If they are intelligent, they will not see what you see, but understand what I wrote. "Guffaw" then becomes a kind of intelligence test.
I was merely wondering how wide the uncertainty is, since testing is both limited, and ineffective, there is just a lot that experts like David Howman don't really know.
But your response is both "feeble" and ignorant. Testing didn't catch Lance or Salazar, but investigations and whistleblowers did. Look at how many Russians were caught by testing, versus caught by a whistleblowers and the McClaren report.
1% positive tests means ignorance about the remaining 99% -- a figure that leaves it wide open for rumors, speculation, and innuendo.
And the 99% ignorance is only among those who are tested -- it doesn't count the athletes WADA/ADAs/ADOs do not test, like a complete survey would.
What we do know:
- because anti-doping funding for testing is limited, as you just strongly argued, testing itself is also limited. Many athletes are never tested, and even among the best, not all athletes are tested all the time.
- because of "strict liability" allowing guilt to be presumed, and other human errors, even the 1% includes both true positives and false positives, that is up to the athlete to investigate.
- most athletes are not OOC tested. It stands to reason that if testing is a deterrent, athletes who know they will not be tested, are not deterred, and the rate of doping among the untested will surely be higher than the rate among the tested. The untested will not appear among the 1% positive test results, or the 99% negative test result, but in another uncounted pool where David Howman and the rest of anti-doping are also ignorant.