P4N wrote:
Hopefully no one is stupid enough to do this:
Gene-doping (it's already banned by WADA).
I would bet the first gene doped person already exists. More likely dozens or hundreds.
-
20
-
kgfjk wrote:
P4N wrote:
Hopefully no one is stupid enough to do this:
Gene-doping (it's already banned by WADA).
I would bet the first gene doped person already exists. More likely dozens or hundreds.
They will be very worried then as stored samples will see them banned and careers in tatters; in their hundreds.
00 -
They switched to ELO. And tracks are shrinking.
20 -
Footman wrote:
They switched to ELO. And tracks are shrinking.
Gee whizz ; I had loads of comments from those in the know that tracks had shrunk after loads of new designer drugs had been spread all over them. Everyone knows this.Loads of missed tests on measuring them all down to USADA covering it all up.
The new big one; that is clear to all who know anything about track and field is that the tracks are sloping ; makes a difference of 38 seconds over 5000m.
Like all these things you can find no evidence but this to me and most posters only means that there is a real conspiracy to cover up and it must be true.30 -
No. This was a terrible time for athletics and running. Every race just a chase of rabbits. No tactics, no great races. Only unbelievable records due to EPO!
01 -
learn the history wrote:
Again, the athletes from 2011 are safe since 2022. Retesting is only allowed for ten years.
Do you believe everything you read? Some facts about various doping estimates from data collected at the 2011 World Championships:
The study that said "44%" did not actually collect any doping data, but conducted a survey, where the biggest unknown is truthfulness of the answers collected. The whole paper was about how to model many forms of untruthfulness, if the dependent variable ever becomes known.
The same study that said "44%" also estimated 31%, after removing "hasty" responses.
The same study collected and published additional raw survey data for another model where a subsequent study used that data to estimate 21% doping with 30% survey non-compliance.For blood-doping, the (then) IAAF collected blood from 569 endurance athletes, estimating 18% blood-doping (15% for men).
All of these occurred at the same 2011 World Championship.
The WCA in 2011 is one event from 12 years ago -- before ABP prosecutions could have any real deterrent effect, and before the IAAF/Russian scandal.
What is missing from these estimates is a more recent and tighter range of estimates than 4 attempts to estimate doping prevalence at one event, producing a range (95% CI) from 12.5%-47.9% (and 9%-20% for men's blood doping) not to mention historical EPO prevalence estimates from the '90s for athletes like El G and Komen, and of course the remaining sea-level athletes who did not perform.
02 -
dmanyankee wrote:
No. This was a terrible time for athletics and running. Every race just a chase of rabbits. No tactics, no great races. Only unbelievable records due to EPO!
Such a pity there are no tests for EPO.
01 -
Sloops wrote:
Are El G and Komen owed an apology?
Why? Their records still stand.
30 -
rekrunner wrote:
Wavelights and shoes.
Pacing has always existed and wave-light was introduced in Ryun's era. Shoes are shoes - they aren't motors. But drugs are.
42 -
Bad Wigins wrote:
Sloops wrote:
Are El G and Komen owed an apology?
Why? Their records still stand.
That was funny to read his post.
The only possible "EPO" record that was beaten is the one of Genzebe Dibaba (2015).
20 -
rekrunner wrote:
learn the history wrote:
Again, the athletes from 2011 are safe since 2022. Retesting is only allowed for ten years.
Do you believe everything you read? Some facts about various doping estimates from data collected at the 2011 World Championships:
The study that said "44%" did not actually collect any doping data, but conducted a survey, where the biggest unknown is truthfulness of the answers collected. The whole paper was about how to model many forms of untruthfulness, if the dependent variable ever becomes known.
The same study that said "44%" also estimated 31%, after removing "hasty" responses.
The same study collected and published additional raw survey data for another model where a subsequent study used that data to estimate 21% doping with 30% survey non-compliance.For blood-doping, the (then) IAAF collected blood from 569 endurance athletes, estimating 18% blood-doping (15% for men).
All of these occurred at the same 2011 World Championship.
The WCA in 2011 is one event from 12 years ago -- before ABP prosecutions could have any real deterrent effect, and before the IAAF/Russian scandal.
What is missing from these estimates is a more recent and tighter range of estimates than 4 attempts to estimate doping prevalence at one event, producing a range (95% CI) from 12.5%-47.9% (and 9%-20% for men's blood doping) not to mention historical EPO prevalence estimates from the '90s for athletes like El G and Komen, and of course the remaining sea-level athletes who did not perform.
The truthfulness of the study is not at issue. That was never acknowledged by the IAAF so as to raise any doubt about the validity of the responses. If the truthfulness or otherwise of the responses had been at issue the IAAF could have adopted your attitude and said the results could not be relied upon. The conclusion from the data obtained, that doping is far worse than the numbers caught, would then be able to be undermined or disregarded - your favorite position. But they couldn't do that because the questions to the athletes were straightforward and unequivocal (so unlike you), and the responses voluntary and anonymous. Athletes are bright enough to understand what they were being asked and there were no adverse consequences following their responses; there was no incentive therefore to be anything other than truthful.
The study is also not an outlier; it is in conformity with other varied expert assessments of the prevalence of doping.
The fact is that doping is a clandestine pursuit. That means we do not know and cannot know the full extent of it. However, as it is established that it is in all sports and that athletes perceive an advantage from it, with the most minimal chance of being caught, it can be safely presumed there will be far more of it than can be measured and even estimated.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.11 -
And don't forget, running on pure hate has risen to a whole new level.
20 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Wavelights and shoes.
Pacing has always existed and wave-light was introduced in Ryun's era. Shoes are shoes - they aren't motors. But drugs are.
Optimal pacing and drafting are proven to work, from the time of Bannister's 4-minute mile to Kipchoge's sub-2 marathon.
Drugs have always existed since the time primitive tribes created the role of medicine man.
Ryun was not an "EPO-era" record holder.
Try running your personal best in a marathon in Dutch clogs, and then tell me again "shoes are shoes".
21 -
rekrunner wrote:
learn the history wrote:
Again, the athletes from 2011 are safe since 2022. Retesting is only allowed for ten years.
Do you believe everything you read? Some facts about various doping estimates from data collected at the 2011 World Championships:
The study that said "44%" did not actually collect any doping data, but conducted a survey, where the biggest unknown is truthfulness of the answers collected. The whole paper was about how to model many forms of untruthfulness, if the dependent variable ever becomes known.
The same study that said "44%" also estimated 31%, after removing "hasty" responses.
The same study collected and published additional raw survey data for another model where a subsequent study used that data to estimate 21% doping with 30% survey non-compliance.For blood-doping, the (then) IAAF collected blood from 569 endurance athletes, estimating 18% blood-doping (15% for men).
All of these occurred at the same 2011 World Championship.
The WCA in 2011 is one event from 12 years ago -- before ABP prosecutions could have any real deterrent effect, and before the IAAF/Russian scandal.
What is missing from these estimates is a more recent and tighter range of estimates than 4 attempts to estimate doping prevalence at one event, producing a range (95% CI) from 12.5%-47.9% (and 9%-20% for men's blood doping) not to mention historical EPO prevalence estimates from the '90s for athletes like El G and Komen, and of course the remaining sea-level athletes who did not perform.
You are right; but too complicated for those who won’t or can’t read.
10 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Do you believe everything you read? Some facts about various doping estimates from data collected at the 2011 World Championships:
The study that said "44%" did not actually collect any doping data, but conducted a survey, where the biggest unknown is truthfulness of the answers collected. The whole paper was about how to model many forms of untruthfulness, if the dependent variable ever becomes known.
The same study that said "44%" also estimated 31%, after removing "hasty" responses.
The same study collected and published additional raw survey data for another model where a subsequent study used that data to estimate 21% doping with 30% survey non-compliance.For blood-doping, the (then) IAAF collected blood from 569 endurance athletes, estimating 18% blood-doping (15% for men).
All of these occurred at the same 2011 World Championship.
The WCA in 2011 is one event from 12 years ago -- before ABP prosecutions could have any real deterrent effect, and before the IAAF/Russian scandal.
What is missing from these estimates is a more recent and tighter range of estimates than 4 attempts to estimate doping prevalence at one event, producing a range (95% CI) from 12.5%-47.9% (and 9%-20% for men's blood doping) not to mention historical EPO prevalence estimates from the '90s for athletes like El G and Komen, and of course the remaining sea-level athletes who did not perform.
The truthfulness of the study is not at issue. That was never acknowledged by the IAAF so as to raise any doubt about the validity of the responses. If the truthfulness or otherwise of the responses had been at issue the IAAF could have adopted your attitude and said the results could not be relied upon. The conclusion from the data obtained, that doping is far worse than the numbers caught, would then be able to be undermined or disregarded - your favorite position. But they couldn't do that because the questions to the athletes were straightforward and unequivocal (so unlike you), and the responses voluntary and anonymous. Athletes are bright enough to understand what they were being asked and there were no adverse consequences following their responses; there was no incentive therefore to be anything other than truthful.
The study is also not an outlier; it is in conformity with other varied expert assessments of the prevalence of doping.
The fact is that doping is a clandestine pursuit. That means we do not know and cannot know the full extent of it. However, as it is established that it is in all sports and that athletes perceive an advantage from it, with the most minimal chance of being caught, it can be safely presumed there will be far more of it than can be measured and even estimated.
Once again , assumptions and rumour and no evidence.
And; you clearly have zero education in social science research methods.
And you are not familiar with the peer reviewed criticisms of the whole 2011 process.
Go away until you read stuff.
00 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
Wavelights and shoes.
Pacing has always existed and wave-light was introduced in Ryun's era. Shoes are shoes - they aren't motors. But drugs are.
Again stupid prejudices and an absence of any research.
00 -
Armstronglivs wrote:
The truthfulness of the study is not at issue. That was never acknowledged by the IAAF so as to raise any doubt about the validity of the responses. If the truthfulness or otherwise of the responses had been at issue the IAAF could have adopted your attitude and said the results could not be relied upon. The conclusion from the data obtained, that doping is far worse than the numbers caught, would then be able to be undermined or disregarded - your favorite position. But they couldn't do that because the questions to the athletes were straightforward and unequivocal (so unlike you), and the responses voluntary and anonymous. Athletes are bright enough to understand what they were being asked and there were no adverse consequences following their responses; there was no incentive therefore to be anything other than truthful.
The study is also not an outlier; it is in conformity with other varied expert assessments of the prevalence of doping.
The fact is that doping is a clandestine pursuit. That means we do not know and cannot know the full extent of it. However, as it is established that it is in all sports and that athletes perceive an advantage from it, with the most minimal chance of being caught, it can be safely presumed there will be far more of it than can be measured and even estimated.
The claim was that more than 40% doped at WCA 2011, and that this survey somehow proved it.
Now you say "we do not know and cannot know". I agree with your statement.
Everyone agrees it is likely far more than 1-2% caught by testing.
I don't rely on the IAAF. Any doubts I have expressed about the validity of 44% can be found in the study, and supplemental materials, and by the study authors and co-authors.
The IAAF did voice concerns over the soundness of the methodology and conclusions of this study before it was published.
The IAAF conducted its own biological studies on blood doping and had already concluded "that doping is far worse than the numbers caught". The IAAF would hardly seek to undermine a conclusion they had already made themselves.
01 -
rekrunner wrote:
The WCA in 2011 is one event from 12 years ago -- before ABP prosecutions could have any real deterrent effect, and before the IAAF/Russian scandal.
Have there really been ABP prosecutions?
00 -
rekrunner wrote:
learn the history wrote:
Again, the athletes from 2011 are safe since 2022. Retesting is only allowed for ten years.
Do you believe everything you read? Some facts about various doping estimates from data collected at the 2011 World Championships:
The study that said "44%" did not actually collect any doping data, but conducted a survey, where the biggest unknown is truthfulness of the answers collected. The whole paper was about how to model many forms of untruthfulness, if the dependent variable ever becomes known.
The same study that said "44%" also estimated 31%, after removing "hasty" responses.
The same study collected and published additional raw survey data for another model where a subsequent study used that data to estimate 21% doping with 30% survey non-compliance.For blood-doping, the (then) IAAF collected blood from 569 endurance athletes, estimating 18% blood-doping (15% for men).
All of these occurred at the same 2011 World Championship.
The WCA in 2011 is one event from 12 years ago -- before ABP prosecutions could have any real deterrent effect, and before the IAAF/Russian scandal.
What is missing from these estimates is a more recent and tighter range of estimates than 4 attempts to estimate doping prevalence at one event, producing a range (95% CI) from 12.5%-47.9% (and 9%-20% for men's blood doping) not to mention historical EPO prevalence estimates from the '90s for athletes like El G and Komen, and of course the remaining sea-level athletes who did not perform.
No, I certainly don't believe everything I read. What a strange question!
You say "some facts" but provide no evidence. I looked up the original study, see here:Contrary to your "range (95% CI) from 12.5%-47.9%", the study actually says "(95% confidence interval 39.4-47.9)". So your "facts" are quite different. I don't believe you.
And when you say "18% blood-doping (15% for men)", does that mean 21% for women?
And where is your source for that please?
00 -
learn the history wrote:
No, I certainly don't believe everything I read. What a strange question!
You say "some facts" but provide no evidence. I looked up the original study, see here:Contrary to your "range (95% CI) from 12.5%-47.9%", the study actually says "(95% confidence interval 39.4-47.9)". So your "facts" are quite different. I don't believe you.
And when you say "18% blood-doping (15% for men)", does that mean 21% for women?
And where is your source for that please?
I thought these studies were talked about so much already, I wouldn't have to keep providing links everytime. Correction: I was wrong to say 12.5%, when 95% CI estimates were as low as 9.69%.
The facts I referred to were that three studies exist giving a wide range of several estimates for this very same 2011 WCA event: Two studies giving estimates for all doping including sprinters and fielders and walkers, combining men and women, and one study limited to blood doping for endurance athletes (arguably highly relevant for this thread about EPO-era records allegedly attributed to EPO).
You only linked to the abstract. In the "3 Results" section of the study, they combine the "3.1 Primary Analysis" with a "3.2 Analyses Using Response Time" describing a possible "artifact of hasty responding" with athletes "mechanistically responding "yes"", to conclude "we obtained estimates of 30-31% for the past year's doping at WCA".
In two other studies, we can find (for 2011):
"Estimates with the SSC model for 12-month doping prevalence were 21.2% (95% CI: 9.69-32.7) at WCA (2011) ..."
"Our results from robust hematological parameters indicate an estimation of an overall blood doping prevalence of 18% in 2011 ... in average in endurance athletes [95% Confidence Interval (CI) 14–22 ... for 2011...]. A higher prevalence was observed in female athletes (22%, CI 16–28%) than in male athletes (15%, CI 9–20%) in 2011."
(For 2013, prevalence for women dropped to 12%, likely mostly due to Russia stopping their doping, while men increased to 17% and overall dropped to 15%).
Links:
(Sorry, I don't have an electronic link to the body of your original study, just my personal copy where I extracted the quotes above. But here is a link to supplementary material explaining in detail how they arrived at their lower bound estimate, concluding "our estimates generated on the basis of excluding 30% of the fastest responders (i.e. 95% CI 26.5%-36.3%) in each case would likely represent a lower bound for the estimated prevalence of doping at each event.")
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted. Reason provided: Corrected 95% CI and links00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.