Australian Study reveals Doping doesnt work

TheGame said:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/05/150504082145.htm

Doping is damaging the image of sport without benefiting athletes' results, according to University of Adelaide research

"In many sports, there are perceptions that an athlete needs to dope in order to remain competitive and I hope these findings will confront those ill-informed views, and help stamp out doping in sport,"
You can close the clinic now..
:eek:

But serious:

Lol, dumbest study ever. It seems today every idiot could work at an university...
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
Got the link to the original document? Because there might be some assumptions that I'd love to read the justification of.
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
sniper said:
this was always going to be an australian or british study.
Umm what.

Why?
yeah, sorry, bit of a lame comment.

that said, both countries, especially britain, presently seem to be in full blinders/hypocrisy mode wrt doping.
Weren't we just reminded of that by neineinei quoting Sir Craig Reedie.
 
Mar 12, 2010
545
0
0
Here is the logic.

Womens high jump records, pre and post 1932 (doping started in 1932)



Records did not continue post 1932 to increase along the projected path, therefore, doping is counter productive.

Had all the women competed clean they would now be jumping over houses
 
Jul 11, 2013
3,340
0
0
Re:

TheGame said:
Here is the logic.

Womens high jump records, pre and post 1932 (doping started in 1932)



Records did not continue post 1932 to increase along the projected path, therefore, doping is counter productive.

Had all the women competed clean they would now be jumping over houses
That settles it then...

Can I get immunity for my clinic record?

Where do I sign up for the ToR...
 
Re:

TheGame said:
Here is the logic.

Womens high jump records, pre and post 1932 (doping started in 1932)



Records did not continue post 1932 to increase along the projected path, therefore, doping is counter productive.

Had all the women competed clean they would now be jumping over houses
lol...Most stupid study ever.
 
Re: Re:

PunchingRouleur said:
TheGame said:
Here is the logic.

Womens high jump records, pre and post 1932 (doping started in 1932)



Records did not continue post 1932 to increase along the projected path, therefore, doping is counter productive.

Had all the women competed clean they would now be jumping over houses
lol...Most stupid study ever.
It also says they compared athletes who doped with athletes who "are considered not to have doped".
Says it all really.

Is this the Australian version of the Onion?
 
May 28, 2012
2,779
0
0
Re: Re:

Bronstein said:
Pentacycle said:
Got the link to the original document? Because there might be some assumptions that I'd love to read the justification of.
http://www.jhse.ua.es/jhse/article/view/699/1012
Thanks. First of all, the main variable, doping use over time, cannot be quantified. Furthermore, there are too many unjustified/unexplained assumptions in this paper, and the examples of 'performance degradation' are more exception than a rule. It's based on statistics, therefore not reliable. One could also conclude the complete opposite from the data set, if you pick out certain examples.
 
Re: Re:

sniper said:
The Hitch said:
sniper said:
this was always going to be an australian or british study.
Umm what.

Why?
yeah, sorry, bit of a lame comment.

that said, both countries, especially britain, presently seem to be in full blinders/hypocrisy mode wrt doping.
Name me a country that isn't.

Besides, I don't see what Australia or Britain, even if they were fully mentally homogenous nations, in which every single person believed the exact same thing, would have to gain from claiming doping doesn't work.

Last I checked, the official Australian and British media position on doping is that it does work (kind of) but that their athletes are able to beat it through grit and determination, thereby making their performances, all the more heroic.

Saying it doesn't work is what people already caught doping will say. Like Armstrong. This conclusion would thereby reestablish their claim on having been good to begin with. All the brits who won at the olympics allegedly never doped to begin with, so whether or not doping works is not an issue they are concerned about (at least at face value).
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
sniper said:
The Hitch said:
sniper said:
this was always going to be an australian or british study.
Umm what.

Why?
yeah, sorry, bit of a lame comment.

that said, both countries, especially britain, presently seem to be in full blinders/hypocrisy mode wrt doping.
Last I checked, the official Australian and British media position on doping is that it does work (kind of) but that their athletes are able to beat it through grit and determination, thereby making their performances, all the more heroic.
that is the muscular christianity and gordonstoun
 
Jul 21, 2012
9,860
0
0
Re: Re:

Pentacycle said:
Bronstein said:
Pentacycle said:
Got the link to the original document? Because there might be some assumptions that I'd love to read the justification of.
http://www.jhse.ua.es/jhse/article/view/699/1012
Thanks. First of all, the main variable, doping use over time, cannot be quantified. Furthermore, there are too many unjustified/unexplained assumptions in this paper, and the examples of 'performance degradation' are more exception than a rule. It's based on statistics, therefore not reliable. One could also conclude the complete opposite from the data set, if you pick out certain examples.
I'm not gonna waste my time reading this, but clearly this paper is worthless if they are drawing such conclusions based on studying just one relatively obscure sport with little or no relevance to many other sports.
 
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
https://theconversation.com/profiles/aaron-hermann-99924

Guy has a degree in archeology and law. Uses graphs with 4 data points and an R^2 of 0.6 to "prove" doping doesn't work.

Untenable.
Sort of explains how they managed to get records from 1886.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY