Do you three: Casual Observer, rekrunner, and Armstronglivs ever get tired of making the same discussion over and over again? I mean really. You will never convince the other, yet you always bring up the same points again and again. Do you realize you're talking to the same person every time you talk about doping? It's extremely repetitive, childish, and annoying. Start your own doping obsessed thread if you want to talk about it so much.
No comment on the doping, but the part about being poor and wanting to improve your quality of life, I believe it.
gotem wrote:
Do you three: Casual Observer, rekrunner, and Armstronglivs ever get tired of making the same discussion over and over again? I mean really.
Yes I do.
That's why I am staying away from the El G thread, where the rekrunnering is in full display again, and that's why I here too let rekrunner have the last word.
In any case, I am not really writing for rekrunner, but for those who might fall for his propaganda.
Or go and count rekrunner's posts here, in comparison to mine or Armstronglivs': looks like he posts about as much as the two of us combined, if not more.
jeff tallon wrote:
i read somewhere(i cant remember where) that the figure of elite athletes doping is 44-57% and it was supposedly based on surveys.I think the pan arab games,and pan american games were mentioned,and world championships.Its from a few years back.Im also not sure what passes as an elite athlete.Perhaps olympic B qualifier leval.I can believe about half at B leval or above are using drugs,and literally everyone at top leval is using.
44% at the Worlds 2011, and 57% at PanAm 2011, yes. Those are the ones who admitted to doping in the previous 12 months, meaning yes, the dopers who didn't dare answering correctly weren't included, and neither were the ones who doped earlier but stopped (or the ones who lost to dopers in 2011 and then started in 2012).
So I share your and the scientists' conclusions that the real number is higher. I hope you are wrong though, and there are some maybe 10-20% clean at the top.
gotem wrote:
Do you three: Casual Observer, rekrunner, and Armstronglivs ever get tired of making the same discussion over and over again? I mean really. You will never convince the other, yet you always bring up the same points again and again. Do you realize you're talking to the same person every time you talk about doping? It's extremely repetitive, childish, and annoying. Start your own doping obsessed thread if you want to talk about it so much.
I try to mix up this discussion, but others always bounce it back to past off-topic discussions and personal insults.
Here I wanted to talk about the Kenyan busts, and about "objectivity".
In this thread I made two kinds of posts:
- on-topic posts that discussed the busts of the Kenyans, offering information found in the verdict, and one opinion about some poor choices of legal strategy from Kendagor
- one post that questioned Coevett's characterizing his opinion about the "majority of Kenyans" as "objective"
Only one of these posts gained traction, with casual obsever, densely compacting in just a few posts: subjective arguments to "prove" objectivity, many off-topic greatest hits from the past (Baumann, Decker, Kiprop, Jeptoo, Salazar, IAAF propaganda (what?), ...), some exaggerated facts (calling suggestions of unmeasured likelihood, "peer reviewed conclusions"), calling me a "doper apologist" for talking about an athlete not accused or convicted of doping, accusing me of ad hominem for stating demonstrated exaggerations and observations, before pretending to take the high road, and saying it's always rekrunner's fault that so many people respond to him with their own beliefs, personal insults, and strawman arguments.
jeff tallon wrote:
i read somewhere(i cant remember where) that the figure of elite athletes doping is 44-57% and it was supposedly based on surveys.I think the pan arab games,and pan american games were mentioned,and world championships.Its from a few years back.Im also not sure what passes as an elite athlete.Perhaps olympic B qualifier leval.I can believe about half at B leval or above are using drugs,and literally everyone at top leval is using.
It was discussed here many times. It was the 2011 IAAF World Championships and the 2011 Pan Arab games (28 sports, including athletics). There was no distinction of "elite" athletes, just participants at these events.
For those who haven't read the study - here is "rekrunner's" notes:
It was anonymized by offering two questions, a birthday question, or a doping question, with a random selection of which question to answer, only known to the survey respondent.
The survey results, mathematically corrected to factor out the expected percentage of birthday questions, was 44% and 57%, respectively.
The study then hypothesized many forms of non-compliance, and modeled each form with a mathematical equation, as a function of number of athletes not complying.
This is important -- they did not measure any form of non-compliance, but just built equations taking the non-compliance factor as an input. In their analysis, they assumed a high degree of non-compliance for each model, not as an estimate of likelihood, but as a tool to help indicate which forms lead to small bias, and can be ignored, and which forms lead to more significant bias.
This is also important -- independently of these models, they also measured response times, noting that those who respond quickly, likely did not read the instructions and responded automatically. This would lead to many non-dopers responding that they doped. When checking the responses with the response times, they observed a significant positive bias with the fastest response times. The top 10% fastest responses indicated a 96% doping rate. It would seem strange that so many dopers would want to confess so fast.
The large bias was linked to response times, and not to any of their models, although "automatic yes" from non-dopers would likely be over-represented in the fastest responses. They recommended discarding the fastest 30% of the responses, to eliminate the observed bias, which would contain a spectrum of responses, including "automatic yes", "birthday switching" responses, as well as truthful doper and non-doper responses, etc.
The recommendation to eliminate this large observed positive bias, and only consider the slowest 70% of responses, leads to a lower bound estimate of 31% and 45%, respectively. Note that the remaining 70% can still contain all forms of non-compliance.
This is important -- "fastest response" is NOT one of the non-compliance models, and eliminating the fastest responses is not the same as assuming a factor of non-compliance in a model.
The conclusions of the paper did not decide which number was "real", but concluded that more doping surveys should be conducted to get better estimates than biological estimates.
Outside of this study, there is plenty of research on the accuracy of survey methods. One paper used the same survey technique in British athletes, cross-checking the results with other techniques. They found that for sensitive questions like doping, the survey result was 60%, compared to three other methods of 20%. When the question was a non-sensitive question about herbal supplements, the results were consistent with each other. They speculated that many dopers and non-dopers switch to the birthday question, as even non-dopers fear to answer a doping question, even anonymously when they have nothing to fear, which inflates the doping estimate.
Survey methods can potentially bring better estimates, but it is still a work in progress.
That's two more positive tests than the Salazar group ever had. No Salazar athlete has EVER tested positive for banned substances.
Rupp and Farah are tested ALL THE TIME. Always pass. Always.
It's time to FREE Salazar and let him coach again. Or produce ANY evidence....
Andy Norman, manager of Steve Ovett, fixed races and later has married Fatima Whitbread.
If something similar could be said about some African runner, it would be enough for you to call this runner an almost certain doper, Coevett. Also here?