Since you are so f****** stupid you would also say white collar crime and black market crime don't exist because there is no "data", as the offenders don't reveal in their accounts and their transactions what they are doing - just like dopers don't admit they are doping. And like most dopers, they aren't caught. How do you manage to tie your shoelaces?
And you are the one who alleges there were recent signficant advances in doping, and that this is likely, and that doping is a factor in improving performances at the top.
Are you telling me now that these were always baseless allegations with no data because dopers don't dope and tell?
It is known that doping expenditure on the black market totals over a billion Euros world-wide; confidential surveys have shown doping could be more than 1 in 2 championship level athletes; and WADA says doping remains ahead of antidoping and it is generally only the dumb and the careless who are caught - hence dopers mostly get away with it. And you think doping has not continued to increase over the years, when there are incentives to seek advantage through doping and there is nothing to effectively stop it? Further, the drugs they use are typically based on medicines that are subject to constant development - because that is what science and medicine do. Only someone who is both utterly ignorant or is in pathological denial cannot see that doping, which is found in all sports, progresses as much as any other area of science. Oh - that appears to be you.
You don't know what "data" is. You think it is only some bs figures a bean-counter like you plasters on a graph, that in this case would miraculously be of all the dopers who have come forward to obligingly identify themselves. The factors I listed above about doping constitute data because they are ascertainable and established facts, even if the aren't your childish numbers.
I didn't ask specifically for figures. You said you had data. Whatever it is, just point me to the data that shows doping hasn't reduced.
It is known that doping expenditure on the black market totals over a billion Euros world-wide; confidential surveys have shown doping could be more than 1 in 2 championship level athletes; and WADA says doping remains ahead of antidoping and it is generally only the dumb and the careless who are caught - hence dopers mostly get away with it. And you think doping has not continued to increase over the years, when there are incentives to seek advantage through doping and there is nothing to effectively stop it? Further, the drugs they use are typically based on medicines that are subject to constant development - because that is what science and medicine do. Only someone who is both utterly ignorant or is in pathological denial cannot see that doping, which is found in all sports, progresses as much as any other area of science. Oh - that appears to be you.
This is all old information. We are talking about performance advancements now in the supershoe era.
The "black market" figure (besides being wrong) is from before 2017, and covers all sports, and covers professional and amateur athletes, and possibly amateurs competing in no sports but looking to bulk up or lose fat, and covers generic drugs not necessarily banned by WADA.
The confidential survey is from 2011 (and also from a complex model with about a dozen unknowns).
This isn't about what I think -- you are the one making claims about recent performances that appear now to have no basis in fact. Don't shifting the burden to me, because you cannot support your beliefs with data.
Nothing referenced in your post indicates that there have been recent significant advances in doping, and that elite performance have improved in the supershoe era because of them.
Meanwhile, WADA just issued a report that says increased testing is a deterrent on doping.
It is known that doping expenditure on the black market totals over a billion Euros world-wide; confidential surveys have shown doping could be more than 1 in 2 championship level athletes; and WADA says doping remains ahead of antidoping and it is generally only the dumb and the careless who are caught - hence dopers mostly get away with it. And you think doping has not continued to increase over the years, when there are incentives to seek advantage through doping and there is nothing to effectively stop it? Further, the drugs they use are typically based on medicines that are subject to constant development - because that is what science and medicine do. Only someone who is both utterly ignorant or is in pathological denial cannot see that doping, which is found in all sports, progresses as much as any other area of science. Oh - that appears to be you.
This is all old information. We are talking about performance advancements now in the supershoe era.
The "black market" figure (besides being wrong) is from before 2017, and covers all sports, and covers professional and amateur athletes, and possibly amateurs competing in no sports but looking to bulk up or lose fat, and covers generic drugs not necessarily banned by WADA.
The confidential survey is from 2011 (and also from a complex model with about a dozen unknowns).
This isn't about what I think -- you are the one making claims about recent performances that appear now to have no basis in fact. Don't shifting the burden to me, because you cannot support your beliefs with data.
Nothing referenced in your post indicates that there have been recent significant advances in doping, and that elite performance have improved in the supershoe era because of them.
Meanwhile, WADA just issued a report that says increased testing is a deterrent on doping.
Did you forget you were supposed to provide recent data?
The most recent data is the weekly drug busts coming out of Kenya. They don't appear to be deterred by testing.
There is nothing that suggests doping is any less than what it was in the last decade or more. Howman has repeatedly said doping is always ahead of antidoping. He said it was a big wakeup call when they realised over 20 years ago that athletes could beat testing through masking their drug use.
Did you forget you were supposed to provide recent data?
He will not - he can't.
I just have, moron. You don't follow anything that is up-to-date knowledge about doping in the sport. It continues to develop. That's what science does - and doping is science (and money).
I just have, moron. You don't follow anything that is up-to-date knowledge about doping in the sport. It continues to develop. That's what science does - and doping is science (and money).
Did you forget you were supposed to provide recent data?
The most recent data is the weekly drug busts coming out of Kenya. They don't appear to be deterred by testing.
There is nothing that suggests doping is any less than what it was in the last decade or more. Howman has repeatedly said doping is always ahead of antidoping. He said it was a big wakeup call when they realised over 20 years ago that athletes could beat testing through masking their drug use.
Increased testing which acts as a deterrent is something that suggests doping is less when testing is more.
But you made so many more faithful claims with no data, such as "recent advances in doping". Many of the busts coming out of Kenya are from substances developed back in 1950 and 1970, such as "Trimetazidine" and "Triamcinolone acetonide" and a popular favorite, "Nandrolone". These are not "recent advances in doping".
You also claimed it was a factor in the recent performances. Many of the busts coming out of Kenya are not from those setting records, like Beatrice Chebet's.
Howman is just conceding that anti-doping experts like him don't really know all that much about doping, let alone it's impact on elite performance. What is his background? Law? What are his qualifications to speak about the factors for creating elite performance? More importantly, based on which data?
If you cannot provide any real substantial data, you are just piling new gospels on top of the old unproven ones.
I just have, moron. You don't follow anything that is up-to-date knowledge about doping in the sport. It continues to develop. That's what science does - and doping is science (and money).
You didn't provide any up to date knowledge. You referred to a 2017 documentary which conveyed no real knowledge then, and a 2011 survey with a lot of questions about its accuracy, and some sensational quotes, leading to a rationalization that there must be advances because science is always advancing, yet experts like Howman and WADA don't know what they are.
I just have, moron. You don't follow anything that is up-to-date knowledge about doping in the sport. It continues to develop. That's what science does - and doping is science (and money).
No, you havn't - you can't.
These doping threads have rehearsed arguments showing that doping doesn't go away as a problem. The authorities in the sport can't deal with it. Only turkeys like you think the prevailing knowledge about doping in the sport tells us nothing. Your head is firmly buried in the ground.
I just have, moron. You don't follow anything that is up-to-date knowledge about doping in the sport. It continues to develop. That's what science does - and doping is science (and money).
You didn't provide any up to date knowledge. You referred to a 2017 documentary which conveyed no real knowledge then, and a 2011 survey with a lot of questions about its accuracy, and some sensational quotes, leading to a rationalization that there must be advances because science is always advancing, yet experts like Howman and WADA don't know what they are.
There is absolutely NOTHING that suggests doping has reduced since that data was obtained. That you say Howman and WADA can't keep track of developments in doping is yet another indication that it hasn't suddenly and inexplicably stopped. What he does know is that it is always ahead of antidoping.
The most recent data is the weekly drug busts coming out of Kenya. They don't appear to be deterred by testing.
There is nothing that suggests doping is any less than what it was in the last decade or more. Howman has repeatedly said doping is always ahead of antidoping. He said it was a big wakeup call when they realised over 20 years ago that athletes could beat testing through masking their drug use.
Increased testing which acts as a deterrent is something that suggests doping is less when testing is more.
But you made so many more faithful claims with no data, such as "recent advances in doping". Many of the busts coming out of Kenya are from substances developed back in 1950 and 1970, such as "Trimetazidine" and "Triamcinolone acetonide" and a popular favorite, "Nandrolone". These are not "recent advances in doping".
You also claimed it was a factor in the recent performances. Many of the busts coming out of Kenya are not from those setting records, like Beatrice Chebet's.
Howman is just conceding that anti-doping experts like him don't really know all that much about doping, let alone it's impact on elite performance. What is his background? Law? What are his qualifications to speak about the factors for creating elite performance? More importantly, based on which data?
If you cannot provide any real substantial data, you are just piling new gospels on top of the old unproven ones.
You identify three substances out of the considerable number listed by WADA that originated decades ago. Yet they weren't being used for sports doping then. Doping often takes advantages of drugs that were intended for other purposes but discovering that potential can come years later. Why does WADA have the need to make a list which it has to update if doping doesn't continue to develop? If doping hasn't continued to develop how has it managed to remain ahead of antidoping, so that considerably more athletes dope than are caught?
Athletes dope to succeed; to win. Do they no longer wish to do that?
Your idiocy should be in the Guinness Book of Records.
You didn't provide any up to date knowledge. You referred to a 2017 documentary which conveyed no real knowledge then, and a 2011 survey with a lot of questions about its accuracy, and some sensational quotes, leading to a rationalization that there must be advances because science is always advancing, yet experts like Howman and WADA don't know what they are.
There is absolutely NOTHING that suggests doping has reduced since that data was obtained. That you say Howman and WADA can't keep track of developments in doping is yet another indication that it hasn't suddenly and inexplicably stopped. What he does know is that it is always ahead of antidoping.
You don't dispute that you didn't provide any up to date knowledge, after accusing "hoad654" of not following "anything that is up-to-date knowledge about doping". You are on equal footing.
Recall you said you had data that it hasn't reduced. Was that a lie?
We are talking about massive performance jumps in the supershoe era, and you are arguing a double negative from ignorance that nothing says it's not advances in doping. Similarly, you are arguing that doping must be advanced because Howman and WADA are ignorant.
When you base all of your arguments and beliefs based on what you don't know, this is by definition not knowledge but ignorance.
As persuaded as you are by such fallacies, you are just piling gospels on to old unproven gospels, like any other fanatic.
You identify three substances out of the considerable number listed by WADA that originated decades ago. Yet they weren't being used for sports doping then. Doping often takes advantages of drugs that were intended for other purposes but discovering that potential can come years later. Why does WADA have the need to make a list which it has to update if doping doesn't continue to develop? If doping hasn't continued to develop how has it managed to remain ahead of antidoping, so that considerably more athletes dope than are caught?
Athletes dope to succeed; to win. Do they no longer wish to do that?
Your idiocy should be in the Guinness Book of Records.
Most every substance on WADA's list has existed for decades. Which are the new substances in the supershoe era that can explain these massive jumps in improvement, over and above the EPO era?
Again -- I asked if you had data, and you said you did. I am not persuaded by your meandering rationalizations of things that must be because you don't know it's not.
You identify three substances out of the considerable number listed by WADA that originated decades ago. Yet they weren't being used for sports doping then. Doping often takes advantages of drugs that were intended for other purposes but discovering that potential can come years later. Why does WADA have the need to make a list which it has to update if doping doesn't continue to develop? If doping hasn't continued to develop how has it managed to remain ahead of antidoping, so that considerably more athletes dope than are caught?
Athletes dope to succeed; to win. Do they no longer wish to do that?
Your idiocy should be in the Guinness Book of Records.
Most every substance on WADA's list has existed for decades. Which are the new substances in the supershoe era that can explain these massive jumps in improvement, over and above the EPO era?
Again -- I asked if you had data, and you said you did. I am not persuaded by your meandering rationalizations of things that must be because you don't know it's not.
If doping had ceased to be a factor in the sport and was having no effect on elite performances or records you don't think that WADA would be openly triumphing in that achievement? Strangely - they aren't.