be sophisticated to be prevalent. But avoiding detection does and that is where the Kenyans don't do so well. But drugs like EPO are as "sophisticated" as any available - and there are many. These athletes are not buying snake oil.
But who is doing the sophisticated doping you described earlier? And why aren't they performing?
It looks like this year, many Kenyans are being caught by newly lowered limits of triamcinolone - a substance permitted out of competition - and stronger enforcement of whereabouts failures.
What rekrunner and the doping deniers cannot and will not recognize is that doping is science applied to sport; it is the cutting edge that is constantly evolving - and more so than training, techniques and nutrition, because it is capable of much further and more varied development. This isn't my supposition but what is being said by professional athletes and experts on the subject. Indeed, the next stage beyond peds is predicted to be gene-doping. Which of course the deniers will choose to remain oblivious to or refer to it as a "placebo".
I can recognize it as one of the many gospels according to Armstronglivs.
You claim this is "being said by professional athletes and experts on the subject", yet can never provide corroboration.
What rekrunner and the doping deniers cannot and will not recognize is that doping is science applied to sport; it is the cutting edge that is constantly evolving - and more so than training, techniques and nutrition, because it is capable of much further and more varied development. This isn't my supposition but what is being said by professional athletes and experts on the subject. Indeed, the next stage beyond peds is predicted to be gene-doping. Which of course the deniers will choose to remain oblivious to or refer to it as a "placebo".
I can recognize it as one of the many gospels according to Armstronglivs.
You claim this is "being said by professional athletes and experts on the subject", yet can never provide corroboration.
I obtain my perceptions from a wide variety of sources whereas you appear mostly reliant on yourself and your "historical studies". If scientists did as you do the earth would still be believed to be at the centre of the universe.
28,000 is not my invention, it is the application of the official estimates that put doping as high as 40% of tested athletes. As you have argued that doping occurs amongst non-elites and recreational athletes (and could even be more amongst the latter) it is a percentage that could apply across the board. I find it a bit rich that you now conveniently argue the estimates only apply to elites. It is known that doping extends beyond them and is a problem there, too. The 28,000 would be the higher figure; as I said previously, the lowest figure would still be at around 7000.
Your arguments are nothing more than a patent attempt to wish doping away. Despite your claim you recognize the "prevalence" of doping, in any discussion about what that might actually mean it airily disappears in your hands. Your "caution" is denial.
28,000 is the composite product of several of your inventions.
No one said the 70,000 athletes were "tested". In 2019, WADA labs tested 278,000 samples across at least 83 sports/disciplines and at least 115 nations. It would be surprising to find that WA alone is testing 70,000 athletes a week -- a rate that would exceed WADA's annual testing in less than 4 weeks.
"Official estimate" is also your invention, and it is not as high as 40% of "tested athletes". The 40% comes from an anonymized indirect survey (not tests) from one event from 1203 world championship athletes, and excluded the rest of the 68,800 athletes in that week.
It was you who assumed that elite athletes would dope more than recreational athletes. Holding you to your own assumption suggests both of your inventions of 7,000 and 28,000 would be drastically over-estimated. You also estimated that elite athletes (10%) would be vastly outnumbered by the remaining 90%.
If you discuss what prevalence might mean, don't forget that "might mean" doesn't rule out "might not mean". I only deny what you invent in your fantasies, when not backed up by real world facts and observations.
So the entire pool has to be tested in order to draw any conclusions from representative samples? That would mean you could certainly draw no conclusions from political polls - or anything else - because the entire planet hasn't been included in the data. I am now doubting your claim to be a statistical "expert".
Of course. Increased doping isn't related to performance. It fits with your oft-maintained view that doping is some kind of weird religion without basis in reality.
Doping doesn't have to be sophisticated to be prevalent. But avoiding detection does and that is where the Kenyans don't do so well. But drugs like EPO are as "sophisticated" as any available - and there are many. These athletes are not buying snake oil.
But who is doing the sophisticated doping you described earlier? And why aren't they performing?
It looks like this year, many Kenyans are being caught by newly lowered limits of triamcinolone - a substance permitted out of competition - and stronger enforcement of whereabouts failures.
The uncomfortable fact is that most of the doping is being done by the Kenyans, which is why others are not achieving the same degree of success. I can imagine you being taken back in a time machine and justifying the successes of the E Bloc athletes before we knew that were almost all fuelled by drugs.
Subscribe to our channel - https://www.youtube.com/user/IAAF2012...⭐️ Follow us on Twitter - https://twitter.com/WorldAthletics ⭐️⭐️ Follow us on Facebook - ...
So the entire pool has to be tested in order to draw any conclusions from representative samples? That would mean you could certainly draw no conclusions from political polls - or anything else - because the entire planet hasn't been included in the data. I am now doubting your claim to be a statistical "expert".
You don't need to test the whole pool, if you make the assumption that the pools are representative of each other, but once again -- you made the opposite assumption that elite athletes doped more than recreational athletes.
You cannot pretend they are different and then turn around and pretend they are the same, and then turn around again to say they are different.
You don't need to be an expert statistician to see that, just sane.
I can recognize it as one of the many gospels according to Armstronglivs.
You claim this is "being said by professional athletes and experts on the subject", yet can never provide corroboration.
I obtain my perceptions from a wide variety of sources whereas you appear mostly reliant on yourself and your "historical studies". If scientists did as you do the earth would still be believed to be at the centre of the universe.
I try to filter out gossip and fantasy and uninformed speculation and rumors and obtain my perceptions from a wide variety of reliable sources connected to reality and observation, while not ignoring observed contradictions.
"Historical data" is just one such reality that needs to be accounted for.
Geo-centric and Helio-centric are just two mathematical models that are 1-1 transformations of each other. Both can be used to make future predictions about observations in the sky, but the math is much simpler with one.