Doping In Athletics

[fmk_RoI]

I wonder if this extrapolates to cycling. The CIRC report had estimates between 30 and 90%. I wonder where the reality lies (no pun intended). 34% translates to 74 riders (rounded down) were actively doping in the TDF.

Assuming the this does translate to cycling (big assumption) in order to take it just to the Tour you would have to assume there's an even spread across the peloton. Yet from all we read of athletics, we seem to be finding that some countries are much worse than others when it comes to doping. So you would really want to spread it by nationality.

Erroneous assumption heaped upon erroneous assumption really is no better than guess work. You might as well guess there were 112 people doping at the Tour. It would have a greater scientific soundness.

 

[ray j willings]

a few words from Carl Lewis [scroll down]


http://www.aol.co.uk/2015/08/16/iaaf-blocked-study-on-cheats/?ncid=webmail1

 

[Fearless Greg Lemond]

Assuming the this does translate to cycling (big assumption) in order to take it just to the Tour you would have to assume there's an even spread across the peloton. Yet from all we read of athletics, we seem to be finding that some countries are much worse than others when it comes to doping. So you would really want to spread it by nationality.

Erroneous assumption heaped upon erroneous assumption really is no better than guess work. You might as well guess there were 112 people doping at the Tour. It would have a greater scientific soundness.

When some countries hardly test at all you cant use these figures let alone state some nations are worse than others.

 

[blackcat]

I wonder if this extrapolates to cycling. The CIRC report had estimates between 30 and 90%. I wonder where the reality lies (no pun intended). 34% translates to 74 riders (rounded down) were actively doping in the TDF.

Assuming the this does translate to cycling (big assumption) in order to take it just to the Tour you would have to assume there's an even spread across the peloton. Yet from all we read of athletics, we seem to be finding that some countries are much worse than others when it comes to doping. So you would really want to spread it by nationality.

Erroneous assumption heaped upon erroneous assumption really is no better than guess work. You might as well guess there were 112 people doping at the Tour. It would have a greater scientific soundness.

ditch the science @fmk.

think about the social science, and how a milieu and sub-culture will define its own norms. There is no reason that I think of, where an A type personality, will willing forgo a disadvantage to the rival, and then say schtum, and consistently lose to your competitor who is charging. The doping will be self-fulfilling and its own driver and momentum. It becomes a barrier to entry, you don't dope, you never poke your toe into the water to compete to win the biggest race where there are the most significant advantages from dope. It defies belief, where a PED program that allows +/- ~10%, when each and every athlete are outliers and have talent off the bell curve. There is zero explanation a Usain Bolt or a Chris Froome, is an outlier, on the spectrum which is itself a niche of off-bellcurve-athletes as it stands. Especially where Dear Wiggo's research demonstrated he was pack fodder for gran-fondos in South Africa when he was 16/17/18, an age where Lemond and even Armstrong were ripping pro fields apart.

And Usain Bolt, a very accomplished 400 metre runner at junior World Championships.

But these individuals, they have a moral centre that says they refuse doping at all personal costs? They have such a moral and ethical compass that makes them abstain from dope before marriage sarcasm

this makes zero judgement on the moral weight of PEDs and doping. I lean libertarian, and I think PEDs are a value neutral question.

 

[arthurvandelay]

ditch the science @fmk.

think about the social science, and how a milieu and sub-culture will define its own norms. There is no reason that I think of, where an A type personality, will willing forgo a disadvantage to the rival, and then say schtum, and consistently lose to your competitor who is charging. The doping will be self-fulfilling and its own driver and momentum. It becomes a barrier to entry, you don't dope, you never poke your toe into the water to compete to win the biggest race where there are the most significant advantages from dope. It defies belief, where a PED program that allows +/- ~10%, when each and every athlete are outliers and have talent off the bell curve. There is zero explanation a Usain Bolt or a Chris Froome, is an outlier, on the spectrum which is itself a niche of off-bellcurve-athletes as it stands. Especially where Dear Wiggo's research demonstrated he was pack fodder for gran-fondos in South Africa when he was 16/17/18, an age where Lemond and even Armstrong were ripping pro fields apart.

And Usain Bolt, a very accomplished 400 metre runner at junior World Championships.

But these individuals, they have a moral centre that says they refuse doping at all personal costs? They have such a moral and ethical compass that makes them abstain from dope before marriage sarcasm

this makes zero judgement on the moral weight of PEDs and doping. I lean libertarian, and I think PEDs are a value neutral question.[/quote]

Great points. When i sit back and contemplate the history of some of these dopers I am struck by the parallels with addictions of various kinds: A person can't imagine themselves becoming an addict, then they start to dabble and eventually get psychologically and sometimes physically dependent on a substance. With doping in sport I can see a person entering a sport swearing they would never dope, then doing it "just one time" to qualify for a Tour spot, contract, etc. They enjoy the experience and the sense of power they get from EPO or another substance and the addiction cycle begins. After a while of not getting caught they are receiving a lot of powerful feedback to continue. I truly believe that some of them believe that they are bulletproof and get quite arrogant, either from side effects of steroids or just from the high that comes from winning. Witness some of the bizarre behavior of the Armstrong cabal or the current kerfuffle involving violence and bullying by the Nike/Salzar/Capriotti mafia in the USA track and field world.

 

[Texeng]

Cycling tests more than Athletics?

According to this BBC piece http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/athletics/33940406 IAAF states that it spends more on testing therefore Froome's claim of cycling testing more is invalid.

Nice that they include litigation costs into the mix and ignore the relevant parts of the WADA report which clearly shows, based on the number of samples taken alone, that UCI is so far ahead in 2014. (WADA figures by TA UCI 9483, IAAF 3841)

 

[fmk_RoI]

The Devil can quote statistics for his own purpose...

UCI is so far ahead in 2014. (WADA figures by TA UCI 9483, IAAF 3841)

But based on sport, athletics is ahead of cycling, at 25,830 tests in 2014 to 22,471.

What you have to take account of is the difference in the relative centralisation of the two sports: in cycling, for instance, the UCI conducts 70%+ of ABP tests, leaving NADOs (who can either do the testing themselves or subcontract it to the IFs) to do the rest, while in athletics the IAAF only covers 25%+ of ABP testing, with the NADOs doing most of the heavy lifting (and picking up most of the tab).

The reality is that the two sports are spending about the same on anti-doping, but funding it differenly (the UCI getting teams + race organisers + riders to pay a large share, the IAAF leaving it to NADOs and IFs to find the money).

They're both batting about the same hit rate, 1% of tests resulting in a bust. Where atheltics really has the bragging rights is in the ABP and retro-tetsing, where they are way ahead of cycling.

 

[Texeng]

Re: The Devil can quote statistics for his own purpose...

UCI is so far ahead in 2014. (WADA figures by TA UCI 9483, IAAF 3841)

But based on sport, athletics is ahead of cycling, at 25,830 tests in 2014 to 22,471.

What you have to take account of is the difference in the relative centralisation of the two sports: in cycling, for instance, the UCI conducts 70%+ of ABP tests, leaving NADOs (who can either do the testing themselves or subcontract it to the IFs) to do the rest, while in athletics the IAAF only covers 25%+ of ABP testing, with the NADOs doing most of the heavy lifting (and picking up most of the tab).

The reality is that the two sports are spending about the same on anti-doping, but funding it differenly (the UCI getting teams + race organisers + riders to pay a large share, the IAAF leaving it to NADOs and IFs to find the money).

They're both batting about the same hit rate, 1% of tests resulting in a bust. Where atheltics really has the bragging rights is in the ABP and retro-tetsing, where they are way ahead of cycling.

Thanks FMK, I was using the UCI vs IAAF figures rather than Athletics compared to Cycling. Of course, as you indicate, regardless of the amount of testing, the bust rate is very low. I would still argue the inclusion of litigation costs into the IAAF numbers is spurious. Any comparison should be based on tests run rather than cost. I would also expect Athletics to have a substantially bigger testing program than Cycling in any case, due to the number of participants and events. Would be interesting to see a ratio of tests/participant x event for each of the sports

 

[fmk_RoI]

Re: The Devil can quote statistics for his own purpose...

I would still argue the inclusion of litigation costs into the IAAF numbers is spurious. Any comparison should be based on tests run rather than cost. I would also expect Athletics to have a substantially bigger testing program than Cycling in any case, due to the number of participants and events.

1) The inclusion of admin and legal costs is more than fair when one is comparing what the IAAF's accounts say is spent on anti-doping and what the UCI's accounts say, if using the full CADF figure, which includes admin (yes, you would then have to bump the UCI figure for the legal budget too). Like should be compared with like. As it is, the figure in the IAAF accounts and the figure in the UCI accounts are not directly comparable.

2) The comparison should be based on both, both for the reason already explained above re distributed funding and the actual cost of different tests. Without drilling down through the WADA report numbers, we don't know how many samples get the bog-standard screening and how many get sent for super-dooper high-end expensive tests.

3) Both sports publish lists of their RTPs on their respective websites and the UCI RTP is running 1,000+ while the IAAF's is about 650. They are the athletes at the heart of the testing programmes. Your next best figure would be license holders(/registered members) in each sport: go look for those figures if you really want to see if your assumption has any validity.

 

[Catwhoorg]

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/womens-2012-1500-meter-olympic-champion-stripped-of-gold-medal

The Court of Arbitration for Sport announced Monday that Asli Cakir Alptekin, a Turkish middle-distance runner, will serve an eight-year ban for doping violations and will be stripped of her gold medals from the 2012 Olympics and the 2012 European Championships in the 1500 meters.

Tatyana Tomashova was 4th on the day and presumably will be elevated to Bronze. She missed the 2008 games due to a doping ban.
Can you taste the irony ? One doper gains as another one loses.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

http://www.runnersworld.com/elite-runners/womens-2012-1500-meter-olympic-champion-stripped-of-gold-medal

The Court of Arbitration for Sport announced Monday that Asli Cakir Alptekin, a Turkish middle-distance runner, will serve an eight-year ban for doping violations and will be stripped of her gold medals from the 2012 Olympics and the 2012 European Championships in the 1500 meters.

Tatyana Tomashova was 4th on the day and presumably will be elevated to Bronze. She missed the 2008 games due to a doping ban.
Can you taste the irony ? One doper gains as another one loses.

ARD says Tomashova has been pulled from the WC team, possibly suggesting that she is one of the 28 retested positives. It's funny seeing reactions that say Rowbury is the legitimate champion; everyone seems to ignore the Salazar mess of just weeks ago.

EDIT: Fact checked: Rowbury joined Salazar in September 2013. She was with Cook for 2012.

 

[Catwhoorg]

At the current rate, we may need to go to fastest qualifier who didn't make the final to round out the podium.

 

[Happy dude]

The Turkish person that we banned seems like an easy target.

 

[scapewalker]

Will Drugstin Gatlin win the 100-200m double in Bejing what do you guys think?

 

[The Hitch]

Re:

At the current rate, we may need to go to fastest qualifier who didn't make the final to round out the podium.

Damn right. I like you a lot more as a poster now that you are as cynical (ie, realistic about life) as the rest of us

 

[doperhopper]

Re: Re:

At the current rate, we may need to go to fastest qualifier who didn't make the final to round out the podium.

Damn right. I like you a lot more as a poster now that you are as cynical (ie, realistic about life) as the rest of us

they should learn from cycling and avoid the mistake of re-awarding places... or rather the athletes should refuse, like Der Kaiser and others are certainly not interested in Uniballer's jerseys. Anyhow, let's see how long (and how many positives) will it take until they give up and write off the whole era

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I wonder if this extrapolates to cycling. The CIRC report had estimates between 30 and 90%. I wonder where the reality lies (no pun intended). 34% translates to 74 riders (rounded down) were actively doping in the TDF.

Assuming the this does translate to cycling (big assumption) in order to take it just to the Tour you would have to assume there's an even spread across the peloton. Yet from all we read of athletics, we seem to be finding that some countries are much worse than others when it comes to doping. So you would really want to spread it by nationality.

Erroneous assumption heaped upon erroneous assumption really is no better than guess work. You might as well guess there were 112 people doping at the Tour. It would have a greater scientific soundness.

Science? What science? Your comment is just a guess. It appears all you did is pick 50% out of the air. At least my proposition was based on a fact based study conducted and supressed by the IAAF. The suppression alone gives it credibility because obviously the IAAF did not want it out there.

 

[fmk_RoI]

Science? What science? Your comment is just a guess. It appears all you did is pick 50% out of the air.

Amazing! You actually got the point without having to have it explained to you. It's just plucking numbers from thin air, though you try to tart yours up with statistics.

 

[The Carrot]

Anyone else see the flaw in this guy's suggestion to run 2 races, a 'clean' one and a drugged one?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/18/athletics-drugs-doping-iaaf-legalise

Man, I should go into journalism, how hard can it be to spew up this bollox to fill column inches.

 

[Catwhoorg]

Re: Re:

At the current rate, we may need to go to fastest qualifier who didn't make the final to round out the podium.

Damn right. I like you a lot more as a poster now that you are as cynical (ie, realistic about life) as the rest of us

I don't think I am quite there yet.



I am wondering which of the "clean games" 2012 events will come out as dirty as the 1988 100M final.

(easy answer 2012 100M final, but lets look past that obviousness)

 

[Catwhoorg]

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/athletics/33965167

Baron Coe can change athletics, according to Mo.


Pardon me, I suddenly feel a bit queasy.

 

[Catwhoorg]

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/18/iaaf-drug-testing-world-athletics-championships-beijing-doping

Scaling back on drug testing.

Unlike 2011 and 2013 where every athelete was tested (and samples presumably stored), about 1/3rd of athletes will be blood tested in Beijing.


Nice of IAAF, best way of making sure no nasty positives on retrospective testing is to not have the samples in the first place.

 

[Cramps]

Re:

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/18/iaaf-drug-testing-world-athletics-championships-beijing-doping

Scaling back on drug testing.

Unlike 2011 and 2013 where every athelete was tested (and samples presumably stored), about 1/3rd of athletes will be blood tested in Beijing.


Nice of IAAF, best way of making sure no nasty positives on retrospective testing is to not have the samples in the first place.

Only economic prudence on the part of IAAF. Given there were only 30 issues found with exhaustive testing of ~3500 athletes in the 2005 and 2007 championships: 2 positives detected during 2005 champs, zero detected in 2007, and 28 retrospective hits. I make that out to be 0.86% hit rate. So not much point in continuing exhaustive tests.

 

[poupou]

I hope that they will still take samples of all podiumed athletes so that retrotesting will be possible later. If they don't do it that is to avoid to mud the water..

 

[heart_attack_man]

I want Bolt to dope so that we can see how fast he really could go... /sarcasm