Blah blah. You are still saying generations of athletes, their coaches trainers and physicians were doing little more than taking popcorn because you are convinced that doping of itself doesn't enhance performance except as a placebo. So how many dopers have made themselves subjects of these studies you rely on? None. You form conclusions from nothing.
Four decades of research is wanting, but not nothing.
Six decades of all time performances is something.
Where there is nothing, I will wait for statistical confirmation.
You are the one speaking on behalf of the silent generations of athletes, their coaches trainers and physicians, putting words in their mouths. This is no basis for inference.
I am not presuming to speak for anybody. What I observe is the unarguable fact that generations of athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians have been involved in doping for decades. It is beyond credulity that they would have done so (and continue to do so) without gaining results from doping - or that anti-doping organisations would be strenuously trying to prevent the use of "performance enhancing" substances that aren't in fact performance enhancing. The only thing that would support your view that doping is largely ineffectual and merely an act of "faith" would be a comprehensive study of elite athletes who have doped. There is no such study - and there never will be.
I am not presuming to speak for anybody. What I observe is the unarguable fact that generations of athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians have been involved in doping for decades. It is beyond credulity that they would have done so (and continue to do so) without gaining results from doping - or that anti-doping organisations would be strenuously trying to prevent the use of "performance enhancing" substances that aren't in fact performance enhancing. The only thing that would support your view that doping is largely ineffectual and merely an act of "faith" would be a comprehensive study of elite athletes who have doped. There is no such study - and there never will be.
I never said they don't gain results. Placebo is proven to deliver gained results.
A simple analysis of decades of real all time results supports my views.
So your ignore Tygart's condemnation of Salazar. Selective, as always. The 4-year ban leans more heavily in Tygart's direction than yours.
Rightfully so -- we were talking about NOP athletes and the sabotage experiment.
You predictably changed the subject, after being proved completely wrong.
This is one of your many games.
We were talking about what Salazar was doing and why. He was condemned by Tygart and properly banned. That is good enough for me. There wasn't the evidence linking his actions directly to his athletes but I would put that down to skilful management as much as anything else. I find it ironic that you seek to only see high-mindedness in his actions when he has also been banned for abusing minors in his charge. A thoroughly nice guy indeed.
I am not presuming to speak for anybody. What I observe is the unarguable fact that generations of athletes, coaches, trainers and physicians have been involved in doping for decades. It is beyond credulity that they would have done so (and continue to do so) without gaining results from doping - or that anti-doping organisations would be strenuously trying to prevent the use of "performance enhancing" substances that aren't in fact performance enhancing. The only thing that would support your view that doping is largely ineffectual and merely an act of "faith" would be a comprehensive study of elite athletes who have doped. There is no such study - and there never will be.
I never said they don't gain results. Placebo is proven to deliver gained results.
A simple analysis of decades of real all time results supports my views.
You're correct - it is a "simple" analysis. So what can be the analysis of why generations of sports professionals continue to dope - and pay millions for it - if it has no more material effect than popcorn? So many deluded fools, while you alone know the truth - even though you have no experience of doping (or elite sport), as they do.
Pretty much that, but I think the published 43.6% is rather an underestimation than an overestimation - because typically dopers don't readily admit to doping even if anonymity is promised. That brings us to 50 - 60% dopers at the 2011 worlds, and maybe 2/3 - 3/4 of that nowadays.
While a minority, that's still a lot. Consider an event with 40 athletes (see thread topic). That would be by my count 13 - 18 dopers, by your count 8 - 12 dopers.
Now there can only 3 medal winners. Granted, "a talented and hardworking athlete can beat a doper if the doper isn't talented enough or working smart/hard enough", but there will be talented and hardworking dopers too.
Interesting thoughts.
From a study that only gave two estimates backed, at least in part, by the data they measured: an unprocessed "43.6%" and a rationalized conservative lower bound of "31.4%", you choose none of the above, and think some intangible things brings, not just you, but "us", to 50-60%.
According to the researchers, the difference between 29% and 43.6% is that, for reasons that defied obvious explanation, the anonymity didn't discourage some dopers, but rather emboldened many dopers to admit so, some faster than the time it takes to read the survey instructions and questions, to the tune of 115 out of the fastest 120 (96%), and 260 out of the fastest 361 (72%). The study design included measuring the response times, as this kind of behavior was known beforehand in surveys like this one, and the researchers recommended discarding the fastest results to remove these artifacts of hasty responses.
But your rationale that brings "us" to 50-60% is not only to keep all these super fast confessions from all of these 260 all too eager and bursting to admit doping respondents, but to add to the count another estimated (how?) 77-197 athletes (out of 1203 total respondents) who, unlike the faster responders, didn't trust anonymity enough to admit it.
The fact that this study can have such a wide range of interpretation should call into question the usefulness of the UQM method at all, for accurately estimating doping prevalence.
Rightfully so -- we were talking about NOP athletes and the sabotage experiment.
You predictably changed the subject, after being proved completely wrong.
This is one of your many games.
We were talking about what Salazar was doing and why. He was condemned by Tygart and properly banned. That is good enough for me. There wasn't the evidence linking his actions directly to his athletes but I would put that down to skilful management as much as anything else. I find it ironic that you seek to only see high-mindedness in his actions when he has also been banned for abusing minors in his charge. A thoroughly nice guy indeed.
Not really -- before you changed the subject we were talking about NOP athletes, and your disproven allegation that the sabotage experiment was for the benefit of NOP athletes. What you put it down to, or what you find, isn't all that relevant, especially when they are false statements unambiguously disproven by the AAA Panel report. In this case, I am only seeking to point out the statements you make are demonstrably false.
I never said they don't gain results. Placebo is proven to deliver gained results.
A simple analysis of decades of real all time results supports my views.
You're correct - it is a "simple" analysis. So what can be the analysis of why generations of sports professionals continue to dope - and pay millions for it - if it has no more material effect than popcorn? So many deluded fools, while you alone know the truth - even though you have no experience of doping (or elite sport), as they do.
Likewise, you have no experience of doping (or elite sport) yet you insist on speaking for the elite.
My analysis is that, as you preached earlier, they do it by word of mouth, without waiting for confirmation of results. As you confirmed, it is a big industry, estimated at billions of Euros. An industry that big requires many people believing in the benefits, without waiting for evidence. We've know for thousands of years how to make that happen. But a simple all time distance running performance analysis shows that, although other sports may or may not benefit, the correlation, or exclusivity, or greater likelihood, between doping and the best distance running performances is something that has yet to be universally confirmed.