Is the sport cleaner than ever?

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Oh look who’s back, unsurprisingly with another awkward analogy. Let’s try another intelligence test:

Do you think the authors justified, through their sensitivity analyses, on the aggregate, that the negative biases were likely greater than the positive biases, despite having not measured any biases outside of the response time analysis?

Do you think that the UQM method is a reliably accurate method for doping?

I await your insight.

My insight, which I am happy to pass on, is that you have just disappeared up your rear.

I did not expect you to score higher on this intelligence test.

Maybe not a contradiction, but there is a significant gap between the same “sensitivity analysis” suggesting “likely more than 44%” and yet the researchers only finding “at least 30%”, *after* the analyses (all things considered).

Yes. Table 4 is not its own non-compliance model, but each entry in the table is a real UQM result (real survey result corrected for expected birthday responses). Each 10% slice is some mix of genuine responses, and whatever non-compliant responses from all forms of non-compliance, for that chosen subset. The authors recommended 30% deletion guided by wanting to choose a percentage that “stabilizes” “prevalance estimates”.

By contrast, all the entries in Tables 7-12 are not UQM results, but theoretical (except for 0%). The authors have no guide to select which entry is best applicable, beyond gut feeling and intuition.

Table 4 is also based on the observation of earlier studies of “mechanistic” responses.

If anonymity doesn’t reduce “dopers lying” (Table 8) to insignificant levels, maybe UQM is the wrong tool, or at least in dire need of refinement.

Similarly, if the study protocol doesn’t avoid “mechanistic” behavior (Table 4), maybe UQM is the wrong tool, or at least in dire need of refinement.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

My insight, which I am happy to pass on, is that you have just disappeared up your rear.

I did not expect you to score higher on this intelligence test.

It wasn't an intelligence test. It was a test of pretentiousness. You topped it.

too obvious wrote:

too obvious wrote:

[

All records that get broken were "soft". Especially when they are beaten by dopers.

12:35.36 was soft.

And many more soft records which were broken.

12:37.35

When a doper breaks some record it is more indicative for a soft record then when a non doper breaks some record? That's your very own logic Armstronglivs?[/quote]

No, the "logic" is that it is moronic to claim any world record is soft. Especially when it is virtually impossible for anyone but a doper to set one.

Armstronglivs wrote:

It wasn't an intelligence test. It was a test of pretentiousness. You topped it.

You are at your red line limit of the rich content of posting we’ve all come to expect.

The authors of the study phoned in. They are concerned you have become mad.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It wasn't an intelligence test. It was a test of pretentiousness. You topped it.

You are at your red line limit of the rich content of posting we’ve all come to expect.

You keep topping yourself. And failing the intelligence part.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

It wasn't an intelligence test. It was a test of pretentiousness. You topped it.

You are at your red line limit of the rich content of posting we’ve all come to expect.

So you said any record which is broken was soft in an attempt to say that no record is soft?

too obvious wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

You are at your red line limit of the rich content of posting we’ve all come to expect.

So you said any record which is broken was soft in an attempt to say that no record is soft?

It is called a facetious comment. Look it up.

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you said any record which is broken was soft in an attempt to say that no record is soft?

It is called a facetious comment. Look it up.[/quote]

Are all of your comments to understand in this way? It would explain a lot.

paris2024hawk wrote:

This is true, I should have said available for use in 1936.They weren't officially on the market for regular consumers until 1958, but athletes were doping with steriods in the early 50s possibly before.

Two synthetic forms of testosterone were experimented with labs in Europe during the late 30s & 40s but neither was practical for use by athletes. Methyltestosterone was an oral form that was liver toxic and testosterone propionate had a half-life of only 19 hrs that required daily injections. Both were incredibly expensive requiring about 220 lbs of bull testicles to make just 10 mg of T.

It wasn't until 1951 that a patent for the longer lasting testosterone enanthate was filed for by a lab in Germany and the Soviet Union was the first nation that used T at the 1952 Olympics. In 1954 a patent was filed for enanthate here in the U.S. and athletes & bodybuilders started experimenting with it. In 1958 the patent for the first anabolic steroid; Dianabol, was filed by CIBA labs. Once D-bol became available it became widespread with athletes all across the U.S. and the steroid era was in full swing.

The Origin of Steroids:

Chris Morris wrote:

There are more research drugs like SARMS but they are weak sauce compared to the old school drugs. Can't remember the name of it, but there was a popular roid in the 70's and 80's invented by the GDR that was more powerful than anything and isn't available today even on the black market.

I think you're talking about Turinbol that was exclusively used by the GDR during their glory years. Turinbol isn't more powerful than anything else - it's a derivative of and a less potent form of Dianabol. Turinbol has less androgenic activity than D-bol and is excreted much faster making a better choice to beat the tests back then.

IMO, the "super steroid" & "more powerful than anything else" in terms of sheer bulk, size & strength would be D-bol. It would have been a favorite of the power athletes; weight lifters, throwers & probably male sprinters back then (way too androgenic for women).

too obvious wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

So you said any record which is broken was soft in an attempt to say that no record is soft?

It is called a facetious comment. Look it up.

Are all of your comments to understand in this way? It would explain a lot.[/quote]

It takes a certain discernment to know when a comment is facetious or not. It may come to you in time. Or not.

"Is the sport cleaner"? I guess we can add 10.60 by a 35 year old Jamaican sprinter as yet another indication that it isn't - after her compatriot's 10.54 previously.