In all the years on these boards there has been countless information showing how doping has spread in the sport. Indeed, most threads raise the subject at some point. They are based on published information on the subject and yet here you are asking for "published figures" on doping, as though nothing has been said about it anywhere by anyone in all those years. That is quite apart from the fact that there can be no definitive measure of a clandestine practice. The fact you ask such a question shows how determined you are to not see what is acknowledged in the sport, that is the main subject of conversation on these boards, and is right in front of your face. You are like one who is color-blind who cannot accept others can see what he can't.
Then why are you unable to point to some of these publications?
What is the basis for suggesting doping has increased over the decades? Please provide specific facts rather than naive and gullible conclusions based on myths.
You continue to show you haven't been listening for all the years you have been on this site and purport to interest yourself in the subject. I am not going to begin again at the beginning for you. A flat-earther will never change his views.
Yes, you can minimise prevalence by arguing it is less than what most informed estimates suggest it would be and by trying to minimise what is suggested by athlete doping surveys. But quite apart from minimising prevalence you also seek to minimise effect by suggesting there is no evidence to confirm drugs are performance enhancing.
If we accepted your arguments doping would not exist as a problem in sports. Indeed it would cease to exist altogether because it would give athletes no advantage.
I don't know what you mean by "informed estimates". Who is informed with which information? This is my question to you in every post for the last few years -- one you seem ill equipped to answer. Which information?
Athlete surveys suggest prevalence ranges from 9.7% to 47% at the same WCA 2011 event (95% CI). The high variance is due to a significant number of athletes (est. 30%) not complying with the anonymous survey instructions. This is not me minimizing prevalence, but giving the information officially published from these surveys. This is before the IAAF/Russian scandal and the creation of a WADA investigations group and the AIU, all of which may have had a deterrent effect. Your friend Howman said something similar in cycling, that prevalence was at least 10%.
I don't talk about all doping "in sports", but one specific category of events in one sport. WADA exists for all Olympic sports.
You continue to show you haven't been listening for all the years you have been on this site and purport to interest yourself in the subject. I am not going to begin again at the beginning for you. A flat-earther will never change his views.
Again? Just do it once for the first time.
I have been listening to a lot of nonsense. I use facts and data and observations to extract any sense of it.
Virtually every recent study on prevalence starts out by lamenting little has been done to establish doping prevalence. Yet here you are saying that it has increased over the decades. Based on what information?
We've updated our BetterRunningShoes.com web site to make it easier to find good deals on the best shoes. To keep it great we need new shoe reviews from you.