I haven't "dumbsplained"anyone. I have referred to what Howman and other antidoping experts have said. But you won't be familiar with this because you live in a mythical world where doping scarcely occurs and certainly doesn't aid athletes.
Howman does "have a clue" about how many are doping because he is confidently claiming that dopers are getting away with it - he doesn't qualify that and say "only a few" - and it is damaging the brand of clean sport.
You haven't, but you keep trying.
He is just confidently claiming their effectiveness is not 100%. But he can't say whether it is 50% or 5%.
He has. If it was 5% antidoping would be doing really well. To acknowledge it could well be ten times that is why he says it is "ineffective". He wouldn't be making that warning if it wasn't serious. It's actually conceding they are losing the battle against drugs. The only thing he suggests it probably isn't is that ALL championship athletes are doping. Not much of a concession.
I read all that and I said that anti-doping was ineffective -- we are all in agreement there.
Also "there is no way for Howman to estimate how many elite pinnacle dopers are getting away with it."
It doesn't have to be an exact figure for him to conclude the cheats are getting away with their doping. The captain of the Titanic didn't need to measure the iceberg to know what he had struck.
An "estimate" is not an exact figure.
Initially you thought the claim was "absurd" and "false". Now you seem to be saying it is true, but that it doesn't matter.
someone spoke about the expense of developing new drugs putting off dopers.
this isnt the way i beleive it works. drug companies develop new drugs all the time and write research papers about them. no doubt the dope doctors read all these papers and they look for various markers; vasodilation, blood flow, oxygen take up. drugs to treat various diseases will always be a good source especially asthma drugs. or you look for simple drug like painkillers that list side effects; diuretic, increases haemoglobulin levels
so you can quickly whittle down the field. these drug trials take years, about a decade, so you keep an eye on it and as soon as it shows promise and doesnt kill rats, maybe five years, then you look at its detection likelihood (is it the same as other drugs, or very different), you look at its pharmakinetics, its interactions, and off you go.
Im obviously not an expert but all i am postulating is that you have got years and years before the anti doping even gets a whiff of these new drugs and all the above is very very cheap compared to the actual drug development. dopers do not pay the cost of drug development. they piggy back.
the above is obvoius in SARMS, except for the fact that some of the popular ones didnt pass the rat test, and now they can be tested for, but you get the drift.
He has. If it was 5% antidoping would be doing really well. To acknowledge it could well be ten times that is why he says it is "ineffective". He wouldn't be making that warning if it wasn't serious. It's actually conceding they are losing the battle against drugs. The only thing he suggests it probably isn't is that ALL championship athletes are doping. Not much of a concession.
My percentages here aren't prevalence estimates, but about the fraction in your statement "they are only catching a small fraction of those who are doping".
5% effectiveness is not "doing really well", and 50% effectiveness is far less "ineffective".
And here, we weren't talking about all tested athletes, but "those at the pinnacle of sport".
And Howman is talking about all sports, and not just distance running, and is urging other sports to follow the path of the AIU who "(prides itself) on our demonstrated ability to catch elite athletes who are cheating". "The AlU’s mantra is ‘the right test, the right athlete, the right time,’ underlining our adherence to intelligence-led, targeted anti-doping work."
He has. If it was 5% antidoping would be doing really well. To acknowledge it could well be ten times that is why he says it is "ineffective". He wouldn't be making that warning if it wasn't serious. It's actually conceding they are losing the battle against drugs. The only thing he suggests it probably isn't is that ALL championship athletes are doping. Not much of a concession.
My percentages here aren't prevalence estimates, but about the fraction in your statement "they are only catching a small fraction of those who are doping".
5% effectiveness is not "doing really well", and 50% effectiveness is far less "ineffective".
And here, we weren't talking about all tested athletes, but "those at the pinnacle of sport".
And Howman is talking about all sports, and not just distance running, and is urging other sports to follow the path of the AIU who "(prides itself) on our demonstrated ability to catch elite athletes who are cheating". "The AlU’s mantra is ‘the right test, the right athlete, the right time,’ underlining our adherence to intelligence-led, targeted anti-doping work."
He isn't saying antidoping is 50% effective. He is saying it is ineffective in catching dopers. He didn't put a figure on how many are doping and how many are caught. But the key word, which you can't get your head around, is that he is saying antidoping is "ineffective". That means it's losing. Like you always do.
The AIU isn't catching most dopers or Howman wouldn't be saying doping control is ineffective. You do everything you can to avoid the truth about the sport.
It doesn't have to be an exact figure for him to conclude the cheats are getting away with their doping. The captain of the Titanic didn't need to measure the iceberg to know what he had struck.
An "estimate" is not an exact figure.
Initially you thought the claim was "absurd" and "false". Now you seem to be saying it is true, but that it doesn't matter.
An estimate of scale can be relied upon without it needing to be exact. Mt Everest is pretty big without our knowing it is over 29,000 feet. There will never be an exact figure for doping because it is a clandestine practice; dopers don't disclose themselves. But the proportions of those doping in a sport can be indicated by confidential athlete surveys, for example, which is reinforced by the fact that most dopers aren't caught. If the chances of detection are minimal more athletes will dope than the numbers who are detected.
I in 2 athletes is 50%, bright spark. It means you can flip a coin and you will have likely found a doper.
Whatever you think are the causes of the "ineffectiveness" of antidoping it remains ineffective. That is what Howman is saying.
50% effectiveness means they are catching half the dopers. All Howman is really saying is that he knows that testing doesn't catch everyone.
He isn't claiming antidoping is 50% effective. You are seriously dense. 50% of top athletes are estimated to be doping. These athletes are not being caught or the figure would no longer be an estimate but an exact measure of the numbers doping. Antidoping catches only a fraction of those estimated to be doping, which is why Howman says antidoping is ineffective. In other words, most dopers are getting away with it.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
someone spoke about the expense of developing new drugs putting off dopers.
this isnt the way i beleive it works. drug companies develop new drugs all the time and write research papers about them. no doubt the dope doctors read all these papers and they look for various markers; vasodilation, blood flow, oxygen take up. drugs to treat various diseases will always be a good source especially asthma drugs. or you look for simple drug like painkillers that list side effects; diuretic, increases haemoglobulin levels
so you can quickly whittle down the field. these drug trials take years, about a decade, so you keep an eye on it and as soon as it shows promise and doesnt kill rats, maybe five years, then you look at its detection likelihood (is it the same as other drugs, or very different), you look at its pharmakinetics, its interactions, and off you go.
Im obviously not an expert but all i am postulating is that you have got years and years before the anti doping even gets a whiff of these new drugs and all the above is very very cheap compared to the actual drug development. dopers do not pay the cost of drug development. they piggy back.
the above is obvoius in SARMS, except for the fact that some of the popular ones didnt pass the rat test, and now they can be tested for, but you get the drift.
I'm not aware that I am actually differing with you about that. Doping piggybacks off medical and pharmaceutical advances, which are continuous, but also seeks ways to disguise the drugs when used as peds. As we saw with Russian whistleblower dopers, athletes' physicians also find ways to combine different drugs as a doping "cocktail". What is key in this process is to incorporate masking agents to reduce the risk of detection. The doping doctors must be pretty good at it, because according to experts like Howman, doping is always ahead of antidoping.
He isn't saying antidoping is 50% effective. He is saying it is ineffective in catching dopers. He didn't put a figure on how many are doping and how many are caught. But the key word, which you can't get your head around, is that he is saying antidoping is "ineffective". That means it's losing. Like you always do.
The AIU isn't catching most dopers or Howman wouldn't be saying doping control is ineffective. You do everything you can to avoid the truth about the sport.
I think you forgot the original statement you objected to was "there is no way for Howman to estimate how many elite pinnacle dopers are getting away with it."
Howman isn't saying it because he cannot say it.
I already agreed the current approach is ineffective, for many reasons. That is not where we disagree, and that is not what you objected to.
An estimate of scale can be relied upon without it needing to be exact. Mt Everest is pretty big without our knowing it is over 29,000 feet. There will never be an exact figure for doping because it is a clandestine practice; dopers don't disclose themselves. But the proportions of those doping in a sport can be indicated by confidential athlete surveys, for example, which is reinforced by the fact that most dopers aren't caught. If the chances of detection are minimal more athletes will dope than the numbers who are detected.
But he cannot even provide an estimate of scale. Recall your wide ranges of 10%-40% and even 10%-90%.
Confidential surveys are not reliable enough to be relied upon.
He isn't claiming antidoping is 50% effective. You are seriously dense. 50% of top athletes are estimated to be doping. These athletes are not being caught or the figure would no longer be an estimate but an exact measure of the numbers doping. Antidoping catches only a fraction of those estimated to be doping, which is why Howman says antidoping is ineffective. In other words, most dopers are getting away with it.
He isn't because he cannot. That's the whole point. He doesn't say "most dopers" because he cannot.
You keep saying "a fraction". 1/2 is a fraction. So is 1/20. So is 9/10.
No one seriously estimates 50% of top athletes are doping. You yourself told us that Howman's estimates were 10%-40%.
This post was edited 16 seconds after it was posted.
He isn't claiming antidoping is 50% effective. You are seriously dense. 50% of top athletes are estimated to be doping. These athletes are not being caught or the figure would no longer be an estimate but an exact measure of the numbers doping. Antidoping catches only a fraction of those estimated to be doping, which is why Howman says antidoping is ineffective. In other words, most dopers are getting away with it.
He isn't because he cannot. That's the whole point. He doesn't say "most dopers" because he cannot.
You keep saying "a fraction". 1/2 is a fraction. So is 1/20. So is 9/10.
No one seriously estimates 50% of top athletes are doping. You yourself told us that Howman's estimates were 10%-40%.
You don't understand what "fraction" means in popular parlance. It isn't 90%. It means a very small percentage.
Confidential athlete surveys have enabled a conclusion that doping could be in excess of 50% at championship level. Some experts, like Conte, have argued that virtually everybody at championship levels is doping. Howman has said he might not go that far but that it is "probably somewhere in between" those predictions and more conservative estimates. Somewhere "in between" is easily 50% - which is similar to athletes' surveys suggesting at least 1 in 3 athletes if not 1 in 2 are doping. Howman has not sided with the more conservative estimates, he has just cautioned against the extremes.
When he says dopers "are getting away with it" the essential point is his claim that anti-doping is "ineffective". That means it's losing. Most dopers aren't being caught because many more are doping than just the few percent who test positive. Recognizing that doesn't require a percentage. It is seeing that there is an iceberg up ahead.
This post was edited 10 minutes after it was posted.
He isn't saying antidoping is 50% effective. He is saying it is ineffective in catching dopers. He didn't put a figure on how many are doping and how many are caught. But the key word, which you can't get your head around, is that he is saying antidoping is "ineffective". That means it's losing. Like you always do.
The AIU isn't catching most dopers or Howman wouldn't be saying doping control is ineffective. You do everything you can to avoid the truth about the sport.
I think you forgot the original statement you objected to was "there is no way for Howman to estimate how many elite pinnacle dopers are getting away with it."
Howman isn't saying it because he cannot say it.
I already agreed the current approach is ineffective, for many reasons. That is not where we disagree, and that is not what you objected to.
He doesn't put a figure on it, not because he can't but because it is irrelevant when he says dopers "are getting away with it" and antidoping is "ineffective". If most dopers were being caught he would not make those claims. So the converse - that most aren't being caught - would be true, or his statement is both misleading and alarmist.
You don't understand what "fraction" means in popular parlance. It isn't 90%. It means a very small percentage.
Confidential athlete surveys have enabled a conclusion that doping could be in excess of 50% at championship level. Some experts, like Conte, have argued that virtually everybody at championship levels is doping. Howman has said he might not go that far but that it is "probably somewhere in between" those predictions and more conservative estimates. Somewhere "in between" is easily 50% - which is similar to athletes' surveys suggesting at least 1 in 3 athletes if not 1 in 2 are doping. Howman has not sided with the more conservative estimates, he has just cautioned against the extremes.
When he says dopers "are getting away with it" the essential point is his claim that anti-doping is "ineffective". That means it's losing. Most dopers aren't being caught because many more are doping than just the few percent who test positive. Recognizing that doesn't require a percentage. It is seeing that there is an iceberg up ahead.
Howman doesn't say "a fraction", so it doesn't matter what you think it means.
Confidential surveys have enabled no conclusions, but only wild inflated speculation. Anonymity doesn't guarantee truthful responses and doesn't address survey apathy.
Some experts don't have a clue, and just speculate without data. Conte was not an expert. Conte didn't have a clue about "virtually everybody at championship levels" (like Howman) and can't say whether prevalence is 10%, 50%, or 90%.
Howman doesn't say "Most dopers aren't being caught".
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
He doesn't put a figure on it, not because he can't but because it is irrelevant when he says dopers "are getting away with it" and antidoping is "ineffective". If most dopers were being caught he would not make those claims. So the converse - that most aren't being caught - would be true, or his statement is both misleading and alarmist.
Howman himself says he can't put a figure on effectiveness (see below).
You don't really understand why Howman says the current testing approach is ineffective.
Much of his pep-talks target ADOs improving the quality of testing, through better guidance, better science, better intelligence, and better investigations, rather than blindly meeting minimum testing quotas with unintelligent testing, making anti-doping "compliant" but "ineffective".
In a speech at USADA's annual Symposium on Anti-Doping Science he explains this in greater detail:
"The programs have remained pretty much the same. Registered testing pools (RTPs) at both National and international levels require mandatory testing for those RTP athletes. This can lead to testing by numbers rather than quality testing."
"There is little guidance as to how and when tests might best be taken, just a minimum, and the ADO [anti-doping organization] is compliant. And, is there any guideline as to the numbers that must be in an international sport RTP? Particularly team sports? If so, has that led to more effective testing?"
"[W]e don’t seem to have any ability to confirm any of it."
"Without a measure for doping behaviour reliably, evaluating the effectiveness of anti-doping programs is ILLUSIVE."
Before USADA, he says prevalence can be 0-30%:
"I quote from the Chair of the WADA Prevalence Committee: 'Despite the importance and abundance of cumulated data over time the evidence base for doping prevalence in competitive sport is still weak and fragmented with most evidence pointing to a prevalence rate of 0 to 5% overall, and up to 30% as the most plausible estimate in sport- and method- specific analyses.'"
ANTI-DOPING: AIU chief Howman scoffs at high numbers of negative tests, says “sophisticated dopers still evade detection” - The Sports Examiner - Your all-in-one coverage of Olympic-sports news, views, previews and results.
You don't understand what "fraction" means in popular parlance. It isn't 90%. It means a very small percentage.
Confidential athlete surveys have enabled a conclusion that doping could be in excess of 50% at championship level. Some experts, like Conte, have argued that virtually everybody at championship levels is doping. Howman has said he might not go that far but that it is "probably somewhere in between" those predictions and more conservative estimates. Somewhere "in between" is easily 50% - which is similar to athletes' surveys suggesting at least 1 in 3 athletes if not 1 in 2 are doping. Howman has not sided with the more conservative estimates, he has just cautioned against the extremes.
When he says dopers "are getting away with it" the essential point is his claim that anti-doping is "ineffective". That means it's losing. Most dopers aren't being caught because many more are doping than just the few percent who test positive. Recognizing that doesn't require a percentage. It is seeing that there is an iceberg up ahead.
Howman doesn't say "a fraction", so it doesn't matter what you think it means.
Confidential surveys have enabled no conclusions, but only wild inflated speculation. Anonymity doesn't guarantee truthful responses and doesn't address survey apathy.
Some experts don't have a clue, and just speculate without data. Conte was not an expert. Conte didn't have a clue about "virtually everybody at championship levels" (like Howman) and can't say whether prevalence is 10%, 50%, or 90%.
Howman doesn't say "Most dopers aren't being caught".
What he says is that "dopers are getting away with it" , that antidoping is "ineffective" and it is discrediting the brand of "clean sport". So he's saying that antidoping is losing. That actually sounds worse than what you say he didn't say.
I used the term a "fraction", because that is what 1% of tests returning a positive means when it is known that the numbers doping are far higher than that. 1 in 3 or 1 in 2 championship athletes is not a "wildly inflated estimate". If it was Howman would have said so. He hasn't. He has acknowledged it is likely, when he suggested the figure was "probably somewhere in between" that claimed by Conte ("everybody is doping") and those who think it far less. Conte supplied drugs to elite athletes. That qualifies as an expert on doping. Unlike you.
He doesn't put a figure on it, not because he can't but because it is irrelevant when he says dopers "are getting away with it" and antidoping is "ineffective". If most dopers were being caught he would not make those claims. So the converse - that most aren't being caught - would be true, or his statement is both misleading and alarmist.
Howman himself says he can't put a figure on effectiveness (see below).
You don't really understand why Howman says the current testing approach is ineffective.
Much of his pep-talks target ADOs improving the quality of testing, through better guidance, better science, better intelligence, and better investigations, rather than blindly meeting minimum testing quotas with unintelligent testing, making anti-doping "compliant" but "ineffective".
In a speech at USADA's annual Symposium on Anti-Doping Science he explains this in greater detail:
"The programs have remained pretty much the same. Registered testing pools (RTPs) at both National and international levels require mandatory testing for those RTP athletes. This can lead to testing by numbers rather than quality testing."
"There is little guidance as to how and when tests might best be taken, just a minimum, and the ADO [anti-doping organization] is compliant. And, is there any guideline as to the numbers that must be in an international sport RTP? Particularly team sports? If so, has that led to more effective testing?"
"[W]e don’t seem to have any ability to confirm any of it."
"Without a measure for doping behaviour reliably, evaluating the effectiveness of anti-doping programs is ILLUSIVE."
Before USADA, he says prevalence can be 0-30%:
"I quote from the Chair of the WADA Prevalence Committee: 'Despite the importance and abundance of cumulated data over time the evidence base for doping prevalence in competitive sport is still weak and fragmented with most evidence pointing to a prevalence rate of 0 to 5% overall, and up to 30% as the most plausible estimate in sport- and method- specific analyses.'"
I quoted what Howman said. He says dopers are "getting away with it" and antidoping is "ineffective". What part of the term "getting away with it" means they are getting caught, and which part of the word "ineffective" suggests they are catching dopers?
I know it's dirty. I know a lot of runners cheat. But I think it's cleaner than most letsrunners think it is.
Having said that, I'm never surprised at a failed test from anyone. It's more like disgust for them.
I DO wish that the moderators had the guts to delete comments that make unfounded accusations. They hijack threads and we are no longer talking about races.
We all have our doubts-there's no need to make unfounded accusations.
In a case like Shelby, she has convinced herself that she's innocent because she believes everyone else is doing it too so therefore it should be allowable. That's essentially what has occurred regarding that.
