Australian Study reveals Doping doesnt work

Page 2 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
This is great:

The psychological state of an athlete is believed to contribute to performance (Vealey, 2001; Hays, Thomas, Maynard & Bawden, 2009). Perhaps some athletes, knowing they are achieving results by means which are unethical, have a subconscious barrier to increased performance, an intangible holding them back...
 
Oct 16, 2010
19,912
1
0
Re:

Gung Ho Gun said:
This is great:

The psychological state of an athlete is believed to contribute to performance (Vealey, 2001; Hays, Thomas, Maynard & Bawden, 2009). Perhaps some athletes, knowing they are achieving results by means which are unethical, have a subconscious barrier to increased performance, an intangible holding them back...
lol indeed.
 
Their basic assumption is that the trend of improvement shown prior to 1932 should have increased or at least stayed the same, whereas in most sports it decreased. IOW, there was evidence of a plateau being approached, which sports scientists have long argued is expected.

Yet instead of describing their results as evidence of a plateau or asymptote, they say their results indicate “degradation”. They mean by this that the earlier trend was not maintained, but that is exactly what it means to say an asymptote or plateau is approached. They don’t seem to understand this at all. Their results confirm this, yet they insist on denying this.

Then they claim that the earlier trends are maintained for the most part in winter sports. IOW, there has been more improvement in winter sports records than in summer sports records. Yet they interpret this as evidence that winter sports are cleaner (like cross-country skiing?). Why? Because they’ve already concluded that the asymptote in summer sports, which they call degradation, is the result of a negative effect of doping. Since winter sports records are improving, it must be because they don’t have doping holding them back.

So if results increase more in some sports than in others, it must be that those sports are cleaner, not negatively impacted by doping. They never consider the possibility that there might be other reasons for the slower improvement in summer sports, which I will point out below.

Then there is their really weird theory that more skills are required in winter sports, therefore more variety of PEDs are required, therefore athletes in winter sports would be more likely to get caught. As evidence for this, they cite stats indicating that detection rates are lower in certain winter sports than in summer sports. If athletes in winter sports are more likely to get caught, why are the detection rates lower? Because they know they will get caught, so are less likely to dope. With arguments like this, one can prove anything.

It remains to explain why the trends for summer sports generally show less increase over time. I think there’s a very simple explanation. Most of the summer sports studied involve very basic human activities like running, jumping, throwing, etc. The authors themselves emphasize this. Anyone can participate in these events without a lot of financial investment. Hence poor African-Americans, or people from third world countries, had a relatively good chance of becoming world-class sprinters, marathon runners, shot putters, etc. This being the case, the athlete pool became saturated very soon after the Olympics began. Everyone who might excel at some sport got a chance to try. Of course, as the world population increased, the pool increased, but the % of people did not.

In contrast, the winter sports are more specialized, not just in terms of the needed skills, but in the financial investment needed, and even the environment needed. Not everyone in the world can take up skiing or skating in a big way, in some cases because there is no snow or mountains where they live, in other cases because they are too poor to have access to the needed equipment. As time goes on, these possibilities become more available. In developed countries, more people gain access to the needed equipment, and in some cases, like skating, the environment can be transported to warm weather environments. So the potential pool of athletes grows much faster.

There are other factors that could explain their data. E.g., to the extent the authors are correct that winter sports are more skill-based, there is more room for improvement in learning the skills. Being a world-class runner is much more a case of raw talent. Also, in many countries, the growth of pro sports like MLB, NBA, NFL, Euro soccer has competed for talented summer sport athletes, reducing the pool, whereas if you are talented in a winter sport, there is nothing else that competes for that.
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Re:

Merckx index said:
Then they claim that the earlier trends are maintained for the most part in winter sports. IOW, there has been more improvement in winter sports records than in summer sports records. Yet they interpret this as evidence that winter sports are cleaner (like cross-country skiing?). Why? Because they’ve already concluded that the asymptote in summer sports, which they call degradation, is the result of a negative effect of doping. Since winter sports records are improving, it must be because they don’t have doping holding them back.
The winter sports they have looked at are speed skating and ski jumping, no cross country. "World records" is the clue here, no such thing in cross country.
 
Aug 31, 2012
7,550
1
0
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.
Yeah it's just absurdly bad. Not even when I worked as a consultant and talked *** to clients all the time did my "analyses" ever stoop to this level. Gotta have some self respect
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
I mentioned the degrees because it means he has studied, and is not dumb per se. So his graphs and their use as "evidence" seems duplicitous.
 
Mar 13, 2009
16,856
0
0
Re:

Dear Wiggo said:
I mentioned the degrees because it means he has studied, and is not dumb per se. So his graphs and their use as "evidence" seems duplicitous.
he's no Dan Coyle. a couple of stations inverted.

Poes law

hashtag sarcasm
 
Was expecting a brilliant study design. I clicked the link and guess what I found
Anyone know if that's a legit scientific journal?

Oh god, lead author actually has a PhD

I feel ashamed of being a student medical sciences right now
 
Re:

Red Rick said:
Was expecting a brilliant study design. I clicked the link and guess what I found
Anyone know if that's a legit scientific journal?

Oh god, lead author actually has a PhD

I feel ashamed of being a student medical sciences right now
You study medical sciences?

I'm getting worried, you training to be the next Ferrari or something?
 
Re: Re:

The Hitch said:
Red Rick said:
Was expecting a brilliant study design. I clicked the link and guess what I found
Anyone know if that's a legit scientific journal?

Oh god, lead author actually has a PhD

I feel ashamed of being a student medical sciences right now
You study medical sciences?

I'm getting worried, you training to be the next Ferrari or something?
From the old jobs thread in the general forum
Red Rick said:
I'm gonna study Biomedical Sciences, so all diseases will be gone in 10 years or they will fly up the Alp in less than half an hour because of me:D:D

Not gonna be a doping doctor though, think you have to be a physician to do that :eek:
Also not gonna save the world
 
Re: Re:

neineinei said:
Merckx index said:
Then they claim that the earlier trends are maintained for the most part in winter sports. IOW, there has been more improvement in winter sports records than in summer sports records. Yet they interpret this as evidence that winter sports are cleaner (like cross-country skiing?). Why? Because they’ve already concluded that the asymptote in summer sports, which they call degradation, is the result of a negative effect of doping. Since winter sports records are improving, it must be because they don’t have doping holding them back.
The winter sports they have looked at are speed skating and ski jumping, no cross country. "World records" is the clue here, no such thing in cross country.
Ski jumping world records? Huh, how exactly does this work?
 
Sep 29, 2012
12,197
0
0
Have a look at this numbskull's other studies. Claims no difference in doped vs non-doped 100m sprint times between 1980 and 2011.

Except he ignores anyone not running quicker than 9.98. So each Olympics between 1980 and 2008 you have to ignore half the podium getters ffs. Then assume all dopers were caught or confessed - Balco much?

I am embarrassed to be an Australian with the thread of this title discussing such spurious "research".
 
May 19, 2010
1,899
0
0
Re: Re:

Red Rick said:
Including the Ski jumping WR is indeed hilarious. I think they don't actually recognise new WR's as such anymore, cuz it might lead to the jumpers taking extra risks
Records are being recognised in ski jumping. The mens record is 251.5 m, set this season.
 
But serious:

Lol, dumbest study ever. It seems today every idiot could work at an university...[/quote]

Yes, universities have the market cornered on idiots...
 


yep no difference at all from 1980 to 2012 in the Olympic finals.


Red convicted doper
Yellow, positive test but dodged sanction
Green, unquestionable links to doping, but no conviction
White, questioned links to doping, but no conviction

Pink with purple dots = 100% take it to the bank clean
 
Sh!t, Coggan has been telling us this for years. I don't know why you guys won't listen to such a humble, well respected dude like that. The Clinic should have been closed years ago.

In fact, thank Sky that we've seen the total neutralization of microdosing and other nefarious performance enhancements by cleans riders. Brailsford could have told you this stuff too if you were just willing to listen.

Lock all the threads and make sure that the last person to leave here turns the lights off.
 
Mar 13, 2015
949
0
0
Re:

Catwhoorg said:


yep no difference at all from 1980 to 2012 in the Olympic finals.


Red convicted doper
Yellow, positive test but dodged sanction
Green, unquestionable links to doping, but no conviction
White, questioned links to doping, but no conviction

Pink with purple dots = 100% take it to the bank clean
lol
 
Jul 17, 2009
4,317
1
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.

This is a Glowing review! :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY