I'm not so sure you can speak for the sane, or can possibly know what they will bother with.
Of course you can't be sure of that, since you aren't amongst them.
How childishly predictable. When you are unable to discuss the merits, you choose the path of personal insult as a psychological self-defense mechanism.
In any case, you still can only speak for yourself.
These childish games cannot undo what the researchers themselves have already conceded. They gave us 9 models of non-compliance with 11 unknowns (while choosing to ignore a few others as negligible). Their only guidance through these unknowns is their own subjective rationalizations of what seems plausible to suggest what scenarios might be both likely and significant. Most curiously, they still consider self-protective "lying" could be significant despite a study designed to minimize dopers lying. To strengthen their discussion, they would have needed richer, more refined, and more robust data to confirm, or debunk, their remaining suspicions.
Of course you can't be sure of that, since you aren't amongst them.
How childishly predictable. When you are unable to discuss the merits, you choose the path of personal insult as a psychological self-defense mechanism.
In any case, you still can only speak for yourself.
These childish games cannot undo what the researchers themselves have already conceded. They gave us 9 models of non-compliance with 11 unknowns (while choosing to ignore a few others as negligible). Their only guidance through these unknowns is their own subjective rationalizations of what seems plausible to suggest what scenarios might be both likely and significant. Most curiously, they still consider self-protective "lying" could be significant despite a study designed to minimize dopers lying. To strengthen their discussion, they would have needed richer, more refined, and more robust data to confirm, or debunk, their remaining suspicions.
Just the rekrunner "interpretation", as usual. The study didn't presume to give an exact percentage figure of doping throughout the sport but an indicative figure that could be 1 in 3 athletes or 1 in 2, or even higher, based on the responses they received, which could definitely be relied on as genuine. No one admits to doping who doesn't dope and when they know there are no sanctions for their doping because they remain anonymous. What it doesn't change is that the estimate of actual doping far exceeds doping violations. It was sobering information for WA and WADA to realise most dopers were getting away with it, the conclusion you do everything you can to avoid to defend your mania.
Telling that you call those who disagree with you "insane".
No, I don't. I confine it to those few who clearly show it. Perhaps you might wish to be added to that list?
Your lists matter only to you. When you dismiss a well-written post (by rekrunner or anyone else), based on facts, as a word salad because it challenges your views, you are clearly showing your inability to admit when you are wrong, and your willingness to learn.
How would you even know? You don't read what I say, and you didn't read the research.
I don't pick a few cherries, but gave you a whole cherry pie, ready to eat, purchased directly from the chefs.
Something the researchers never said is "nearly 1 in 2".
LOL. Your cherry picking is atrociously distorting, sheer propaganda.
You mentioned researchers? In fact, this paper has now been cited 127 times by various researchers according to CrossRef. Going through the list from the top:
1: says "43.6%"
2: says "as high as 57% in some cohorts"
3: does not mention the result
4: does not mention the result
5: says "up to 57%"
6: says "43.6%"
7: does not mention the result
8: says "45% to 49% prevalence"
9: does not mention the result
10: ? Can't access it
11: does not mention the result
12: says "43.6% (with a 95% confidence interval of 39.4–47.9%)"
I stop here... The six that mention a number go from 39.4 to 57%. Huh. Didn't you try to spin the real result down to 31%?
But you keep spinning, and searching for the elusive article that cites your preferred 31%. Maybe you'll find one among the 127 times, sooner or later.
Just the rekrunner "interpretation", as usual. The study didn't presume to give an exact percentage figure of doping throughout the sport but an indicative figure that could be 1 in 3 athletes or 1 in 2, or even higher, based on the responses they received, which could definitely be relied on as genuine. No one admits to doping who doesn't dope and when they know there are no sanctions for their doping because they remain anonymous. What it doesn't change is that the estimate of actual doping far exceeds doping violations. It was sobering information for WA and WADA to realise most dopers were getting away with it, the conclusion you do everything you can to avoid to defend your mania.
Contrary to your suggestion, one of the main points of the whole paper was attempting to exhaustively detail all the many ways the responses could not be definitely relied on, I suppose as an aid to future research for refined surveys. In a 1-page discussion of limitations, and a more detailed 7-page discussion of the "Effects of non-compliance", they introduce 9 different models with 11 unknowns, in addition to performing an empirical exercise to disregard hasty responses tuned to removing a significant over-estimation bias.
LOL. Your cherry picking is atrociously distorting, sheer propaganda.
You mentioned researchers? In fact, this paper has now been cited 127 times by various researchers according to CrossRef. Going through the list from the top:
1: says "43.6%"
2: says "as high as 57% in some cohorts"
3: does not mention the result
4: does not mention the result
5: says "up to 57%"
6: says "43.6%"
7: does not mention the result
8: says "45% to 49% prevalence"
9: does not mention the result
10: ? Can't access it
11: does not mention the result
12: says "43.6% (with a 95% confidence interval of 39.4–47.9%)"
I stop here... The six that mention a number go from 39.4 to 57%. Huh. Didn't you try to spin the real result down to 31%?
But you keep spinning, and searching for the elusive article that cites your preferred 31%. Maybe you'll find one among the 127 times, sooner or later.
That's a new one. I've never seen anyone attempt to assess the merits of a paper, and attempt to establish what researchers say, by looking at what other researchers have said, and decided to include for their own purpose. Isn't it better to look at the primary paper itself for the result, and the discussion of its reliability and any limitations?
But there is no distortion or propoganda.
You keep saying "the result", or "the real result" as if there were a single reliable result, rather than 39 unreliable published results across a range from 8.9% to 73.1% (if not wider), for the World Championship (and 39 more for the Pan Arab Games).
We know that 43.6% is for the World Championship 2011 (WCA) and 57% is for the Pan Arab Games 2011 (PAG) -- a kind of Arabian Olympics -- something I ignored as not being connected to elite athletics. These are the raw estimates without any attempt to correct the estimates by applying any of the 9 proposed models, or conducting the empirical exercise to remove the substantial over-estimate from hasty responses.
Not sure where "45% to 49%" even comes from.
The elusive article that "spins 31%" and you allege "is atrociously distorting, sheer propaganda" is the original paper itself. On page 212, they explicitly highlight, in a pop-out box entitled "Key Points", their "Key" estimates of "at least 30% at WCA" (and "45% at PAG"). Notwithstanding 127 cites in CrossRef, the original primary source paper does not mention 43.6% nor 57% under "Key Points".
So I cannot place any substantial weight from these any of these 12 external papers you've selected, many of which failed to get the Key Points right.
And all of this excludes the "real result" from Table 5, using an alternate survey method. A subsequent paper evaluates these results from the very same WCA 2011 to produce an alternative estimate of 21.4%, and estimating 30% survey non-compliance.
But yes, I also see the bias in that paper. But that is understandable, because the researchers had to downplay the extent of the doping or the IAAF would never have agreed to publishing the work. We do know that the IAAF was blocking (i.e. negotiating the wording and emphasis of) the publication for years.
We should correct this error, too. Under "Conflict of Interest" the paper states: "However, the authors declare that neither WADA nore the IAAF has imposed any restrictions on the authors' access to the data, the analysis and interpretation of the data, or the writing of this report."
No, I don't. I confine it to those few who clearly show it. Perhaps you might wish to be added to that list?
Your lists matter only to you. When you dismiss a well-written post (by rekrunner or anyone else), based on facts, as a word salad because it challenges your views, you are clearly showing your inability to admit when you are wrong, and your willingness to learn.
It isn't well written except to those bamboozled by its verbosity allied to its intellectual emptiness. That means you.
That's a new one. I've never seen anyone attempt to assess the merits of a paper, and attempt to establish what researchers say, by looking at what other researchers have said
Really? Never? Then you evidently have never dealt with research before. It's standard procedure to check how others view your work (data collection and the interpretation and more).
For the record, I didn't use that to "attempt to establish what researchers say" - that's your new spin. I used that to show you how other researchers in the field - which you clearly are not - understand the results. And there was no cherry picking. As I told you, I started from the top, and stopped after 12. Feel free to check the next 12, or the last 12. Or all remaining 115.
You also left out the part before that directly contradicts your nonsense from the previous page (where you wrote "I don't know if the IAAF was blocking the paper for years. From testimony before the parliament, I got the impression they were not even aware of the paper that WADA commissioned directly."):
"We would note that there was a delay of nearly 6 years between the completion of the data collection and the publication of this paper, due to negotiations between WADA and the IAAF, and subsequently between the IAAF and the authors, regarding the authority to publish the results. This process has been described in reports in the popular media."
Your lists matter only to you. When you dismiss a well-written post (by rekrunner or anyone else), based on facts, as a word salad because it challenges your views, you are clearly showing your inability to admit when you are wrong, and your willingness to learn.
It isn't well written except to those bamboozled by its verbosity allied to its intellectual emptiness. That means you.
We all know who is bamboozled by facts and knowledge. That means you.