I am not accountable for what another commenter may say. Doping became a feature in distance running from the early 70's with blood doping. Other stimulants had been occasionally used before then (the English runner, Alan Simpson, admitted drug use at Kingston in '66).
Although doping is present in every sport not every nationality has the same interest or rate of participation in the same sports. The Russians have long doped in the sports in which they have focussed, and we have seen this subsequently with the Chinese also. The Africans have doped in what they are good at, which is running. It is only talent that explains their dominance. We also see that though doping can be found in every sport some sports are worse than others and some countries are worse than others. Running is a known dirty sport and Kenya has shown it is amongst the most egregious dopers.
How about holding yourself accountable for what you say? You said Kenyan dominance coincided with EPO. Since you pretend to know so much about doping and elite performance, how would you explain Ethiopian and Kenyan world domination a decade earlier? If you claim doping created that dominance, what doping existed before EPO, in Kenyan and Ethiopia, that apparently didn't exist in the rest of the world then, and for that matter, for the next 40 years?
- You are lying and you are ignorant. Howman has said - I have heard it in interviews and read it - that the numbers doping would be at least 10 times those caught and possibly many times higher. They don't know the extent of doping for sure because it is a clandestine practice. But they do know it is far greater than the number of positive tests - because - as he concedes - "doping is always more sophisticated than antidoping".
- Also, it is more likely that the numbers caught will be even less than the number of positive tests of 1-2% precisely because athletes are tested more than once. Most - including the dopers - will pass most of their tests.
- There is nothing that enables your other claim that distance running will be less afflicted with doping than other sports. Since most violations in Kenya are of distance runners the reverse is more likely to be true - and it is certainly true for Kenya. But it doesn't matter what the sport is; competitors dope for the same reason - anywhere.
- There is no way that you can argue the incidence of doping in Kenya will be proportionately lower than for other countries or in other sports, as the appalling rate of violations in Kenya is indicative of a far higher rate of drug use than where the violations are few. It is the mere tip of an iceberg.
But you are still doing what you always do, which is refusing to see doping - amongst Kenyan distance runners at least - beyond the numbers who are busted. Or you maintain that those who are doping are really only inferior nobodies, not the best athletes. Your distortions of the facts are grotesque; you are the doping equivalent of a Holocaust denier; always seeking to twist and misrepresent the data so as to reduce the calumny in question.
It sounds like you, and/or Howman is ignorant and/or lying. Assuming he said it, and you heard it correctly, and reported it correctly, how can he credibly say 10 times when he doesn't know how many dopers there are? Could be 5x or 2x for all he really knows, because the best anti-doping "experts" don't really know what the true doping prevalence is. Keep in mind that Howman is in charge of organizations looking for funding, and it's in his interest to make the problems sound bigger than he really knows.
You got your "more likely" math backwards. If 10 runners are each tested 10 times, and two test results (i.e. 2%) are positive, testing caught 20% of the runners. Assuming 40% doping prevalence, the 2% positive test rate result caught 50% of the dopers. The real world is more complex, because testing distribution is not uniform -- many dopers are too slow to be tested (e.g. not in OOC testing pool so can dope with less risk), while faster runners are target tested more frequently. This non-uniform testing strategy creates a performance bias by largely excluding the slowest runners, and a perceived bust rate bias from a large number of concentrated groups of highly talented runners.
I don't need to argue Kenyan doping is lower, thanks to two Australian anti-doping "experts" who compiled 12 years of blood data reported by the Sunday Times. At least with respect to blood doping -- something widely believed to be powerful for distance running -- "unofficial" Kenyan and Ethiopian blood test results from 2001-2012, and again in 2011 and 2013, ranged from "less than global average" to "average", with both countries below the top-10.
I don't refuse to see doping. It is the link between doping and elite performance that I cannot see and you cannot show. You continue to think it is sufficient to establish existence of doping, but you cannot conclude performance benefit without assuming it first.
Your figures about tests overlook the fact that not all athletes are tested and those that are aren't tested at the same rate. Some countries do very little testing. Therefore the numbers of positive tests is approximately the same as the numbers caught - of 1%-2% of the pool of competitive athletes.
The WADA estimate of actual doping has been given as between 10%-40% of elites. Running is not seen as a sport with a low incidence of doping. We have also seen surveys and estimates by experts in antidoping that at championship level the incidence of doping will be higher than that. Indeed, in cycling a few years ago it was said the entire T de F peloton were doped, yet very few were caught. There is no reason to believe runners are any less motivated than cyclists - or weightlifters.
Blood doping isn't the only form of doping used by Kenyans. The numbers of busts, that also show the variation in methods used, establishes that doping is not the exception in their sport; it is the norm.
I am not accountable for what another commenter may say. Doping became a feature in distance running from the early 70's with blood doping. Other stimulants had been occasionally used before then (the English runner, Alan Simpson, admitted drug use at Kingston in '66).
Although doping is present in every sport not every nationality has the same interest or rate of participation in the same sports. The Russians have long doped in the sports in which they have focussed, and we have seen this subsequently with the Chinese also. The Africans have doped in what they are good at, which is running. It is only talent that explains their dominance. We also see that though doping can be found in every sport some sports are worse than others and some countries are worse than others. Running is a known dirty sport and Kenya has shown it is amongst the most egregious dopers.
How about holding yourself accountable for what you say? You said Kenyan dominance coincided with EPO. Since you pretend to know so much about doping and elite performance, how would you explain Ethiopian and Kenyan world domination a decade earlier? If you claim doping created that dominance, what doping existed before EPO, in Kenyan and Ethiopia, that apparently didn't exist in the rest of the world then, and for that matter, for the next 40 years?
There wasn't Kenyan and Ethiopian domination a decade earlier. In the '70's it was still the New Zealanders and the Finns who dominated - and the E Germans (Cierpinski) and Americans (Shorter) - and in the early '80's the British - Coe, Ovett and Cram - were dominant. Distance running isn't simply made up of marathon runners. But with the advent of EPO we saw the virtual complete takeover of African running in all distances. In recent years we have seen a reversal of that, as wholesale doping of those levels has become more difficult. Africans are now being beaten by Norwegians and Scots - and where they are being consistently tested - as in Kenya - they are being shown for the chronic dopers they are.
You are selective with your "inputs". The only data you accept as a measure of doping is a confirmed doping violation. (Actually, you don't - even that is not enough, as we have seen with your views about Houlihan). Yet while you are prepared to see intelligence isn't manifested solely through a university degree (wherever it is from) you refuse to see doping outside its apparent "qualification", of a confirmed violation. For you, it scarcely exists outside your arbitrary data. As you show, you merely argue what is convenient for your prejudices.
That is surprisingly astute. I am both selective and deselective with inputs. If there is a solid basis in facts, evidence, and controlled observations, these are the inputs I select with preference. If they are a set of baseless assumptions, or some extrapolation of one observation onto another context, or something contradicting reality, I deselect these inputs, until a stronger basis can be established, or the resulting inconsistencies can be better reconciled. This is true whether the input comes from the most ignorant poster, or the most esteemed renowned "expert". Everyone must support their views with bases and foundations in reality.
My views regarding Houlihan apply the same selective approach, relying on facts and evidence, and downplaying presumptions and extrapolations and baseless opinions.
Same approach with "confirmed doping violations". I will draw the conclusions on the merits to the extent there is evidence to support it.
With respect to confirmed doping violations, I have no doubt that there exist both false positives and false negatives. You keep wanting to debate the meer existence of doping -- something I never question. I firmly believe doping exists wherever the belief in its power exists, something I repeatedly concede is broad and deep and goes to the top. But here we are yet again in a thread that is primarily about two potential candidates for what causes performance, and you want to persuade whomever will listen (and maybe ultimately yourself) that doping is a potential candidate, without providing any inputs meeting robust selection criteria.
As usual, it takes a mountain of verbiage, but you basically confirm what I have said.
"Now what are you talking about? I am firmly in the camp that thinks that PEDs enhance performance".(quote)
No, you aren't. You repeatedly say it is only "faith" or "belief" that they enhance performance, or a "placebo" effect - or, alternatively, that it works for Russian women but not Kenyan marathon runners. What you don't accept is the link between doping and high level distance-running - in your view the best either don't dope or it doesn't work for them (in which case they are the only athletes it doesn't work for). You are a doping-denier who hides behind smokescreens of obfuscation.
A few too many pronouns mixing up the message.
I would never say a "PED" is only "faith" or "belief". If a "banned substance" is known to be performancing enhancing, in a specific context, only then would I call it a PED. If a PED-candidate is only "believed" to be performance enhancing, in some unproven context, I would chose alternate language, like "banned substance". A "banned substance" can be a PED, or a non-PED, depending on facts and evidence and observations, but not depending on faith or belief or assumption. A PED can be a "banned substance" or "WADA legal".
I also consider placebo effect a proven scientific effect.
If you, or anyone else, provided compelling conclusively evidence establishing "the link between doping and high level distance-running", I would accept it. But meer existence, or inclusions in a list does not establish such a link.
Africans - and others - doped before the existence of EPO. But the advent of EPO helped cement African domination of distance running.
This is one of those inputs with no evidentiary basis.
World Cross Country cemented their dominance and the cement was dry long before the advent of EPO.
It didn't. Not all distance running is about xc. It isn't even on the Olympic or IAAF championship calendar. The Africans didn't start doping with EPO - it began before then. Chronic doping occurs in countries and cultures where cheating and corruption are pre-established norms. Russia has confirmed that.
"Now what are you talking about? I am firmly in the camp that thinks that PEDs enhance performance".(quote)
No, you aren't. You repeatedly say it is only "faith" or "belief" that they enhance performance, or a "placebo" effect - or, alternatively, that it works for Russian women but not Kenyan marathon runners. What you don't accept is the link between doping and high level distance-running - in your view the best either don't dope or it doesn't work for them (in which case they are the only athletes it doesn't work for). You are a doping-denier who hides behind smokescreens of obfuscation.
A few too many pronouns mixing up the message.
I would never say a "PED" is only "faith" or "belief". If a "banned substance" is known to be performancing enhancing, in a specific context, only then would I call it a PED. If a PED-candidate is only "believed" to be performance enhancing, in some unproven context, I would chose alternate language, like "banned substance". A "banned substance" can be a PED, or a non-PED, depending on facts and evidence and observations, but not depending on faith or belief or assumption. A PED can be a "banned substance" or "WADA legal".
I also consider placebo effect a proven scientific effect.
If you, or anyone else, provided compelling conclusively evidence establishing "the link between doping and high level distance-running", I would accept it. But meer existence, or inclusions in a list does not establish such a link.
Those of us who have had debates with "scientific" Creationists know exactly what it is like to debate doping issues with you. Fact and terminology are twisted to maintain your unswerving belief in what is palpably wrong.
Your figures about tests overlook the fact that not all athletes are tested and those that are aren't tested at the same rate. Some countries do very little testing. Therefore the numbers of positive tests is approximately the same as the numbers caught - of 1%-2% of the pool of competitive athletes.
The WADA estimate of actual doping has been given as between 10%-40% of elites. Running is not seen as a sport with a low incidence of doping. We have also seen surveys and estimates by experts in antidoping that at championship level the incidence of doping will be higher than that. Indeed, in cycling a few years ago it was said the entire T de F peloton were doped, yet very few were caught. There is no reason to believe runners are any less motivated than cyclists - or weightlifters.
Blood doping isn't the only form of doping used by Kenyans. The numbers of busts, that also show the variation in methods used, establishes that doping is not the exception in their sport; it is the norm.
My figures were mainly meant to clearly illustrate how you got the math backwards when interpreting the effect of repeat testing on the doper catch rate. In my example, assuming 40% prevalence, 2% testing catches 50% of the dopers. Assuming 20% prevalence, 2% testing catches 100% of the dopers. Assuming 10% prevalence, 2% testing catches the one doper, and falsely convicts one clean athlete. Repeating testing can mitigate the low 1-2% positive test rate, catching a higher percentage of athletes that would test clean the first few times. You got the direction completely backwards by saying "the numbers caught will be even less than the number of positive tests of 1-2% precisely because athletes are tested more than once".
I also dealt with the reality of non-uniform distribution of testing. Larger number of high performance athletes will be tested more, catching more, as I explained with my figures. The absolute number increases with increased testing, but the prevalence still cannot be inferred. Lower performance athletes may never be tested, except randomly in competition, giving them much more freedom to dope. This non-randomness of testing using talent as an input can create biased and false perceptions.
This is one of those inputs with no evidentiary basis.
World Cross Country cemented their dominance and the cement was dry long before the advent of EPO.
It didn't. Not all distance running is about xc. It isn't even on the Olympic or IAAF championship calendar. The Africans didn't start doping with EPO - it began before then. Chronic doping occurs in countries and cultures where cheating and corruption are pre-established norms. Russia has confirmed that.
What ignorant nonsense. World Cross Country was an IAAF Championship event and is now a World Athletics Championship event.
Tell me more about African doping in the 1980s, and how the Africans outdoped all the doping nations in the 1980s.
I would never say a "PED" is only "faith" or "belief". If a "banned substance" is known to be performancing enhancing, in a specific context, only then would I call it a PED. If a PED-candidate is only "believed" to be performance enhancing, in some unproven context, I would chose alternate language, like "banned substance". A "banned substance" can be a PED, or a non-PED, depending on facts and evidence and observations, but not depending on faith or belief or assumption. A PED can be a "banned substance" or "WADA legal".
I also consider placebo effect a proven scientific effect.
If you, or anyone else, provided compelling conclusively evidence establishing "the link between doping and high level distance-running", I would accept it. But meer existence, or inclusions in a list does not establish such a link.
Those of us who have had debates with "scientific" Creationists know exactly what it is like to debate doping issues with you. Fact and terminology are twisted to maintain your unswerving belief in what is palpably wrong.
If we want to discuss a topic, we have to have a common understanding of what the words mean relevant to that topic, or else some perceived disputes are really artificial and artifactual.
It's not the first time I've clarified that PEDs can only be performance enhancing because it is right there in the acronym, and I have never said otherwise. It's really unfortunate that this acronym is ignorantly used so frequently and interchangeably with "doping" as clearly not all the substances on WADA's banned list are PEDs, and there are WADA legal drugs which are PEDs.
You say "debate" and "fact", but often the debate shifts to others debating against something that is not my view, e.g. that I've ever said that something is a PED, but paradoxically not PE, and then we "debate" about what my view really is, as a diversion, rather than responding to whatever point was at issue.
It didn't. Not all distance running is about xc. It isn't even on the Olympic or IAAF championship calendar. The Africans didn't start doping with EPO - it began before then. Chronic doping occurs in countries and cultures where cheating and corruption are pre-established norms. Russia has confirmed that.
What ignorant nonsense. World Cross Country was an IAAF Championship event and is now a World Athletics Championship event.
Tell me more about African doping in the 1980s, and how the Africans outdoped all the doping nations in the 1980s.
XC is a specialist event. There are no Olympic medals for it. It is so important that even BMX and break- dancing beat it on to the Olympic schedule.
Your figures about tests overlook the fact that not all athletes are tested and those that are aren't tested at the same rate. Some countries do very little testing. Therefore the numbers of positive tests is approximately the same as the numbers caught - of 1%-2% of the pool of competitive athletes.
The WADA estimate of actual doping has been given as between 10%-40% of elites. Running is not seen as a sport with a low incidence of doping. We have also seen surveys and estimates by experts in antidoping that at championship level the incidence of doping will be higher than that. Indeed, in cycling a few years ago it was said the entire T de F peloton were doped, yet very few were caught. There is no reason to believe runners are any less motivated than cyclists - or weightlifters.
Blood doping isn't the only form of doping used by Kenyans. The numbers of busts, that also show the variation in methods used, establishes that doping is not the exception in their sport; it is the norm.
My figures were mainly meant to clearly illustrate how you got the math backwards when interpreting the effect of repeat testing on the doper catch rate. In my example, assuming 40% prevalence, 2% testing catches 50% of the dopers. Assuming 20% prevalence, 2% testing catches 100% of the dopers. Assuming 10% prevalence, 2% testing catches the one doper, and falsely convicts one clean athlete. Repeating testing can mitigate the low 1-2% positive test rate, catching a higher percentage of athletes that would test clean the first few times. You got the direction completely backwards by saying "the numbers caught will be even less than the number of positive tests of 1-2% precisely because athletes are tested more than once".
I also dealt with the reality of non-uniform distribution of testing. Larger number of high performance athletes will be tested more, catching more, as I explained with my figures. The absolute number increases with increased testing, but the prevalence still cannot be inferred. Lower performance athletes may never be tested, except randomly in competition, giving them much more freedom to dope. This non-randomness of testing using talent as an input can create biased and false perceptions.
I read a lot of "assuming" there. But that's always crucial to your arguments.
I say 90% of top athletes are on drugs in track and field.Similar situation in other sports as well.They need to play the game and dope, just to reach the olympic A standard.Qualifying standards are impossible to reach without hard training and drugs.There was always wholesale doping in some countries,and now youre seeing other nations playing catch up.Ill ask,what percentage do you think is doping?
I say 90% of top athletes are on drugs in track and field.Similar situation in other sports as well.They need to play the game and dope, just to reach the olympic A standard.Qualifying standards are impossible to reach without hard training and drugs.There was always wholesale doping in some countries,and now youre seeing other nations playing catch up.Ill ask,what percentage do you think is doping?
I think it tends to vary from sport to sport and from country to country. We are trying to assess the size of the part of the iceberg that is invisible. However, given the continuous development of drugs and the incentive to use them I would think it unlikely an athlete could reach the top now without them. There are many sports I might observe - and championship running, from sprints to distance events is one of them - where every final is a convincing display of the power of modern pharmaceuticals. At that level, the non-doper will be a rarity and almost certainly not on the podium. Doping is probably the norm in championship sport today.