It still looks like you are casting aspersions on competent peer-reviewed anti-doping experts. I thought that was a no-no.
Half the facts? Didn't you just call that a game? If you thought the answer was incorrect, why not just simply correct it?
By only mentioning Saugy, you left out 5 authors, or 83%.
I didn't realize authorship, or the study itself, would be so interesting, but luckily for everyone interested, I provided the complete list of authors (100%), and the complete study (100%) including body, figures and tables and supplemental data.
As I said when I provided the context, 12% was the average (M1 and M2) for male samples only. 18% was for female samples only, and 14% combined both.
Table 2 illustrates the value of separating men from women, and separating events (e.g. sprints, fields, distance running, race walking), and separating countries, rather than just reducing all of that to "14%".
casual obsever wrote:
I hope you are not (hypo-)criticizing an expert's opinion or competence.
Authors were: Pierre-Edouard Sottas, Neil Robinson, Giuseppe Fischetto, Gabriel Dollé, Juan Manuel Alonso, Martial Saugy
Hahaha no. I was gently pointing out, as I have one of my generous days, that you left out half of the facts as per usual by calling this an IAAF study: 3 of the 6 authors are from the IAAF. What's more, they are the less important ones, for both the first and the last author are from the so-called WADA lab.
Here is how they described two measures, a conservative one, and a more aggressive one which assumed micro-dosing:
"Period prevalence of blood-doping in samples was estimated by comparing empirical cumulative distribution functions of the abnormal blood profile score computed for subpopulations with stratified reference cumulative distribution functions."
"a minimal estimate M1 is calculated as the maximal difference between the reference CDF that assumed no doping and the empirical CDF of the subgroup being studied."
"If the doping product and protocol are assumed a priori, here doping with rEPO microdoses, the measure M2 is defined as the ratio of the area between the reference CDF that assumed no doping and the empirical CDF and the area between both reference CDFs."
Exactly, so your 12% (actually the mean of M1 was 14%, not 12%) of blood doping was a serious underestimation ("minimal estimate M1") for the reasons given above (part of which nicely demonstrated in Figure 2). Additional problems come from assuming a select control group being clean, something the authors wrote on a couple of locations throughout the work (e.g. "reference CDF that assumed no doping").
Still, looking at endurance events, the mean of M1 went up to 18%. Ironically the "more aggressive one" gives pretty much the same numbers (14% and 19%).