This is very misleading. Narve ran 3.36 in one race he says he could have run much faster. This was also the only race he completed in previous years.
The logic here is that I can walk in a 5K time 40 minutes. Next year I will set a PB on 5K (14 min). So I'm a doper?
Narve has trained hard his whole life. He is a top athlete, combined with Gjert as a coach (and training with the brothers for years), he was doomed to get good result on the 1500 m
This is very misleading. Narve ran 3.36 in one race he says he could have run much faster. This was also the only race he completed in previous years.
The logic here is that I can walk in a 5K time 40 minutes. Next year I will set a PB on 5K (14 min). So I'm a doper?
Narve has trained hard his whole life. He is a top athlete, combined with Gjert as a coach (and training with the brothers for years), he was doomed to get good result on the 1500 m
What do you know about Katir's training over the years?
This is very misleading. Narve ran 3.36 in one race he says he could have run much faster. This was also the only race he completed in previous years.
The logic here is that I can walk in a 5K time 40 minutes. Next year I will set a PB on 5K (14 min). So I'm a doper?
Narve has trained hard his whole life. He is a top athlete, combined with Gjert as a coach (and training with the brothers for years), he was doomed to get good result on the 1500 m
He "always" run these 1500 m staying behind and let the others do the pacework. And usually wins big. This year better and better competitions. So at Bislett only number eight.
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:
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.
Thank you -we need some science here, and not only my ramblings…. And this blood doping research (including an athlete’s questionnaire survey) has of course been discussed in the forum some years ago, but why not once again:
Firstly: This research is old (2011 and 2013) -and the researchers themselves think that the then newly established blood pass would (maybe dramatically) decrease the doping. And (as you say -steroids and so on is not researched there (highly actual in Kenya). The estimate for blood doping is 15-18% (World champs 2011; endurance athletes and walkers), but the in certainty is significant (9-28%), and they haven’t in calculated altitude training properly (their own sayings)..
The point here however is that this is estimates, not facts… (their own words).
The survey (also old 2011/12) is some (experienced) psychologists who are tricking the athletes to popp themselves through answering a 2 min long questionnaire.Read it yourself-I have a thousand questions to the method here (f.ex did the athletes even get it in their own language/ control groups and so forth). Well, this method is highly controversial (more than lie detectors -that are highly controversial in themselves). And the researchers conclusions: One place 29% doped the year before, one place 48%, one place even higher (all the year before)…
But the point also here: They too call the data estimates, and never facts.
This post was edited 3 minutes after it was posted.
Well, I think it’s about logic. I must cling to that approach anyways, because of my lack of that sort of experience you told convinced you about the widespread doping in track and field. But of course feel free to correct me if my logic clearly is in mismatch with reality….
1.Prevalence: With you I think this is the key point. -What is the percentage of doping among elite athletes f.ex sub 3.35 (1500m) and sub 3.30, and how do we know…. Well, the last question first: I see four ways of information gathering. -One can test the athletes -One can investigate (as in Lance Armstrong and M. Jones) -One can study the blood passes -One can make an anonymous survey…
Testing: One can increase overall testing, but there will always be suspicions about a significant number never caught..The same with investigation. Maybe there is more to be seen in the blood passes -suspicious traits not enough to conviction, but to make an presumption (but this is a dangerous path legally and scientifically). Last: Anonymous survey -one has to ask directly: Have you / or do you do doping? But we know the answers can’t be trusted… Conclusion: There’s no way of knowing how prevalent doping is among the elite! You don’t have a clue, and I don’t have a clue! Therefore you loose all your base for your doping claims -you cannot draw a line on 3.30 or say anything of prevalence or the limit for human clean performance at all! And I, well I don’t loose a thing, because I have never pretended to have other things than assumptions, logic and some subjective reasoning / careful analysis of pros and cons / probability… Without saying “I know”!
I guess you have done some kind of interpolation from experience among sub elite, (where doping may be prevalent and not all that hidden) and over to elite athletes, but you cannot do a thing like that, because there is no necessary correspondence..! Or you are basing a lot on rumours or sayings or feelings around your thoughts of progression, limits of human capacity and the effect of drugs. But fact is that you know nothing, nor do I, or anybody else.
2. Point 1 is the factual part: What we know. (That we know that we don’t know anything about prevalence). Here in point 2 is how we can guess something about probability for doping / not doping based on subjective reasoning and falsification -but we need to know that this is highly speculative and not facts. We must be somewhat humble… -I have a lot here, but have to save it for a later post (too many words already…)
Like your Norwegian friend and rekrunner, none of you know how to make a point succinctly.
Your question boils down to this - how do I know the top athletes are doping? To answer that in detail would take pages, so I won't respond in detail.
I'll try to summarize. The numbers of dopers caught are a fraction of those known to be doping although the exact size of that particular "iceberg" cannot be known because it is a clandestine practice. Confidential athlete surveys suggest it is at least 1 in 3 championship athletes and could well be higher. Expert estimates range to nearly a 100 percent at the pro level in some sports. What sports night they be? Try bodybuilding and weightlifting, and pro cycling. Where does athletics fall? Right alongside those sports in the estimation of WADA.
At the top level in sports the incentive is to dope; the rewards for success make it so, and the risk of being caught is low except for those who don't really know what they're doing. The other reality top athletes have to deal with is known as the Prisoner's Dilemma - if they don't dope the other guy probably will. So they, too, will have to dope because talent will not beat talent + doping.
I have watched the kinds of improvements being made in athletics in over sixty years, and in a sport that has little technique, whose tools (shoes and tracks) have changed little in that time, and training methods are virtually the same, the "superhuman" performances we see are most easily explained - as per Occam's Razor - by the simplest explanation, which is doping.
I could go on with what I know that I have learned from professional athletes, doctors and doping officials but my point is made and it would be beyond anyone here to be interested in that or persuaded by it.
The problem with Occam’s razor is that it is a two edges sword -you can cut the gordic knot with it, but also your own throat….
You tell us about some confidential athlete survey (one of three doping, and perhaps much more) -if you mean the one by Rolf Ulrich and co it is now available (it’s about 2011 /12 and therefore too old; and highly controversial in my eyes. It’s not that a certain % of the athletes admit doping in this survey; not at all…)
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?
Renee Ann Shirley. She has published articles about her investigations - as well as being subject to death threats for what she has exposed.
This is very misleading. Narve ran 3.36 in one race he says he could have run much faster. This was also the only race he completed in previous years.
The logic here is that I can walk in a 5K time 40 minutes. Next year I will set a PB on 5K (14 min). So I'm a doper?
Narve has trained hard his whole life. He is a top athlete, combined with Gjert as a coach (and training with the brothers for years), he was doomed to get good result on the 1500 m
Narve saying he could have run much faster doesn't show that he could have. There was nothing else in what he had then achieved that suggested he was going to be capable of 3.29 within a year. Using the same argument a runner like Katir (or Ramzi) could say they always knew they were capable of much faster than 3.36 (or around 3.38, in Ramzi's case). The only thing we have to go on is their performances - and so do they, because at that point they hadn't run any faster.
But I come back to 7 secs improvement in the 1500 in a year to a level that makes Narve one of the fastest in the world currently over that distance. That is simply too good to be true. Or does he have to improve 10 seconds before you begin to wonder?
Furthermore, if you say Narve "has trained hard his whole life" it raises the question of why wasn't he achieving better results than 3.36 much earlier? It suggests he needed something more than hard training - and found it.
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.
Thank you -we need some science here, and not only my ramblings…. And this blood doping research (including an athlete’s questionnaire survey) has of course been discussed in the forum some years ago, but why not once again:
Firstly: This research is old (2011 and 2013) -and the researchers themselves think that the then newly established blood pass would (maybe dramatically) decrease the doping. And (as you say -steroids and so on is not researched there (highly actual in Kenya). The estimate for blood doping is 15-18% (World champs 2011; endurance athletes and walkers), but the in certainty is significant (9-28%), and they haven’t in calculated altitude training properly (their own sayings)..
The point here however is that this is estimates, not facts… (their own words).
The survey (also old 2011/12) is some (experienced) psychologists who are tricking the athletes to popp themselves through answering a 2 min long questionnaire.Read it yourself-I have a thousand questions to the method here (f.ex did the athletes even get it in their own language/ control groups and so forth). Well, this method is highly controversial (more than lie detectors -that are highly controversial in themselves). And the researchers conclusions: One place 29% doped the year before, one place 48%, one place even higher (all the year before)…
But the point also here: They too call the data estimates, and never facts.
It is a fact that doping is greatly in excess of those caught. The estimates only suggest that an exact figure can't be put on this - which is why they are estimates. But it doesn't change the fundamental point that doping is in considerably greater numbers than those caught. That is fact. By the same token, we know that in some economies corruption is rife but it can't be exactly quantified because it is clandestine - like doping.
Whereas you clearly aspire to rekrunner's, the resident doping apologist here.
This is ignorant every time you say it. I never defend anyone's intentional violation of the rules.
You have quite the sense of humour. That is if you intend the joke - which you probably don't. No one "intentionally" violates the rules in your books. You showed that endlessly on the Houlihan threads. You can't open your mouth without being a doping apologist.
The survey (also old 2011/12) is some (experienced) psychologists who are tricking the athletes to popp themselves through answering a 2 min long questionnaire.Read it yourself-I have a thousand questions to the method here (f.ex did the athletes even get it in their own language/ control groups and so forth). Well, this method is highly controversial (more than lie detectors -that are highly controversial in themselves). And the researchers conclusions: One place 29% doped the year before, one place 48%, one place even higher (all the year before)…
But the point also here: They too call the data estimates, and never facts.
Regarding languages, the survey was offered in 21 languages at the WCA (and 3 languages at Pan-Arab Games, English, French, and Arabic), which probably covers most athletes at both events.
The main issue with athlete survey methods is ensuring compliance to survey instructions, such that all the answers can be relied upon to be both honest and accurate. Anonymity can remove the motivation to lie, but it doesn't remove survey apathy. Two independent methods at the same 2011 WCA event resulted in 1) a recommendation to remove 30% of the fastest responses, as hasty and unreliable, and 2) an estimate of 30% non-compliance.
Like your Norwegian friend and rekrunner, none of you know how to make a point succinctly.
Your question boils down to this - how do I know the top athletes are doping? To answer that in detail would take pages, so I won't respond in detail.
I'll try to summarize. The numbers of dopers caught are a fraction of those known to be doping although the exact size of that particular "iceberg" cannot be known because it is a clandestine practice. Confidential athlete surveys suggest it is at least 1 in 3 championship athletes and could well be higher. Expert estimates range to nearly a 100 percent at the pro level in some sports. What sports night they be? Try bodybuilding and weightlifting, and pro cycling. Where does athletics fall? Right alongside those sports in the estimation of WADA.
At the top level in sports the incentive is to dope; the rewards for success make it so, and the risk of being caught is low except for those who don't really know what they're doing. The other reality top athletes have to deal with is known as the Prisoner's Dilemma - if they don't dope the other guy probably will. So they, too, will have to dope because talent will not beat talent + doping.
I have watched the kinds of improvements being made in athletics in over sixty years, and in a sport that has little technique, whose tools (shoes and tracks) have changed little in that time, and training methods are virtually the same, the "superhuman" performances we see are most easily explained - as per Occam's Razor - by the simplest explanation, which is doping.
I could go on with what I know that I have learned from professional athletes, doctors and doping officials but my point is made and it would be beyond anyone here to be interested in that or persuaded by it.
The problem with Occam’s razor is that it is a two edges sword -you can cut the gordic knot with it, but also your own throat….
You tell us about some confidential athlete survey (one of three doping, and perhaps much more) -if you mean the one by Rolf Ulrich and co it is now available (it’s about 2011 /12 and therefore too old; and highly controversial in my eyes. It’s not that a certain % of the athletes admit doping in this survey; not at all…)
There have been several surveys of athletes but the most noted were those involving World Championships and Pan Arab Games about a decade ago. Doping hasn't ceased or even been reduced since then - as the stream of positives in recent times in Kenya has shown. The results of those surveys showed unequivocally that vastly more athletes dope than are caught, although the studies have resulted in different interpretations of what that figure will be. Mostly it has been between 1 in 3 and possibly more than 1 in 2 championship level athletes.
But such studies only confirm what has been known for years - since the Marion Jones era - that athletes could dope and get away with it and also that drug use had become rife at the top of sports around the world.
However by your choosing to question the validity of those studies - which is only an issue for doping deniers on these boards - it is conspicuous that you have no arguments against the rest of the points I made.
This post was edited 38 seconds after it was posted.
This is ignorant every time you say it. I never defend anyone's intentional violation of the rules.
You have quite the sense of humour. That is if you intend the joke - which you probably don't. No one "intentionally" violates the rules in your books. You showed that endlessly on the Houlihan threads. You can't open your mouth without being a doping apologist.
More ignorance. This is not what "doping apologist" means.
There have been several surveys of athletes but the most noted were those involving World Championships and Pan Arab Games about a decade ago. Doping hasn't ceased or even been reduced since then - as the stream of positives in recent times in Kenya has shown. The results of those surveys showed unequivocally that vastly more athletes dope than are caught, although the studies have resulted in different interpretations of what that figure will be. Mostly it has been between 1 in 3 and possibly more than 1 in 2 championship level athletes.
But such studies only confirm what has been known for years - since the Marion Jones era - that athletes could dope and get away with it and also that drug use had become rife at the top of sports around the world.
However by your choosing to question the validity of those studies - which is only an issue for doping deniers on these boards - it is conspicuous that you have no arguments against the rest of the points I made.
Your friend Howman told the BBC that 1 in 10 athletes are doping. A recently published survey found 1 in 5 athletes doping with a wide range of confidence (from 1 in 10 to 3 in 10).
The main issue with your "points" is you suggest without basis that "(shoes and tracks) have changed little in that time, and training methods are virtually the same" to conclude by a false process of elimination "the simplest explanation, which is doping".
You have quite the sense of humour. That is if you intend the joke - which you probably don't. No one "intentionally" violates the rules in your books. You showed that endlessly on the Houlihan threads. You can't open your mouth without being a doping apologist.
More ignorance. This is not what "doping apologist" means.
As our resident doping apologist, perhaps you could explain what you think it means?
There have been several surveys of athletes but the most noted were those involving World Championships and Pan Arab Games about a decade ago. Doping hasn't ceased or even been reduced since then - as the stream of positives in recent times in Kenya has shown. The results of those surveys showed unequivocally that vastly more athletes dope than are caught, although the studies have resulted in different interpretations of what that figure will be. Mostly it has been between 1 in 3 and possibly more than 1 in 2 championship level athletes.
But such studies only confirm what has been known for years - since the Marion Jones era - that athletes could dope and get away with it and also that drug use had become rife at the top of sports around the world.
However by your choosing to question the validity of those studies - which is only an issue for doping deniers on these boards - it is conspicuous that you have no arguments against the rest of the points I made.
Your friend Howman told the BBC that 1 in 10 athletes are doping. A recently published survey found 1 in 5 athletes doping with a wide range of confidence (from 1 in 10 to 3 in 10).
The main issue with your "points" is you suggest without basis that "(shoes and tracks) have changed little in that time, and training methods are virtually the same" to conclude by a false process of elimination "the simplest explanation, which is doping".
Howman doesn't say 1 in 10 are doping and that is it but says it is probably that figure "at the least". He has previously said when claims were made that virtually all athletes were doping at the Olympics or alternatively that only about 10% were that the likely figure is "somewhere in between".
The Norwegian Olympic and Paralympic Committee and Confederation of Sports is said to have known about the country's anti-doping issues related to und...
Thank you -we need some science here, and not only my ramblings…. And this blood doping research (including an athlete’s questionnaire survey) has of course been discussed in the forum some years ago, but why not once again:
Firstly: This research is old (2011 and 2013) -and the researchers themselves think that the then newly established blood pass would (maybe dramatically) decrease the doping. And (as you say -steroids and so on is not researched there (highly actual in Kenya). The estimate for blood doping is 15-18% (World champs 2011; endurance athletes and walkers), but the in certainty is significant (9-28%), and they haven’t in calculated altitude training properly (their own sayings)..
The point here however is that this is estimates, not facts… (their own words).
The survey (also old 2011/12) is some (experienced) psychologists who are tricking the athletes to popp themselves through answering a 2 min long questionnaire.Read it yourself-I have a thousand questions to the method here (f.ex did the athletes even get it in their own language/ control groups and so forth). Well, this method is highly controversial (more than lie detectors -that are highly controversial in themselves). And the researchers conclusions: One place 29% doped the year before, one place 48%, one place even higher (all the year before)…
But the point also here: They too call the data estimates, and never facts.
It is a fact that doping is greatly in excess of those caught. The estimates only suggest that an exact figure can't be put on this - which is why they are estimates. But it doesn't change the fundamental point that doping is in considerably greater numbers than those caught. That is fact. By the same token, we know that in some economies corruption is rife but it can't be exactly quantified because it is clandestine - like doping.
I do agree in this: “..doping is in considerably greater numbers than those caught. That is fact.”
