LetsRun "Clean or Dirty" Poll Discussion Thread

definitely not the real poll,

i think it is more a poll of perceived cleanliness

for what the masses would think ! letsrun must toe the line.

not what people on letsrun forum think and

have an idea what really goes in and the ins and outs.

400 ,400h at time not possible without epo.

bekele had a free run with micera throughout year

whilst others had to duck a dive with epo at time.

,the list goes on.

ever heard of more modern peds and then you got rudisha

no way is he clean but he definitely wins the

perceived cleanliness award.

hey we could of got lance down to the 20 percent

afew years ago due to all his philanthropy work .

black box voting wrote:

Ruppermaid wrote:

I suspect the data is fudged. No way so many people believe Paula is clean. Someone else ran another poll last month and the results were way different.

That's the first thing I looked for, and agree.

These are definitely not the real results.

You should read the front page article on why they did the poll. They point out that most people will believe what they want to believe, regardless of the poll's results.

My main issue with the poll is that it forced you to choose definitively even if you don't have a strong conviction one way or the other. The only other option was to skip it, which only makes sense if you are unfamiliar with the athlete and have no opinion.

They could have had a weighted system based on your confidence in your opinion, say 1-10 where 10 is for sure dirty and 1 is definitely clean. Most people would not have consistently chosen a 100% confidence level either way. This would have brought the results toward the middle and given a more accurate reflection of opinions.

It's interesting to see that >10% of the people that answered the poll are complete r&tards. Koch and FloJo clean...

It's like a high school class. 10% of the class were r&tards and 10% were very smart. The rest were somewhere in the middle.

No teachers could ever do anything with the bottom 10%.

Is there a way to permanently ban this bottom 10% from this board? We have their IP address...

Where are the results for Dwight Phillips? He was in the poll, why isn't his data revealed?

erik wrote:

Brojos couldn't have fudged the data... I never even trained them how to download it from the poll system. Conspiracy theories are entertaining though.

Maybe someone other than the brojos fudged the data. It is very strange that the other poll had over 70% dirty for Paula. MJ was considerably higher too.

If there is one runner's data where there is a vested interest in fudging, it is Paula. Just saying.

Where are the rest of the results? I don't see Jeter up there, and I definitely remember casting a vote about her.

Ruppermaid wrote:

If there is one runner's data where there is a vested interest in fudging, it is Paula. Just saying.

There is literally nothing me, the Brojos, or God himself could say to you to convince you the data are not "fudged."

Dirty Dwight? wrote:

Where are the results for Dwight Phillips? He was in the poll, why isn't his data revealed?

He was not in the WR poll, but in the American poll (last one we did). Those data haven't been released yet. Same goes for the question about Jeter.

Cthdnajmskt wrote:

It's interesting to see that >10% of the people that answered the poll are complete r&tards. Koch and FloJo clean...

FloJo's results were skewed by lack of familiarity in the younger generations. Add that to the uneven age distribution of letsrun visitors and it's easy to throw results off. Keep in mind that a 34 year old was about 8 when she set the record.

% # votes clean

Under 18 38.5% 49

18-24 21.36% 226

25-34 9.61% 220

35-44 4.18% 54

45-54 5.75% 52

55-64 4.12% 17

65 and Older 8.33% 10

let's try again.

_______________%______________# votes clean

Under 18______38.5%_____________49

18-24_________21.36%____________226

25-34_________9.61%_____________220

35-44_________4.18%_____________54

45-54_________5.75%_____________52

55-64_________4.12%_____________17

65 and Older__8.33%_____________10

Also, Just an FYI to lestrun staff.

There are some errors in the tables. For example check out the totals on FloJos "education" tab.

rumblings wrote:

Also, Just an FYI to lestrun staff.

There are some errors in the tables. For example check out the totals on FloJos "education" tab.

Good catch, fixed it -- marginal vote count was reporting wrong variable.

I think people overall underestimate the use of drugs in all sports. I think it's safe to say that EVERY sport has drug cheats and many times it's the top players. So if someone breaks a wr or does something phenominal one would have to assume they could possibly be cheating because they could not overcome, or would be very hard to overcome, their peers who are cheating unless they were also cheating. A non cheating person would have a very hard time beating cheating elite level talents without cheating themselves.

Could Lance have beaten his cheating competitors by not cheating? I think not.

Could a non cheating home run hitter beat the cheating Bonds and Maguire in the home run contest? I think not.

Etc, etc

rumblings wrote:

let's try again.

_______________%______________# votes clean

Under 18______38.5%_____________49

18-24_________21.36%____________226

25-34_________9.61%_____________220

35-44_________4.18%_____________54

45-54_________5.75%_____________52

55-64_________4.12%_____________17

65 and Older__8.33%_____________10

What's the excuse for the 133 voters that are 35 years+?

I wish they'd have done a poll that included both "Saif Saaeed Shaheen" and "Stephen Cherono".

Most of the Kenyans were in the range of 80% re: how many thought they were clean. Shaheen was less than 50%.

Amazing

What does "shows us the fans our own biases" even mean?

Do you not understand that point b) is why the p̶o̶l̶l̶ "troll" won't lead to a)?

In your own analysis, you see, clearly, that the p̶o̶l̶l̶ "troll" is simply a reflection of bias … yet you argue it'll somehow lead to a cleaner sport. No it won't … it'll simply show a bunch of people that some LRC visitors think their favorite athletes are clean and their least favorite ones were/are doping.

The IAAF don't care what a bunch of anonymous posters who voted repeatedly in your p̶o̶l̶l̶ "troll" think. If you want to argue otherwise, show an example of someone from the IAAF responding to even one of the posts on your website.

An anonymous p̶o̶l̶l̶ "troll" is the infection. You want sunlight? Make your own "research" transparent. As it is, it's nothing more valuable than a National Enquirer article about Prince Harry might be.

Looking at what people believe is no more useful than looking at whether people in the tooth fairy or Flash Gordon. 90% of the world's population at one time thought the earth was flat, and that didn't, ever, make the earth flat. Not a single athlete will EVER lost a medal or be DQ'ed because your website ran a p̶o̶l̶l̶ "troll".

Get over your "Lance Armstrong argument" .. LA is the doping equivalent of Godwin's law.

- That's your argument, you lose. No caveats.

Your p̶o̶l̶l̶ "troll" doesn't shed any light, whatsoever, on these questions. Nor are those questions particularly pertinent. What matters is whether athletes are doping; what doesn't matter is whether (or why) you, or I or any other person on this forum think that Jos Hermans group, or Canova's group, or the NOP, are doping. That's called gossip.

This is bullish**. And you know it.

So is this.

What you saw, clearly, was a reaction against the first poll. A number of posts complaining about this stupid p̶o̶l̶l̶ "troll" were deleted, of course. Then, you went further and added a new p̶o̶l̶l̶ "troll", for no more reason than you did the first time. And again a number of people complained about it. And a number of posts were deleted. I had a post (where I simply agreed with another person's comment) deleted 3 f***in' times. The backlash grew in part because you guys pushed your stupid p̶o̶l̶l̶ "troll" further, and partly because the staff/mods deleted so many critiques of the whole debacle.

Why do people like myself react against this stuff? In my case, because I care about the site, and the sport. It's a great site, in so many ways, with so much to offer. But you hurt the community of people who visit here, and the sport itself with this kind of trash. It's simply an extension of the insistence on allowing racist, sexist, inflammatory and offensive irrelevant trolling on the site. You disrespect the athletes and the sport when you feign some kind of integrity with reference to this p̶o̶l̶l̶ "troll". You call yourselves journalists and reporters, and you want to pretend an anonymous p̶o̶l̶l̶ "troll" on the site that doesn't even disallow repeated voting bears some kind of weight? You suggest that if "if the IAAF sees that 90% of LetsRun poll participants think a slew of world records are drug induced, maybe they’ll consider being even more vigilant and perhaps starting anew with the world records"? Are you out of your mind? That's possibly the most ridiculous commentary I've ever read on anything to do with drugs in sport.

There is far, FAR more likelihood of this result

"if pro athlete XYZ sees that 90% of LetsRun poll participants think his/her PBs are drug induced, in a p̶o̶l̶l̶ "troll" that you guys created and promoted, maybe they’ll consider never answering any of your questions or talking to you folks again".

My 0.0187263547 cents

The results of the poll were what I expected. It was also interesting the ratio of males to females on LetsRun. There were at least 300 females who voted. Not just xenonscreams and me.

For what it's worth, I am right on all of the clean vs dirty votes. For future reference, just use my votes as the end all. They are more accurate than anything this site could ever hope to produce.

Ho Hum; Suck it!!!

Cthdnajmskt wrote:

It's interesting to see that >10% of the people that answered the poll are complete r&tards.

Is there a way to permanently ban this bottom 10% from this board? We have their IP address...

LR would shut down.