Please, that was not an argument. It was more or less a personal and cultural statement. It not even the core of my argument. And you took it out of context. As usual a you make a characterization. I tried to tell the Nordås story, but did not expect anything else from you. And again as I wrote: "Do I know for sure that people who run 3:39 are not using drugs. I do not". Your problem is that you KNOW that they are. Though this Buddha here "est un autre" has made the brilliant points. So you better answer him. Go on. Do it. With arguments.
Your motivation speaks for itself. One who says he would be "devastated" at the mere thought this runner (a fellow Norwegian) is doping would hardly entertain arguments he is. It would be like trying to persuade a devout Christian there is in fact no God.
"Est un autre" has made no "brilliant arguments". He has simply said what suits your partiality. Even if he knows a bit about the sport he actually knows little about doping. I suspect it is because he is too young to remember what the sport was once like.
Hi Armstronglivs -I’m 64 years old!😂 I will keep on criticising you, but will never forget that you had the best (humorous) few words of all posters ever some months ago. (I cannot stop laughing really, because you nailed it!) -a poster wrote:” All we need now is that Rekrunner or Armstronglivs show up and everything will be ruined”. And a few minutes later you wrote: “You called?” Man -I can’t stop laughing….
Katir’s and Nordås’s progression is strikingly similar. But you have an agenda and therefore make up your own rules for making these two athletes un similar…!
Katir and Nordås both plateaued and then had a huge leap forward the next season. But you are stressing “the fact” that Katir pr’ed in one race (from 3.36 to 3.28), whereas Nordås did his similar progression this season through multiple steps (races). -Therefore Katir must do doping, and Nordås is innocent…
So you have to do your progression throughout the season in steps, else you are doping -what kind of logic is that? You are just making up your own rules and strange limits -again! -One example: Almgren of Sweden -he has progressed from 3.38.99 to 3.32.00 so far this season. Is he doping? Thank God, no, because he had one race in between (3.36), but had he skipped that one he would be a doper, according to your logic! Man….
But it is getting worse: Cause you have such an inherent heavenly insight that you don’t have to check out your own statistically claims and facts: Because Katir did in fact not go from 3.36 to 3.28 in one race (you repeatedly are claiming that) -f.ex he ran 3.33 (Merja may 12th 2021) 2 months before his 3.28 in July 2021. So you even mess up your own premise, proving my point: All statistics must be judged carefully and informed…
Worst: Katir must be doped because Spain allegedly had a doping problem some 20-30 years ago?! Like saying Jakob must be doing dope because around 1980 3 Norwegian throwers went to the USA on a scholarship, and then came back and were popped for anabolic steroids… Or the Norwegian cross country skier who used a contaminated lip cream, and her colleague who could be criticised for his ill interpretation of how to dose his asthma medications, or popped Finns or Austrians as proof of “Norway’s long term blood doping regime” -therefore Jakob and Narve Nordås must be blood doping… Man…
At last: Katir ran 0.7 sec faster than Nordås -this is in your eyes this tremendous gap (in improvement) therefore the first (Katir) must be doped. (Not understanding that progression is relatively to your own starting point, and not the time in itself, even though a sec around 3.30 is more worth than around 3.40, but here the two athletes are so close.) And Nordås may very well run 3.28 this season (a lot of indications) -do we have to consider him a doper then…?! I have no doubt: You have reached Armstronglivs’ and Coevett’s level of argumentation..!
Whereas you clearly aspire to rekrunner's, the resident doping apologist here.
Well, I haven’t read all of rekrunner’s posts, but Yeah I think he has some good points…
Saying that I have to think a little (loud) about being a doping apologist, cause I don’t want to be that…
I think we all are governed more by feelings than by reason. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my logic and reasoning (all though I lack some knowledge about doping), so maybe my feelings are what I have to investigate…!
Do I feel that acknowledging doping as a overwhelming problem would ruin the sport and my interest and joy and focus? Well, I don’t think so, here are my reasons:
I root mainly for the Norwegians over the rest. Foreigners popped for doping would only elevate my guys (countrymen). But what if Jakob and co also were caught -well, I would then have to adjust to the same view as you (Armstronglivs). I could do that -don’t think I have any bias or agenda here- I could be wrong in my current doping beliefs, and (as I have written many times) even a blind man (you) can hit (the truth) in the dark (although I doubt its probability)..
For many years I thought running was bad for our health / heart (My knees are ruined so I walk my huge American Akita many hours a day). But recent scientific research indicate I was ill informed.. The point here is that even with this misconception I really enjoyed track and field. I think I would feel the same even if your doping claims were true. Cause the athletes aren’t my ideals (I’m too old, and have seen too much), but they are interesting characters with their different characteristics…
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Whereas you clearly aspire to rekrunner's, the resident doping apologist here.
Bravo, this is best way to answer: clearly aspire to, not aspire to, but clearly.
Do'nt mind the rules, just play to win. Yes, that could be doping in distancerunning. This Armstronglives breaks all possible rules in logic and argumentation. So if this was a competition, he would be the guy who use PEDs all the day long, and in the night too. He cleary aspire to the most doped man in 2023. He earns a gold medal. May be two or three.
Is it anyone (other than the very few usual suspects) that actually enjoys these discussions? One person saying "I think he is doping" the other one saying "I don't think he is doping", then there is these comparisons of times etc, which are extremely pointless for a number of reasons: No athletes are sanctioned for doping on a basis of their progress. No conclusion can be made, it is like sitting in your cellar and discussing whether the sky is cloudy or not. Has he been found guilty in doping? That is all we know for certain. No one gets any wiser following this discussion, rather the opposite - it takes the focus away from productive interesting discussions.
I wish the mods would strike harder, as its the same over and over again. It must be the 1000th time exactly the same discussion is had, and it f*cking sucks. I'm not a member of this forum to be enlightened about who Armstronglivs thinks are a doper or not, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I am tired of reading his opinion in every thread in here. I want to discuss athletics, running, race results, runners. Baselass speculations is nowhere to be found on that list. Have an athlete given a positive sample or have a whereabouts violation? Great, lets discuss it! Other than that, please, spare us.
I get it. Let's ignore the elephant in the room when discussing races, times and achievements.
He was "focused on being a mediocre 3k/5k runner"? How do you say that with a straight face? An elite runner approaching his mid twenties prefers to "focus" - with all that that word means - on being mediocre rather than excelling. Give me a break.
He is in fact very like Katir. They both have made huge - outlier - improvements to a similar top level in a short period of time. The usual red flag.
i would say his coach probably steered his focus from early on. Jakob was best at 1500, so lets see if these other guys can do well at longer distances, rather than try to compete with the alpha of the group.
so no, he didn't choose to focus on something he knew he was less suited to. He didn't know. It's the path that was chosen early on.
What kind of coach has no idea where his athlete's true talents lie by the age of 24?
Whereas you clearly aspire to rekrunner's, the resident doping apologist here.
Well, I haven’t read all of rekrunner’s posts, but Yeah I think he has some good points…
Saying that I have to think a little (loud) about being a doping apologist, cause I don’t want to be that…
I think we all are governed more by feelings than by reason. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my logic and reasoning (all though I lack some knowledge about doping), so maybe my feelings are what I have to investigate…!
Do I feel that acknowledging doping as a overwhelming problem would ruin the sport and my interest and joy and focus? Well, I don’t think so, here are my reasons:
I root mainly for the Norwegians over the rest. Foreigners popped for doping would only elevate my guys (countrymen). But what if Jakob and co also were caught -well, I would then have to adjust to the same view as you (Armstronglivs). I could do that -don’t think I have any bias or agenda here- I could be wrong in my current doping beliefs, and (as I have written many times) even a blind man (you) can hit (the truth) in the dark (although I doubt its probability)..
For many years I thought running was bad for our health / heart (My knees are ruined so I walk my huge American Akita many hours a day). But recent scientific research indicate I was ill informed.. The point here is that even with this misconception I really enjoyed track and field. I think I would feel the same even if your doping claims were true. Cause the athletes aren’t my ideals (I’m too old, and have seen too much), but they are interesting characters with their different characteristics…
I may not agree with your arguments but I respect your perspective.
Whereas you clearly aspire to rekrunner's, the resident doping apologist here.
Bravo, this is best way to answer: clearly aspire to, not aspire to, but clearly.
Do'nt mind the rules, just play to win. Yes, that could be doping in distancerunning. This Armstronglives breaks all possible rules in logic and argumentation. So if this was a competition, he would be the guy who use PEDs all the day long, and in the night too. He cleary aspire to the most doped man in 2023. He earns a gold medal. May be two or three.
I was looking for an argument in that. You never fail to disappoint.
Katir’s and Nordås’s progression is strikingly similar. But you have an agenda and therefore make up your own rules for making these two athletes un similar…!
Katir and Nordås both plateaued and then had a huge leap forward the next season. But you are stressing “the fact” that Katir pr’ed in one race (from 3.36 to 3.28), whereas Nordås did his similar progression this season through multiple steps (races). -Therefore Katir must do doping, and Nordås is innocent…
So you have to do your progression throughout the season in steps, else you are doping -what kind of logic is that? You are just making up your own rules and strange limits -again! -One example: Almgren of Sweden -he has progressed from 3.38.99 to 3.32.00 so far this season. Is he doping? Thank God, no, because he had one race in between (3.36), but had he skipped that one he would be a doper, according to your logic! Man….
But it is getting worse: Cause you have such an inherent heavenly insight that you don’t have to check out your own statistically claims and facts: Because Katir did in fact not go from 3.36 to 3.28 in one race (you repeatedly are claiming that) -f.ex he ran 3.33 (Merja may 12th 2021) 2 months before his 3.28 in July 2021. So you even mess up your own premise, proving my point: All statistics must be judged carefully and informed…
Worst: Katir must be doped because Spain allegedly had a doping problem some 20-30 years ago?! Like saying Jakob must be doing dope because around 1980 3 Norwegian throwers went to the USA on a scholarship, and then came back and were popped for anabolic steroids… Or the Norwegian cross country skier who used a contaminated lip cream, and her colleague who could be criticised for his ill interpretation of how to dose his asthma medications, or popped Finns or Austrians as proof of “Norway’s long term blood doping regime” -therefore Jakob and Narve Nordås must be blood doping… Man…
At last: Katir ran 0.7 sec faster than Nordås -this is in your eyes this tremendous gap (in improvement) therefore the first (Katir) must be doped. (Not understanding that progression is relatively to your own starting point, and not the time in itself, even though a sec around 3.30 is more worth than around 3.40, but here the two athletes are so close.) And Nordås may very well run 3.28 this season (a lot of indications) -do we have to consider him a doper then…?! I have no doubt: You have reached Armstronglivs’ and Coevett’s level of argumentation..!
katir dropped 8 seconds in one year. the year before he ran 3:28, he ran in five different 1500s between july and september. He gave it an honest shot. 3:36 mid was the best he could do. He also lost some races at slower speeds. The year before he ran several 1500s. It seemed to be his chosen distance. 3:37 max.
Nordas ran the 1500 twice last year. both wins. we likely didn't see the best he was capable of as he was more focused on being a mediocre 3000/5000 runner.
it is not the same.
Come on, you are only eager nailing Katir (and not Nordås) for some reason. Because your logic can be turned against Nordås: In three years he went from 3.49 to 3.36, whereas Katir (3 year span) did pretty much the same 3.52 to 3.37). Katir then had a plateau for a year (only one sec improvement) that Nordås didnt have (he just went on crushing it the next year -2023), so now Nordås is the most suspect. -But all this is crapp; statistics can’t be used this way. Neither of the two athletes progression is a red flag for me!
Well, I haven’t read all of rekrunner’s posts, but Yeah I think he has some good points…
Saying that I have to think a little (loud) about being a doping apologist, cause I don’t want to be that…
I think we all are governed more by feelings than by reason. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my logic and reasoning (all though I lack some knowledge about doping), so maybe my feelings are what I have to investigate…!
Do I feel that acknowledging doping as a overwhelming problem would ruin the sport and my interest and joy and focus? Well, I don’t think so, here are my reasons:
I root mainly for the Norwegians over the rest. Foreigners popped for doping would only elevate my guys (countrymen). But what if Jakob and co also were caught -well, I would then have to adjust to the same view as you (Armstronglivs). I could do that -don’t think I have any bias or agenda here- I could be wrong in my current doping beliefs, and (as I have written many times) even a blind man (you) can hit (the truth) in the dark (although I doubt its probability)..
For many years I thought running was bad for our health / heart (My knees are ruined so I walk my huge American Akita many hours a day). But recent scientific research indicate I was ill informed.. The point here is that even with this misconception I really enjoyed track and field. I think I would feel the same even if your doping claims were true. Cause the athletes aren’t my ideals (I’m too old, and have seen too much), but they are interesting characters with their different characteristics…
I may not agree with your arguments but I respect your perspective.
Is it anyone (other than the very few usual suspects) that actually enjoys these discussions? One person saying "I think he is doping" the other one saying "I don't think he is doping", then there is these comparisons of times etc, which are extremely pointless for a number of reasons: No athletes are sanctioned for doping on a basis of their progress. No conclusion can be made, it is like sitting in your cellar and discussing whether the sky is cloudy or not. Has he been found guilty in doping? That is all we know for certain. No one gets any wiser following this discussion, rather the opposite - it takes the focus away from productive interesting discussions.
I wish the mods would strike harder, as its the same over and over again. It must be the 1000th time exactly the same discussion is had, and it f*cking sucks. I'm not a member of this forum to be enlightened about who Armstronglivs thinks are a doper or not, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I am tired of reading his opinion in every thread in here. I want to discuss athletics, running, race results, runners. Baselass speculations is nowhere to be found on that list. Have an athlete given a positive sample or have a whereabouts violation? Great, lets discuss it! Other than that, please, spare us.
I get it. Let's ignore the elephant in the room when discussing races, times and achievements.
Ignoring what? What is ignored? That you think they dope isn't an elephant in the room it is a wasp in everyones face. So you think Nordås is doping. Cool. Maybe he is. Can we go back to discussing running now?
I get it. Let's ignore the elephant in the room when discussing races, times and achievements.
Ignoring what? What is ignored? That you think they dope isn't an elephant in the room it is a wasp in everyones face. So you think Nordås is doping. Cool. Maybe he is. Can we go back to discussing running now?
Narve Nordas did not take 7 seconds off his PR in one jump from 3.36 to 3.29 at all. Yes his PR from 2022 was 3.36 but he started this season off with a PR of 3.35.91, ran 3.34.70 in his next race and 3.32.39 in his 3rd.
Just to be clear here as comparisons with Katir are being made - there isn't really one. Katir, who had plateaued as a 3.36/37 runner having run at least 2 seasons where he ran multiple races at that exact level, then skipped down to 3.28.76 from one race to the next. Forget one season to the next - he toed the line on the 9th of July 2021 in Monaco with a 3.36.59 PR so unless my math has escaped me, that performance was a seismic 7.83 seconds improvement to a level of performance only 9 other humans have ever beaten. And yeah, it is a big deal running under 3.29 vs under 3.30 - it is another plateau.
Nordas toed the line at Bislett the other night with a 3.32.39 PR and ran 3.29.47 which is a 2.92 second improvement. This is not an outlier jump with respect to sub 3.30 runners in history at all.
Katir age 21 3:37.20 - 7:53.81(i) age 22 3:36.59 - 7:44.13 age 23 3:28.76 - 7:27.64 - 12:50.79 age 24 3:29.90 - 7:35.73(i) - 13:22.98 age 25 3:28.89 - 7:24.68(i) - 12:52.09
Nordas age 21 3:39.15 - 7:50.57 - 13:33.39 age 22 7:41.31 - 13:16.67 - 28:47.19 age 23 3:36.23 - 7:43.53 - 13:15.82 - 28:04.42 age 24 3:29.47 - 7:43.94
Katir did not run 3:28.76 while having a PB of 3:36.59, he has run 3:33.62 two months before. Katir's improvement which he has had at age 23 was enormous and to me this looks suspicious in some way. But Nordas' improvement at age 24 also was enormous and to me this also looks suspicious. Seeing Katir as a almost 100% doper and looking for any reason why Nordas' improvement makes 100% sense just shows your dishonesty (and for sure Coevett's - but he is known as a constant liar and mentally ill person on this board since years).
Is Nordas' improvement due to doping? Maybe, we don't know. (if it is, what would this tell us about the Ingebrigtsens?) Is Katir's improvement due to doping? Maybe, we don't know.
You know what you are right and I was wrong here - I absolutely missed the 3.33.62 he ran prior to running 3.28. That's my oversight. So in fact he made a leap from this time to 3.28.76 - 4.86 seconds and not 7.83 - this is a big difference and completely my bad. Owned it.
However, it does not change my opinion that this is an a) abnormal improvement at this level of performance and b) different to Nordas's jump which is almost 2 seconds less (2.92) and not to the same rare air of sub 3.29.
Again this is not a defence of Nordas - it's just my opinion that his career progressions and circumstances are not in line with Katir at all. You have agree to differ, that's fine - your opinion.
Bravo, this is best way to answer: clearly aspire to, not aspire to, but clearly.
Do'nt mind the rules, just play to win. Yes, that could be doping in distancerunning. This Armstronglives breaks all possible rules in logic and argumentation. So if this was a competition, he would be the guy who use PEDs all the day long, and in the night too. He cleary aspire to the most doped man in 2023. He earns a gold medal. May be two or three.
I was looking for an argument in that. You never fail to disappoint.
No arguments. But you see the point, do'nt you? If not I am disappointed.
Is it anyone (other than the very few usual suspects) that actually enjoys these discussions? One person saying "I think he is doping" the other one saying "I don't think he is doping", then there is these comparisons of times etc, which are extremely pointless for a number of reasons: No athletes are sanctioned for doping on a basis of their progress. No conclusion can be made, it is like sitting in your cellar and discussing whether the sky is cloudy or not. Has he been found guilty in doping? That is all we know for certain. No one gets any wiser following this discussion, rather the opposite - it takes the focus away from productive interesting discussions.
I wish the mods would strike harder, as its the same over and over again. It must be the 1000th time exactly the same discussion is had, and it f*cking sucks. I'm not a member of this forum to be enlightened about who Armstronglivs thinks are a doper or not, everyone is entitled to their own opinion but I am tired of reading his opinion in every thread in here. I want to discuss athletics, running, race results, runners. Baselass speculations is nowhere to be found on that list. Have an athlete given a positive sample or have a whereabouts violation? Great, lets discuss it! Other than that, please, spare us.
I get it. Let's ignore the elephant in the room when discussing races, times and achievements.
OKAY, so let’s talk some more elephant! In one of my posts yesterday I gave you my view on the facts regarding doping -that (1.) we all know very little of prevalence. And (2.) We are allowed to speculate, but we must be aware of the fragility of speculation… Here comes my elaboration of this last point:
Arguments for a widespread prevalence of doping (some of them are mine, some are not at all): 1. Human nature: Historically (and also in present time) we are known cheaters of the highly hold principles of equality, fairness, unselfishness and natural law. The world is highly unfair because so many wants to keep it that way. And therefore so many will cheat and dope if they can get away with it.
2. Doping is easily available.
3. There are ways to outsmart the testing regime.
4. There are lots of incentives for running fast (money, fame++).
5. Some athletes think they have to dope to be competitive (“everybody does it”).
6. Dirty coaches and managers.
7.Desperation due to injuries, stagnation, economic problems.
8. The need for success.
9. The IOC, WA, WADA, (and their sponsors) -why this little testing for decades. Olympic Games / Worlds / Shoe sale / Streaming rights is a billion trade -there should be money for tests. How can WA do any serious doping prohibition when they cannot even place distance track events and marathon in a fairly cool condition in even one single global championship…Thus WA seems to lack every structural ability (f.ex to extensive anti doping work) when they used years to form a consistent Dsd rule, and what about restricting some of the athletes outfits (not letting stupid outfit sponsors dictate decency -lack of) and spare us for both women and male genitalia straight into our eyes (f.ex these “balls see” male outfit), then f.ex Grant Holloway shows us a perfect good alternative -he’s got balls enough, but knows he doesn’t need us to see them all the time! Meaning: How can we trust WA’s anti doping program when they can’t get the most elementary right, and even wants to skip 5 and 10000m! And do they have the courage to popp their own star athletes for doping, or is everything shop and money ..?!
Well, that was some arguments for widespread prevalence of doping. Surely there must be more…. But in my next post I will give the non prevalence arguments, and discuss the pros and cons….
I get it. Let's ignore the elephant in the room when discussing races, times and achievements.
OKAY, so let’s talk some more elephant! In one of my posts yesterday I gave you my view on the facts regarding doping -that (1.) we all know very little of prevalence. And (2.) We are allowed to speculate, but we must be aware of the fragility of speculation… Here comes my elaboration of this last point:
Arguments for a widespread prevalence of doping (some of them are mine, some are not at all): 1. Human nature: Historically (and also in present time) we are known cheaters of the highly hold principles of equality, fairness, unselfishness and natural law. The world is highly unfair because so many wants to keep it that way. And therefore so many will cheat and dope if they can get away with it.
2. Doping is easily available.
3. There are ways to outsmart the testing regime.
4. There are lots of incentives for running fast (money, fame++).
5. Some athletes think they have to dope to be competitive (“everybody does it”).
6. Dirty coaches and managers.
7.Desperation due to injuries, stagnation, economic problems.
8. The need for success.
9. The IOC, WA, WADA, (and their sponsors) -why this little testing for decades. Olympic Games / Worlds / Shoe sale / Streaming rights is a billion trade -there should be money for tests. How can WA do any serious doping prohibition when they cannot even place distance track events and marathon in a fairly cool condition in even one single global championship…Thus WA seems to lack every structural ability (f.ex to extensive anti doping work) when they used years to form a consistent Dsd rule, and what about restricting some of the athletes outfits (not letting stupid outfit sponsors dictate decency -lack of) and spare us for both women and male genitalia straight into our eyes (f.ex these “balls see” male outfit), then f.ex Grant Holloway shows us a perfect good alternative -he’s got balls enough, but knows he doesn’t need us to see them all the time! Meaning: How can we trust WA’s anti doping program when they can’t get the most elementary right, and even wants to skip 5 and 10000m! And do they have the courage to popp their own star athletes for doping, or is everything shop and money ..?!
Well, that was some arguments for widespread prevalence of doping. Surely there must be more…. But in my next post I will give the non prevalence arguments, and discuss the pros and cons….
I will disagree on one simple point. We actually know quite a bit about likely prevalence; what we can't know is the exact extent of that prevalence because it is a clandestine practice (like white collar crime and other forms of corruption). I will quote an antidoping expert, a Jamaican whistleblower, who said, "doping is in all countries in all sports at elite levels, with the collusion of sports governance bodies". I would add to that, it is more so in some countries and some sports than others.
As you point out, the incentives are there and the risks of being caught now are minimal. In such circumstances it is inevitable that it will be far greater than we can see or even estimate.
OKAY, so let’s talk some more elephant! In one of my posts yesterday I gave you my view on the facts regarding doping -that (1.) we all know very little of prevalence. And (2.) We are allowed to speculate, but we must be aware of the fragility of speculation… Here comes my elaboration of this last point:
Arguments for a widespread prevalence of doping (some of them are mine, some are not at all): 1. Human nature: Historically (and also in present time) we are known cheaters of the highly hold principles of equality, fairness, unselfishness and natural law. The world is highly unfair because so many wants to keep it that way. And therefore so many will cheat and dope if they can get away with it.
2. Doping is easily available.
3. There are ways to outsmart the testing regime.
4. There are lots of incentives for running fast (money, fame++).
5. Some athletes think they have to dope to be competitive (“everybody does it”).
6. Dirty coaches and managers.
7.Desperation due to injuries, stagnation, economic problems.
8. The need for success.
9. The IOC, WA, WADA, (and their sponsors) -why this little testing for decades. Olympic Games / Worlds / Shoe sale / Streaming rights is a billion trade -there should be mone
I will disagree on one simple point. We actually know quite a bit about likely prevalence; what we can't know is the exact extent of that prevalence because it is a clandestine practice (like white collar crime and other forms of corruption). I will quote an antidoping expert, a Jamaican whistleblower, who said, "doping is in all countries in all sports at elite levels, with the collusion of sports governance bodies". I would add to that, it is more so in some countries and some sports than others.
As you point out, the incentives are there and the risks of being caught now are minimal. In such circumstances it is inevitable that it will be far greater than we can see or even estimate.
Armstronglives, could you please give me the name of this Jamaican whistleblower, since many of us are aware of what happened in Jamacia some time ago. And this dopingexpert knows what is going on in other countries too, right?
OKAY, so let’s talk some more elephant! In one of my posts yesterday I gave you my view on the facts regarding doping -that (1.) we all know very little of prevalence.
We actually know quite a bit. See for example this peer-reviewed article from 2020:
In elite sport, the Athlete Biological Passport (ABP) was invented to tackle cheaters by monitoring closely changes in biological parameters, flagging atypical variations. The hematological module of the ABP was indeed adopte...
It tells us how many bold athletes used in-competition blood doping at two world championships ("18% in 2011 and 15% in 2013 (non-significant difference) in average in endurance athletes"). Imagine that - directly during the world championships, and basically no-one was caught.
Obviously the overall numbers of blood dopers is higher, and the overall number of all dopers even more so, as the authors summarize in their introduction ("doping (in all forms) prevalence is said to range between 39 and 62%") with references.
