An estimated 29 percent of the athletes at the 2011 world championships and 45 percent of the athletes at the 2011 Pan-Arab Games said in anonymous surveys that they had doped in the past year.
In May, Dick Pound, a former WADA chairman, presented a report, ordered by the agency, on the current state of drug testing. In part, he and his team concluded, “There is no general appetite to undertake the effort and expense of a successful effort to deliver doping-free sport.”
Pound said in a telephone interview Thursday: “There’s this psychological aspect about it: nobody wants to catch anybody. There’s no incentive. Countries are embarrassed if their nationals are caught. And sports are embarrassed if someone from their sport is caught.”
They should have taken DNA samples from all the surveys and busted the 29% etc.
Was this before Bio Passports were implemented?
It's a shitty statistic. Sad.
Better than the "100%" some like to claim.
Hopefully Bio Passports are working.
4 year bans should help.
Cacao Starfish wrote:
They should have taken DNA samples from all the surveys and busted the 29% etc.
A bit problematic, don't you think?
It was a strange protocol, dependent on answers to questions rather than science - I'm going to go into full denial mode here and say that it is not a reliable way to determine doping. By carbon testing, they think 5% dope, right?
___
Athletes at the events answered questions on tablet computers and were asked initially to think of a birthday, either their own or that of someone close to them. Then, depending on the date of the birthday, they were instructed to answer one of two questions that appeared on the same screen: one asked if the birthday fell sometime between January and June, and the other asked, “Have you knowingly violated anti-doping regulations by using a prohibited substance or method in the past 12 months?”
The study was designed this way, the researchers said, so only the athlete knew which of the two questions he or she was answering. Then, using statistical analysis, the researchers could estimate how many of the athletes admitted to doping.
The researchers noted that not every athlete participated, and those who did could have lied on the questionnaire, or chosen to answer the birthday question. They concluded that their results, which found that nearly a third of the athletes at the world championships and nearly half at the Pan-Arab Games had doped in the past year, probably underestimated the reality.
I find it sad to say this, but after several decades of watching everything, I now have to concur with Sprintgeezer.
I used to think that he and I were like 2 sides of the same coin, and that he just chose to be negative. I don't have the same sort of organizational experience he seems to have (I'm a pipefitter), but I've been around long enough to know about human behavior, and it seems like with every new piece of news we get, the exact picture he painted is emerging from the fog.
I guess nobody really cares, except at the lowest levels. My daughter has a good time doing track in school, I have that I can believe in. She looks up to Mary Cain.
The thing is, I don't think that anything can be done, even if somebody wanted to do it, because it's just not important enough in view of world conflicts, hunger, human migration, and so on.
Now I wonder about all other sports, too.
isn't there one billionaire track fan who will sponsor WADA? A few million dollars a year would go a long way.
I suppose if he were american or russian or chinese cries of undue influence would rise, but I could live with that.
agip wrote:
isn't there one billionaire track fan who will sponsor WADA? A few million dollars a year would go a long way.
I suppose if he were american or russian or chinese cries of undue influence would rise, but I could live with that.
Phil Knight.
Yeah, I don't see the value in the the WADA study. It only tells us how many athletes (from the subset of those deciding to participate) anonymously admit to violating anti-doping regulations. It's not based on test results.
agip wrote:
It was a strange protocol, dependent on answers to questions rather than science - I'm going to go into full denial mode here and say that it is not a reliable way to determine doping. By carbon testing, they think 5% dope, right?
___
Athletes at the events answered questions on tablet computers and were asked initially to think of a birthday, either their own or that of someone close to them. Then, depending on the date of the birthday, they were instructed to answer one of two questions that appeared on the same screen: one asked if the birthday fell sometime between January and June, and the other asked, “Have you knowingly violated anti-doping regulations by using a prohibited substance or method in the past 12 months?”
The study was designed this way, the researchers said, so only the athlete knew which of the two questions he or she was answering. Then, using statistical analysis, the researchers could estimate how many of the athletes admitted to doping.
The researchers noted that not every athlete participated, and those who did could have lied on the questionnaire, or chosen to answer the birthday question. They concluded that their results, which found that nearly a third of the athletes at the world championships and nearly half at the Pan-Arab Games had doped in the past year, probably underestimated the reality.
Trollist the First wrote:
Phil Knight.
So, Nike didn't know what Lance Armstrong was taking. Yeah, sure.
FWIW, the story was on page 1 of the Times's paper edition, although below-the-fold.
Two thoughts:
First, this proves arabs cheat on almost a 2-1 basis.
Second, what percentage lied on the birthday question?
clifford diffley wrote:
Two thoughts:
First, this proves arabs cheat on almost a 2-1 basis.
Second, what percentage lied on the birthday question?
how would you possibly determine if some anonymous person lied about their birthday or a friends birthday?
and the article proves nothing about doping, just the results of a survey
we also don't have a population size or any details about the survey
Cacao Starfish wrote:
Was this before Bio Passports were implemented?
It's a shitty statistic. Sad.
Better than the "100%" some like to claim.
Hopefully Bio Passports are working.
4 year bans should help.
If 29% were willing to admit it in a survey (albeit anonymous) then I would guess the real number is probably 60+%...
clifford diffley wrote:
Two thoughts:
First, this proves arabs cheat on almost a 2-1 basis.
Second, what percentage lied on the birthday question?
Or that Arabs more honest?
Im curious as to how you get a remotely representative sample from a group that is as diverse and small in number as world champion athletes.
agip wrote:
It was a strange protocol, dependent on answers to questions rather than science - I'm going to go into full denial mode here and say that it is not a reliable way to determine doping. By carbon testing, they think 5% dope, right?
I'm not clear on your concern, polling is a valid scientific method. While polling is susceptible to being skewed by knowingly wrong answers, I can't see a plausible rational for athletes to do so, particularly by (anonymously) admitting guilt when there is none. Physical doping testing is known to have significant limitations. It is sensitive only during a limited time window, will have detection threshold levels, and will detect only specific doping methods. It should be obvious from the fallout in cycling recently that a great deal of doping has gone undetected in that sport. The result from this study doesn't seem surprising at all.
No doubt, Nike didn't know what LA was taking. They likely didn't care ... Nike simply wants there logo on the guy that is winning and getting lots of press, noting more, noting less. At the point where the logo begins to get tarnished, that is when they pull the plug.
Ben L. Wrong wrote:
Trollist the First wrote:Phil Knight.
So, Nike didn't know what Lance Armstrong was taking. Yeah, sure.
clifford diffley wrote:
Two thoughts:
First, this proves arabs cheat on almost a 2-1 basis.
Second, what percentage lied on the birthday question?
Arabs because the study was in Pan-Arab Games.
It would be interesting to do same study in Panamerican Games.
Not surprising if the numbers hit the 50% or more, considering what happened (by example) in Caracas 1983.
Athletes at the events answered questions on tablet computers and were asked initially to think of a birthday, either their own or that of someone close to them. Then, depending on the date of the birthday, they were instructed to answer one of two questions that appeared on the same screen: one asked if the birthday fell sometime between January and June, and the other asked, “Have you knowingly violated anti-doping regulations by using a prohibited substance or method in the past 12 months?”
The study was designed this way, the researchers said, so only the athlete knew which of the two questions he or she was answering. Then, using statistical analysis, the researchers could estimate how many of the athletes admitted to doping.
The researchers noted that not every athlete participated, and those who did could have lied on the questionnaire, or chosen to answer the birthday question. They concluded that their results, which found that nearly a third of the athletes at the world championships and nearly half at the Pan-Arab Games had doped in the past year, probably underestimated the reality.
That sounds like a complete Rube Goldberg method of coming up with the 29% figure. You could have had 99% of the athletes answer the birthday question and then you extrapolate from the 1% who answered the drug question. How could you ever have confidence that you can extrapolate the 1% who answered the doping question to the 99% who answered the other question and to all of the athletes who didn't participate in the study?