Something that makes me even more likely to stop by is talking about me. I actually don't mind the facts and statistics. In fact, I think he should provide more facts, with balance, as he usually provides half of them on one side. For example, he will never say:
- the authors of the Tubingen survey wrote "we would estimate a 29%-34% prevalence of past-year doping (at the WCh 2011)".
- this survey combines sprints, field, and distance events, as well as men and women together into one number.
Not sure how he gets what "Seppelt showed". The leaked blood database showed suspicious values (many samples collected under conditions known to increase the rate of false positives), which could mean "cheat" as well as "trained at altitude". Based on the known facts, this statement is equally true: "Seppelt showed that medal winners were more likely to train at altitude than the also-rans."
Looking at the word "majority":
- According to the Tubingen survey, the authors estimated that as many as 66%-71% of the WCh 2011 athletes did not dope in the past year
- Seppelt "showed" 6 out of 7 (86%) athletes never having "suspicious" blood values
- Seppelt "showed" that 2 out of 3 (67%) medals were won by (??%) athletes never having "suspicious" blood values
Just some more facts and statistics from the exact same data and sources.
Everyone's looking for an edge wrote:
casual obsever wrote:
Jeff Wigand wrote:
The majority are doing it the right way. It's gotten a lot tougher to be at the top and get away with cheating.
A) The Tübingen/Harvard study says that 44% (likely underestimated, according to the authors) were drug cheats at the World Championships in 2011.
B) Seppelt showed that medal winners were more likely to cheat than the also-rans.
A+B: the majority of winners dope.
Better quit providing facts & statistics...rekrunner is likely to stop by and contradict. ?