Humbug. My initial comment was one sentence referring to an "IAAF survey", because it was of IAAF athletes and had to be undertaken with IAAF approval; that it was not actually authored by the IAAF is not of critical importance; it is the findings of the survey and that are significant. Readers of this blog are unlikely to care that it was undertaken by Tubingen/Harvard.
My main point was that the survey revealed a 57% doping rate of elite or championship athletes (again, the distinction between those two terms is not critical in this context.) Your pedantic criticisms appear little more than an attempt to undermine the import of the survey. You could have simply added clarifying points. But you did not. Despite what you subsequently protest, that is not someone who acknowledges the sport has a serious doping problem. If you are now back-tracking and saying there are indeed issues of doping, put your money where your mouth is. If you don't think it is 1 in 2 elite athletes who are doping, as the survey indicated, then how many is it - 1 in 3?4? 20? But I don't think you will put a figure on it because you don't want to admit elite distance running is part of the doping problem today, like most other major professional sports.