Doping In Athletics

[Singer01]

Re:

Froome and Radcliffe do have crazy adaptive physiology. No one has adapted to PEDs the way they have. Donkey to racehorse is common, but they went from paper airplane to fighter jet.

to be fair to her she was world junior cross country champion, no donkey.

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

Well, I watched this expecting the worst. Frankly, there's naff all in that interview that bothers me. I would prefer that she did let her blood results into the public domain, but I absolutely understand why she doesn't. She is right...they won't prove anything either way and she will never in a million years convince this tiny constituency in here that she ran 3 minutes faster than anyone else clean (despite the fact that she was effectively paced to that time). All this bobbins about her eyes....she has always had a frickin weird manner. Always.

If Jo Pavey and Mo release their BP data, is anyone here seriously going to do a sudden about turn and say "Oh yeah, I believe in them now"? It's a pointless exercise. What would impress me more would be for these athletes to hand their long term data over to someone like Ashenden...privately...and to allow him to make an assessment.

It's not the interview per se it's the latest in a long line of comedy gold from this pantomime:

1. Prominent British Athlete with Dodgy blood values earlier in the year.
2. Seven London marathon victories in 12 years 'under doping suspicion'.
3. The super injunction (an action which I think Jeremy Clarkson described as a very expensive way of letting the world know what you've done wrong.)
4. Going 'off the grid' until Seb Coe gets elected, therefore ensuring her protection.
5. Changing her view on releasing blood values/tests.
6. Now this comedy interview which essentially says those were her dodgy blood values everyone was talking about.


Master Criminals this lot, so she deserves all the over analysis coming her way, dodgy eyes and all. Thing is though, they may have made a mistake protecting her as she has never been that popular since her failure at the Olympics, dumping in the street etc.

1. No confirmation that it is her.
2. Not hers
3. Super injunction? Bllx.
4. What protection?
5. Changing her mind? Er...oh yeah, I do that a lot.
6. No it doesn't.

If you are going to go after someone, do it properly.

 

[Chipist]

Re: Re:

Well, I watched this expecting the worst. Frankly, there's naff all in that interview that bothers me. I would prefer that she did let her blood results into the public domain, but I absolutely understand why she doesn't. She is right...they won't prove anything either way and she will never in a million years convince this tiny constituency in here that she ran 3 minutes faster than anyone else clean (despite the fact that she was effectively paced to that time). All this bobbins about her eyes....she has always had a frickin weird manner. Always.

If Jo Pavey and Mo release their BP data, is anyone here seriously going to do a sudden about turn and say "Oh yeah, I believe in them now"? It's a pointless exercise. What would impress me more would be for these athletes to hand their long term data over to someone like Ashenden...privately...and to allow him to make an assessment.

She went quiet after the first ARD/ST report several months ago IIRC.

It's not the interview per se it's the latest in a long line of comedy gold from this pantomime:

1. Prominent British Athlete with Dodgy blood values earlier in the year.
2. Seven London marathon victories in 12 years 'under doping suspicion'.
3. The super injunction (an action which I think Jeremy Clarkson described as a very expensive way of letting the world know what you've done wrong.)
4. Going 'off the grid' until Seb Coe gets elected, therefore ensuring her protection.
5. Changing her view on releasing blood values/tests.
6. Now this comedy interview which essentially says those were her dodgy blood values everyone was talking about.


Master Criminals this lot, so she deserves all the over analysis coming her way, dodgy eyes and all. Thing is though, they may have made a mistake protecting her as she has never been that popular since her failure at the Olympics, dumping in the street etc.

1. No confirmation that it is her.
2. Not hers
3. Super injunction? Bllx.
4. What protection?
5. Changing her mind? Er...oh yeah, I do that a lot.
6. No it doesn't.

If you are going to go after someone, do it properly.

 

[john_d]

Not many here will find anything new in this article but it is a
succinct and passionate piece of writing.

https://jugginsrambling.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/hello-world/

a few gems :

I want to believe that Usain Bolt ran 9.58 by virtue of his natural talent and training methods. I want to believe that Paula Radcliffe ran 2.15 for the marathon as a result of her once-in-a-generation physiology and unrivalled ability to suffer. But I don’t. This athletic utopia, in which performance enhancing drugs are a thing of the past, is purely an illusion – one which, if shattered, would see the biggest ***-storm the world of sport has ever seen. That’s why national federations, governing bodies, coaching projects, sponsors and athletes alike will do everything in their power to maintain and preserve the illusion.


" It’s not overstating it to say that Bolt is bigger than the sport of athletics, and the powers that be (IAAF, sponsors, and anyone with a vested interest in athletics) are acutely aware of this. If he goes down, he takes the whole sport with him – we’ve seen it all before in cycling."

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

Not many here will find anything new in this article but it is a
succinct and passionate piece of writing.

" It’s not overstating it to say that Bolt is bigger than the sport of athletics, and the powers that be (IAAF, sponsors, and anyone with a vested interest in athletics) are acutely aware of this. If he goes down, he takes the whole sport with him – we’ve seen it all before in cycling."

I don't want to react to that blog, but more of the bigger idea alluded to: the idea that "the whole sport (goes) with him."

It is ridiculous.

That is always part of the conversation with Bolt, is that he is too big to fail. People say that without any idea of what it actually means.

No, we haven't seen it (the sport "going down") before in cycling. Cycling has not gone down, in the sense that it doesn't exist anymore. It survived Festina, it survived, Puerto, and Armstrong, and Padova, and every too-big-to-fail-but-still-failed star in between. The worst impact was a few years when Germany didn't broadcast. Sounds like the US status quo anyway.

And sure, I'm simplifying. I'm sure you could look at different factors, participation, market share, share of media coverage, tone of media coverage. But you know what, as far as fans are concerned, the sport is still here, (frustratingly) in the same way.

IAAF may think Bolt is too big to fail, but to say that there is an "if he got caught..." doomsday scenario is ludicrous.

Bolt will have his Armstrong moment. And the sport will be exactly where it was before: those who want to watch track and field will be able to. Those that want to run around the track will be able to. Those that want to buy the spikes of the next gold medalist will be able to.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

" It’s not overstating it to say that Bolt is bigger than the sport of athletics, and the powers that be (IAAF, sponsors, and anyone with a vested interest in athletics) are acutely aware of this. If he goes down, he takes the whole sport with him – we’ve seen it all before in cycling."

I don't want to react to that blog, but more of the bigger idea alluded to: the idea that "the whole sport (goes) with him."

It is ridiculous.

That is always part of the conversation with Bolt, is that he is too big to fail. People say that without any idea of what it actually means.

No, we haven't seen it (the sport "going down") before in cycling. Cycling has not gone down, in the sense that it doesn't exist anymore. It survived Festina, it survived, Puerto, and Armstrong, and Padova, and every too-big-to-fail-but-still-failed star in between. The worst impact was a few years when Germany didn't broadcast. Sounds like the US status quo anyway.

And sure, I'm simplifying. I'm sure you could look at different factors, participation, market share, share of media coverage, tone of media coverage. But you know what, as far as fans are concerned, the sport is still here, (frustratingly) in the same way.

IAAF may think Bolt is too big to fail, but to say that there is an "if he got caught..." doomsday scenario is ludicrous.

Bolt will have his Armstrong moment. And the sport will be exactly where it was before: those who want to watch track and field will be able to. Those that want to run around the track will be able to. Those that want to buy the spikes of the next gold medalist will be able to.

important to remember though that Armstrong only fell after he was relevant.

I agree with you that the sport will not fall. It will always exist as long as it's profitable. And plenty will probably never learn anything just like in cycling.

Disagree with you though that bolt will have his Armstrong moment. Plenty of top dopers never got caught. Armstrong wouldn't if he didn't alienate so many witnesses

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

Well, I watched this expecting the worst. Frankly, there's naff all in that interview that bothers me. I would prefer that she did let her blood results into the public domain, but I absolutely understand why she doesn't. She is right...they won't prove anything either way and she will never in a million years convince this tiny constituency in here that she ran 3 minutes faster than anyone else clean (despite the fact that she was effectively paced to that time). All this bobbins about her eyes....she has always had a frickin weird manner. Always.

If Jo Pavey and Mo release their BP data, is anyone here seriously going to do a sudden about turn and say "Oh yeah, I believe in them now"? It's a pointless exercise. What would impress me more would be for these athletes to hand their long term data over to someone like Ashenden...privately...and to allow him to make an assessment.

It's not the interview per se it's the latest in a long line of comedy gold from this pantomime:

1. Prominent British Athlete with Dodgy blood values earlier in the year.
2. Seven London marathon victories in 12 years 'under doping suspicion'.
3. The super injunction (an action which I think Jeremy Clarkson described as a very expensive way of letting the world know what you've done wrong.)
4. Going 'off the grid' until Seb Coe gets elected, therefore ensuring her protection.
5. Changing her view on releasing blood values/tests.
6. Now this comedy interview which essentially says those were her dodgy blood values everyone was talking about.


Master Criminals this lot, so she deserves all the over analysis coming her way, dodgy eyes and all. Thing is though, they may have made a mistake protecting her as she has never been that popular since her failure at the Olympics, dumping in the street etc.

1. No confirmation that it is her.
2. Not hers
3. Super injunction? Bllx.
4. What protection?
5. Changing her mind? Er...oh yeah, I do that a lot.
6. No it doesn't.

If you are going to go after someone, do it properly.

Tbh if you actually believe radcliffe was clean at this stage then you are beyond help. The only remotely favourable argument was that she appeared anti doping and that's shown to be a sham since she decided to throw her support behind fraud seb coe.

 

[john_d]

It doesn't matter a whole lot but I didn't write what More Strides For Rides quoted me as saying .
It was a quote from a blog post that I thought was worth reading.

Another interesting (4 part) piece is by Ed Oveden in the Japan Times .
Musings of a reformed bad boy, Victor Conte .

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/column/the-doping-epidemic/

" Conte Thinks WADA Testing System a Complete Joke "

 

[More Strides than Rides]

Re:

It doesn't matter a whole lot but I didn't write what More Strides For Rides quoted me as saying .
It was a quote from a blog post that I thought was worth reading.

Another interesting (4 part) piece is by Ed Oveden in the Japan Times .
Musings of a reformed bad boy, Victor Conte .

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/column/the-doping-epidemic/

" Conte Thinks WADA Testing System a Complete Joke "

I understood. I edited the quote so it's a little more clear.

 

[The Carrot]

https://jugginsrambling.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/hello-world/

I don't think this has been posted on here yet (apologies if so), but it's a rather good summary of doping in athletics.

Here's one quote: 'national federations, governing bodies, coaching projects, sponsors and athletes alike will do everything in their power to maintain and preserve the illusion. And the public just keeps buying it.'.

Many members of the public do keep 'buying it', but I do detect an increase in cynicism as the 'illusion' is now so silly that many other (intelligent) people can't but help to see what's going on. Of course that means the BBC, during their forthcoming coverage of the world champs, will resort to even greater vomit-inducing tactics to convince us that all is OK now Seb's in charge etc. I'll be watching it for comedy value and to see how wide PR can open her eyes before they actually pop out, buckets at the ready!

 

[sniper]

Re:

https://jugginsrambling.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/hello-world/

I don't think this has been posted on here yet (apologies if so), but it's a rather good summary of doping in athletics.

Here's one quote: 'national federations, governing bodies, coaching projects, sponsors and athletes alike will do everything in their power to maintain and preserve the illusion. And the public just keeps buying it.'.

Many members of the public do keep 'buying it', but I do detect an increase in cynicism as the 'illusion' is now so silly that many other (intelligent) people can't but help to see what's going on. Of course that means the BBC, during their forthcoming coverage of the world champs, will resort to even greater vomit-inducing tactics to convince us that all is OK now Seb's in charge etc. I'll be watching it for comedy value and to see how wide PR can open her eyes before they actually pop out, buckets at the ready!

yeah, it's an excellent blog, and there were some other excellent pieces in recent days just telling things as they are, including this Conte interview
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2015/08/11/more-sports/conte-says-coverup-protected-big-stars-seoul-games/#.VcoLYK2VS7T
or Ashenden's open letter to Coe
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn8dnp
then there's been blogs from Ross Tucker who seems to be the real deal and there was another article slamming global prosports as a doped up farce (can't find link).

Why watch the IAAF championships though?
I think the only way to hurt IAAF and 'punish' them is to not turn on the TV.
Would be even better if we'd do it collectively. #justdontdoit #banIAAF2015
are you in? ideas for a better hashtag?

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

Well, I watched this expecting the worst. Frankly, there's naff all in that interview that bothers me. I would prefer that she did let her blood results into the public domain, but I absolutely understand why she doesn't. She is right...they won't prove anything either way and she will never in a million years convince this tiny constituency in here that she ran 3 minutes faster than anyone else clean (despite the fact that she was effectively paced to that time). All this bobbins about her eyes....she has always had a frickin weird manner. Always.

If Jo Pavey and Mo release their BP data, is anyone here seriously going to do a sudden about turn and say "Oh yeah, I believe in them now"? It's a pointless exercise. What would impress me more would be for these athletes to hand their long term data over to someone like Ashenden...privately...and to allow him to make an assessment.

It's not the interview per se it's the latest in a long line of comedy gold from this pantomime:

1. Prominent British Athlete with Dodgy blood values earlier in the year.
2. Seven London marathon victories in 12 years 'under doping suspicion'.
3. The super injunction (an action which I think Jeremy Clarkson described as a very expensive way of letting the world know what you've done wrong.)
4. Going 'off the grid' until Seb Coe gets elected, therefore ensuring her protection.
5. Changing her view on releasing blood values/tests.
6. Now this comedy interview which essentially says those were her dodgy blood values everyone was talking about.


Master Criminals this lot, so she deserves all the over analysis coming her way, dodgy eyes and all. Thing is though, they may have made a mistake protecting her as she has never been that popular since her failure at the Olympics, dumping in the street etc.

1. No confirmation that it is her.
2. Not hers
3. Super injunction? Bllx.
4. What protection?
5. Changing her mind? Er...oh yeah, I do that a lot.
6. No it doesn't.

If you are going to go after someone, do it properly.

Tbh if you actually believe radcliffe was clean at this stage then you are beyond help. The only remotely favourable argument was that she appeared anti doping and that's shown to be a sham since she decided to throw her support behind fraud seb coe.

Well, I have my reasons. Being beyond hope in your eyes doesn't worry me unduly, even if you are generally one of the more sane voices in here. There is one "out there" performance which was (rightly in my view) disregarded as a WR for a while. Her career progression showed no red flags to me from the age of 14 onwards. The big leap...where she found she could win at World level was the move from 10 k to the marathon, a distance which suited her (one paced...no kick).
She was finishing in the top three nationally (over XC) from the age of 13 IIRC. She was very consistent through the junior ranks and eventually winning World Junior XC a few years later. I don't believe she was doping then. I don't see any real red flags subsequently apart from the marathon WR...which, as you know, took place at an event where she ran with men. I don't see other outliers. I see someone who was very good and very often beaten at world level until she found her distance.

There are plenty of athletes, including Brit stars, who I suspect. She is not at the top of the list.

 

[Rudhy]

Re: Re:

Well, I watched this expecting the worst. Frankly, there's naff all in that interview that bothers me. I would prefer that she did let her blood results into the public domain, but I absolutely understand why she doesn't. She is right...they won't prove anything either way and she will never in a million years convince this tiny constituency in here that she ran 3 minutes faster than anyone else clean (despite the fact that she was effectively paced to that time). All this bobbins about her eyes....she has always had a frickin weird manner. Always.

If Jo Pavey and Mo release their BP data, is anyone here seriously going to do a sudden about turn and say "Oh yeah, I believe in them now"? It's a pointless exercise. What would impress me more would be for these athletes to hand their long term data over to someone like Ashenden...privately...and to allow him to make an assessment.

It's not the interview per se it's the latest in a long line of comedy gold from this pantomime:

1. Prominent British Athlete with Dodgy blood values earlier in the year.
2. Seven London marathon victories in 12 years 'under doping suspicion'.
3. The super injunction (an action which I think Jeremy Clarkson described as a very expensive way of letting the world know what you've done wrong.)
4. Going 'off the grid' until Seb Coe gets elected, therefore ensuring her protection.
5. Changing her view on releasing blood values/tests.
6. Now this comedy interview which essentially says those were her dodgy blood values everyone was talking about.


Master Criminals this lot, so she deserves all the over analysis coming her way, dodgy eyes and all. Thing is though, they may have made a mistake protecting her as she has never been that popular since her failure at the Olympics, dumping in the street etc.

1. No confirmation that it is her.
2. Not hers
3. Super injunction? Bllx.
4. What protection?
5. Changing her mind? Er...oh yeah, I do that a lot.
6. No it doesn't.

If you are going to go after someone, do it properly.

What is your relation to Ms Radcliffe?

 

[armchairclimber]

Re: Re:

https://jugginsrambling.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/hello-world/

I don't think this has been posted on here yet (apologies if so), but it's a rather good summary of doping in athletics.

Here's one quote: 'national federations, governing bodies, coaching projects, sponsors and athletes alike will do everything in their power to maintain and preserve the illusion. And the public just keeps buying it.'.

Many members of the public do keep 'buying it', but I do detect an increase in cynicism as the 'illusion' is now so silly that many other (intelligent) people can't but help to see what's going on. Of course that means the BBC, during their forthcoming coverage of the world champs, will resort to even greater vomit-inducing tactics to convince us that all is OK now Seb's in charge etc. I'll be watching it for comedy value and to see how wide PR can open her eyes before they actually pop out, buckets at the ready!

yeah, it's an excellent blog, and there were some other excellent pieces in recent days just telling things as they are, including this Conte interview
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2015/08/11/more-sports/conte-says-coverup-protected-big-stars-seoul-games/#.VcoLYK2VS7T
or Ashenden's open letter to Coe
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn8dnp
then there's been blogs from Ross Tucker who seems to be the real deal and there was another article slamming global prosports as a doped up farce (can't find link).

Why watch the IAAF championships though?
I think the only way to hurt IAAF and 'punish' them is to not turn on the TV.
Would be even better if we'd do it collectively. #justdontdoit #banIAAF2015
are you in? ideas for a better hashtag?

That Dan Roan/Ashenden twitlonger is excellent.

 

[Rudhy]

Re: Re:

1. No confirmation that it is her.
2. Not hers
3. Super injunction? Bllx.
4. What protection?
5. Changing her mind? Er...oh yeah, I do that a lot.
6. No it doesn't.

If you are going to go after someone, do it properly.

Tbh if you actually believe radcliffe was clean at this stage then you are beyond help. The only remotely favourable argument was that she appeared anti doping and that's shown to be a sham since she decided to throw her support behind fraud seb coe.

Well, I have my reasons. Being beyond hope in your eyes doesn't worry me unduly, even if you are generally one of the more sane voices in here. There is one "out there" performance which was (rightly in my view) disregarded as a WR for a while. Her career progression showed no red flags to me from the age of 14 onwards. The big leap...where she found she could win at World level was the move from 10 k to the marathon, a distance which suited her (one paced...no kick).
She was finishing in the top three nationally (over XC) from the age of 13 IIRC. She was very consistent through the junior ranks and eventually winning World Junior XC a few years later. I don't believe she was doping then. I don't see any real red flags subsequently apart from the marathon WR...which, as you know, took place at an event where she ran with men. I don't see other outliers. I see someone who was very good and very often beaten at world level until she found her distance.

There are plenty of athletes, including Brit stars, who I suspect. She is not at the top of the list.

Why would you be against the release of your blood data if you have nothing to hide? It would help remove some of the suspicion from her, something I'm sure she would be seeking if possible.
If you're active, sure, you don't want to give your rivals any of your data. But what's the problem once you're no longer particularly competitive/retired? And anyway, she didn't say that she didn't want to release her data - she said she was against the whole concept of it (If everyone else starts releasing their data and it's clean, it puts pressure on the dirty athletes to release theirs too, to the point where refusal to do so would almost become a confession)

 

[The Carrot]

Re: Re:

https://jugginsrambling.wordpress.com/2015/08/20/hello-world/

I don't think this has been posted on here yet (apologies if so), but it's a rather good summary of doping in athletics.

Here's one quote: 'national federations, governing bodies, coaching projects, sponsors and athletes alike will do everything in their power to maintain and preserve the illusion. And the public just keeps buying it.'.

Many members of the public do keep 'buying it', but I do detect an increase in cynicism as the 'illusion' is now so silly that many other (intelligent) people can't but help to see what's going on. Of course that means the BBC, during their forthcoming coverage of the world champs, will resort to even greater vomit-inducing tactics to convince us that all is OK now Seb's in charge etc. I'll be watching it for comedy value and to see how wide PR can open her eyes before they actually pop out, buckets at the ready!

yeah, it's an excellent blog, and there were some other excellent pieces in recent days just telling things as they are, including this Conte interview
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/sports/2015/08/11/more-sports/conte-says-coverup-protected-big-stars-seoul-games/#.VcoLYK2VS7T
or Ashenden's open letter to Coe
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sn8dnp
then there's been blogs from Ross Tucker who seems to be the real deal and there was another article slamming global prosports as a doped up farce (can't find link).

Why watch the IAAF championships though?
I think the only way to hurt IAAF and 'punish' them is to not turn on the TV.
Would be even better if we'd do it collectively. #justdontdoit #banIAAF2015
are you in? ideas for a better hashtag?

Apologies John_d, missed your post.

Anyway, Sniper, you are right, we should turn off the TV and hit them where it hurts but, I am perversely enjoying the current comedy pantomime and fully expect the BBC to go full *** on this one.

 

[gooner]

Excellent article on the arms race in doping.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/20/doping-world-athletics-championships-cheats

 

[sniper]

Re:

Excellent article on the arms race in doping.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/20/doping-world-athletics-championships-cheats

it's a good informative piece, some interesting info about doping and beating the system at present.

what bothers me tremendously though is statements like these:

even though athlete surveys tell us the number of dopers is probably somewhere between 14 and 39%.

Good grief. How likely is it that all dopers admit to doping on said surveys..

A bit similar with the leaked IAAF blood profiles. If Ashenden/PArisotto say 1/3 have suspicious values, the British press are the first to conclude the other 2/3rds are clean.

The ignorance of the british sports press wrt doping keeps surprising me.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Excellent article on the arms race in doping.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/20/doping-world-athletics-championships-cheats

excellent?
it's a good informative piece, some interesting info about doping and beating the system at present.

what bothers me tremendously though is statements like these::

even though athlete surveys tell us the number of dopers is probably somewhere between 14 and 39%.

Good grief. How likely is it that all dopers admit to doping on said surveys..

A bit similar with the leaked IAAF blood profiles. If Ashenden/PArisotto say 1/3 have suspicious values, the British press are the first to conclude the other 2/3rds are clean.

The ignorance of the british sports press keeps surprising me.

They haven't come to a conclusion, they state that that is what athlete surveys show (and if you think by survey they mean a single "do you dope?" question you really need to look into how surveys are constructed). The number is no doubt wrong, I'm sure it's higher, but all they have done is report a fact (as fas as we can tell, I don't see any references).

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Excellent article on the arms race in doping.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/20/doping-world-athletics-championships-cheats

it's a good informative piece, some interesting info about doping and beating the system at present.

what bothers me tremendously though is statements like these::

even though athlete surveys tell us the number of dopers is probably somewhere between 14 and 39%.

Good grief. How likely is it that all dopers admit to doping on said surveys..

A bit similar with the leaked IAAF blood profiles. If Ashenden/PArisotto say 1/3 have suspicious values, the British press are the first to conclude the other 2/3rds are clean.

The ignorance of the british sports press keeps surprising me.

They haven't come to a conclusion, they state that that is what athlete surveys show (and if you think by survey they mean a single "do you dope?" question you really need to look into how surveys are constructed). The number is no doubt wrong, I'm sure it's higher, but all they have done is report a fact (as fas as we can tell, I don't see any references).

i slightly reformulated, because i agree it's a decent article.
still on this issue you're wrong and he's wrong. He's not reporting a fact.
The surveys tell us 14 and 39% admit to doping on surveys (there's your fact).
To conclude from that that the actual number of dopers too lies between 14 and 39% is, at best, unlucky, at worst misinformation.

 

[The Hitch]

Its not a great article but it does at least make some of the obvious points we make here all the time. Starting with actually taking conte seriously.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

Excellent article on the arms race in doping.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/aug/20/doping-world-athletics-championships-cheats

it's a good informative piece, some interesting info about doping and beating the system at present.

what bothers me tremendously though is statements like these::

even though athlete surveys tell us the number of dopers is probably somewhere between 14 and 39%.

Good grief. How likely is it that all dopers admit to doping on said surveys..

A bit similar with the leaked IAAF blood profiles. If Ashenden/PArisotto say 1/3 have suspicious values, the British press are the first to conclude the other 2/3rds are clean.

The ignorance of the british sports press keeps surprising me.

They haven't come to a conclusion, they state that that is what athlete surveys show (and if you think by survey they mean a single "do you dope?" question you really need to look into how surveys are constructed). The number is no doubt wrong, I'm sure it's higher, but all they have done is report a fact (as fas as we can tell, I don't see any references).

i reformulated it slightly.
Still, you're wrong and he's wrong. He's not stating a fact.
the surveys tell us 14 and 39% admit to doping on surveys, and so they tell us the real number is probably higher.

If the surveys suggest a number between 14-39% then that is a fact. It doesn't mean the number of athletes who are really doping is that, but it is a fact that that is what the surveys say. That is the only conclusion that can be drawn from that quote and while I'd prefer references to check it I'm sure they did, you are conflating two things, the numbers from the surveys and the actual reality of the number of athletes doping. Only one of those is a fact, the one stated. The other would be an estimate, the one you are conflating it with.

Your reasoning that the real number is higher is perfectly fine, I agree with it.

 

[sniper]

Re:

Its not a great article but it does at least make some of the obvious points we make here all the time. Starting with actually taking conte seriously.

agreed.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

If the surveys suggest a number between 14-39% then that is a fact. It doesn't mean the number of athletes who are really doping is that

exactly, yet that is what he was saying. "athlete surveys tell us the number of dopers is probably somewhere between 14 and 39%." That's factually false.

but i don't wanna get stuck on this point, so let's just say it's a case of unlucky formulation.
I'm merely annoyed by the fact that in the press you read tons of such 'unlucky' formulations.
In the end what you get is a wrong and misinformed consensus that ca. 1/3 of athletes are doping when in reality the number is probably much higher.

 

[King Boonen]

Re: Re:

If the surveys suggest a number between 14-39% then that is a fact. It doesn't mean the number of athletes who are really doping is that

exactly, yet that is what he was saying. "athlete surveys tell us the number of dopers is probably somewhere between 14 and 39%."
but i don't wanna get stuck on this point, so let's just say it's just a case of unlucky formulation.

But it isn't, he is saying that is what the surveys tell us, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe it should have been written "But according to athlete surveys the number of dopers is somewhere between 14-39%".

Yes, lets leave it. I just sometimes feel you undermine a lot of your good points by using something out of context.