People called me ridiculous for saying doping is very common in colllege

I'm sure he was. Can you tell me, what was he pretty right about? Did he give me enough data to do the suggested comparison?

Recall, I simply asked, not whether he was right or wrong about something, but for the data behind his claim: "most" "dumb and careless" are at the "top" of "sport". Presumably the data would address all of the quoted significant terms.

He started talking about championship surveys and busts including champions and argued that anti-doping knowledge is always far far behind the doping reality, and gave me an officially estimated (by whom?) figure of "80% or more" in "some sports". If we are generous and assume everything is true, his long explanation only speaks to the "top". Viewing his explanation in the best light, both his claim and explanation are still quite vague and sweeping, yet too incomplete to compare the "top" with the rest.

I see above that 50% is an optimistic estimate of doping in college -- athletes who are generally not championship athletes and did not participate in championship athlete surveys. The non-championship "dumb and careless" athletes in college largely get away with doping because apparently they are not even subject to testing. The surveys in literature that exist to date give a wide range estimates of championship athletes ranging from 20% to 44% -- a figure that is less than the 50% in college. The "officially" estimated "80% or more" didn't come from these surveys. Even when we consider the published assumed uncertainties, the estimates range from 9% to 73%, still short of 80%.

So what did he get pretty right? And where is the rest of the data necessary to do the comparison that concludes "most"?

Tuohy is a deflection. I have no views about whether she has doped or not. She may have, she may not. But confidential athlete surveys long ago showed that the numbers who dope far exceed the numbers caught. You need to get with the programme.

The expected waffle. If 1 in 3 championship level athletes is doping - some estimates from the data suggest it could be more than 1 in 2 - then that means to find the dopers you could basically flip a coin with any top athletes. If they are doping then testing is unlikely to catch them. Then you add that there is virtually no testing at college level, in which case any of the athletes at that level could dope with no expectation of being caught. Add personal ambition to that equation and you have a recipe for wholesale doping. Only those with their head in the sand won't see that. You must have sand plugging every available orifice.

Rekrunner has no idea what you are talking about.

There is no data to support your made up claim.

As a former D1 runner (and Iowa State athlete) I tend to agree with this

Former D1 runner (and Iowa State athlete). I tend to agree with this claim. Many people on here are making speculative claims about things they know nothing about....

That's all well and good, but getting back to the question at hand, do you have any data that shows "Most of (the dumb and careless) are at the top of the sport."

On the contrary -- I think he is exactly my idea of the most common and typical doper profile: a runner who was not a top runner in college and tried everything else, but was getting beaten by the top runners. He lost faith in his own coaches and talent and training.

Then he did some "research" and formed a belief that doping could bring him 4 seconds in the 800m and 12 seconds in the mile, above and beyond his college PBs. The decision to dope would have been based on hope and belief and faith in doping to bring him substantial performance gains.

But he didn't follow through, so it remains an untested belief lacking any real performance data.

What's your definition of common? There have been a few instances of it, but there are tens of thousands of track athletes

"Data" is only what you approve of. Surveys and analysis from experts are data.

As I said, you have no idea what he was talking about.

Common means it's regularly done by most people. It's not common. It's done but it's not common.

You have posted so many useful links. Oh wait, you made it up.

That isn't strictly correct. "Common" doesn't have to be done by most - it isn't a majority percentage, as it were. Nor is it a precise term of measurement. To be "common" all it has to be is frequent - like the issuing of tickets for parking infringements. Most drivers aren't ticketed but the practice of ticketing remains a commonplace. Doping is similar. If doping is prevalent in a sport - which it is often acknowledged to be in track (and including college and schools) by antidoping experts - then it is frequent enough to be "common".

I don't do research for others. I do it for myself. You should try it some time. Nor do I make it up.

Or you don't.

I never doubted that middle of the pack college runners would be tempted to dope, hoping to get themselves to the next level, and that some follow through, and that others don't.

Help me understand the relevance to this thread or any of my posts, and how this anecdote of someone who didn't dope provides us any real data or any insight about doped performances.

You lie frequently. I have read every study. Few athletes have said that doping goes uncovered. It is so frustrating to have you constantly post false information. Do you realize that it takes more time to type.your drivel than to post a link? You sure seem like someone who wastes a lot of time trying to sway people's opinions but then claim that you won't do research. That is the only honest thing you have posted.

It is however surprising that it’s not common. For a lot of people, getting a D1 scholarship is life changing. Cost of a College degree is approx $400K in some of the top schools.

Look back at the opening scene of Friday Night Lights. The quarterback, who lived with his single mom, had tons of steroids on his kitchen table. For the mother, her dream was for his kid to go to College.

Incentive and Opportunity.

The number is not zero (we know that from Khan last year) and it’s probably not 100 either