• We're giving away a Cyclingnews water bottle! Find out more here!

Doping In Athletics

Page 93 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Kokoso does seem to bite whenever I post anything about Kreiziger - My post from three months ago - UCI charged Kreuziger with a ABP violation - The Czech Olympic Committee found no case to answer - The UCI appealed to CAS - Then CAS and the UCI dropped the case a few days before the hearing - So Kreuziger committed no anti-doping violation - It's crystal clear,
 
Re:

yaco said:
Kokoso does seem to bite whenever I post anything about Kreiziger - My post from three months ago - UCI charged Kreuziger with a ABP violation - The Czech Olympic Committee found no case to answer - The UCI appealed to CAS - Then CAS and the UCI dropped the case a few days before the hearing - So Kreuziger committed no anti-doping violation - It's crystal clear,
Not as simple as that explanation; Tinkoff, threatened that he'd take the case to the European Court if found guilty at CAS. He also raised the conflict of Cookson's son working at Sky. Then the case magically was dropped.
 
If nationalism amounts to holding one's compatriots to different standards than others, be it conscious or not, then in the context of the present discussion it is effectively a strategy of selectively looking the other way. Not very honest or intelligent, IMHO.

As a more general note, a quick glance at international news & events lately would suggest nationalism being everyone's problem at the moment.

Nice Farah compilation, BTW. Seems the middle management or whatever didnt get the memo about what to (not) post online once Mo quit the oregon prog.
 
Apr 7, 2015
395
0
0
Re:

meat puppet said:
As a more general note, a quick glance at international news & events lately would suggest nationalism being everyone's problem at the moment.
This is beside the point but labeling patriotism as nationalsim is.

On point: Never go full Norwegian.
 
Re:

yaco said:
Kokoso does seem to bite whenever I post anything about Kreiziger - My post from three months ago - UCI charged Kreuziger with a ABP violation - The Czech Olympic Committee found no case to answer - The UCI appealed to CAS - Then CAS and the UCI dropped the case a few days before the hearing - So Kreuziger committed no anti-doping violation - It's crystal clear,
Not to mention he keeps calling it the BSP
 
Jul 11, 2013
2,656
0
0
Not sure if this was posted before, but some interesting tidbits to be found.

The study is co-authored by Stephane Bermon btw.

http://athleticsillustrated.com/editorial/steve-magness-on-the-bermon-garnier-study-this-proves-testosterone-matters-even-if-it-is-naturally-produced-in-female-athletes/

“The other interesting part of the study is that because it was on the world’s best athletes, doping plays a role in testosterone levels,” Added Magness. “So a few in the media have pointed out that they didn’t see a difference between low testosterone and high testosterone performers in the 100m for instance, so you might then claim, “Testosterone doesn’t matter for the 100m!” But if we dig deeper, the study shows us that in men, throwers have lower testosterone levels than marathoners and race walkers. Now, all jokes aside, that makes no sense. But if we realize that those numbers are skewed because when people are doping and taking synthetic testosterone and then get off of it just before a competition (so as not to test positive) you often see a big dip in testosterone levels in their body. So, the same thing could explain why the better 100m performers had lower testosterone levels than the slower ones. It’s speculation of course, but that’s the problem. Doping bias studies at the elite level.”
 
Re:

Catwhoorg said:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4

Doping prevalence at Worlds 2011 estimated to be 39.4-47.9%
at Pan Arab games 2011 estimated to be 52.4-61.8%

Once we're at those levels, doesn't it follow that it's basically ubiquitous? i.e. close to 100%, simply because the level of (doped) competition makes it impossible to even be there without doping.
 
Re: Re:

The Hegelian said:
Catwhoorg said:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4

Doping prevalence at Worlds 2011 estimated to be 39.4-47.9%
at Pan Arab games 2011 estimated to be 52.4-61.8%

Once we're at those levels, doesn't it follow that it's basically ubiquitous? i.e. close to 100%, simply because the level of (doped) competition makes it impossible to even be there without doping.
That depends. Doping doesn't affect everyone the same. While the old adage of "only the poor athletes dope to keep up with the best" is clearly rubbish, there will be a section of athletes who fall in this bracket.

Obviously there is also a section of athletes at the opposite end who dope and are the best (we'll never know if they would be the best in a level playing field, plus it's kind of irrelevant).

It hinges on whether you believe someone can get to the World Championships without doping. I think that a talented athlete could (it might be country dependent, not a nationalism thing, just a level of competition for WC spots thing) but I'm unconvinced they could compete at the pointy end of the competition.
 
Slice out the medalists (which wasn't done) and compare the top #3 at each event to the participants.

That would answer that question.

My belief is that medalists would be significantly higher in percentage terms, (probably not 100%) but obviously there is no data to confirm or deny.
 
Re:

Catwhoorg said:
Slice out the medalists (which wasn't done) and compare the top #3 at each event to the participants.

That would answer that question.

My belief is that medalists would be significantly higher in percentage terms, (probably not 100%) but obviously there is no data to confirm or deny.
I would say finalists in major championships, all would be doping.
 
Re:

Catwhoorg said:
I really hope that if such a study is done again, the ask deep enough questions to determine finalists or medalists.
It won't be done again, WADA commissioned it and the IAAF tried their hardest block it.

WADA won't be causing trouble for themselves (and their funders) by commissioning something similar.
 
Aug 31, 2012
5,221
0
0
The basic problem is, how do you encourage people to tell the truth? You need to protect them from the negative consequences of doing so.

This survey uses a clever strategy to make it happen. By introducing a chance that the answer to the doping question is "yes" whether they are doping or not, individuals can be truthful when asked whether they've been doping without their "yes" necessarily indicating that they've been doping.

Even if anonymity would be compromised and the data would be hacked, seeing in that data that an athlete answered "yes" would not be a confession. Because there's a fixed chance, by design, that the response would be "yes" regardless.

Yet when we want to know the fraction of athletes that dope, we can just subtract the noise probability from the fraction of people saying "yes", and that will be an unbiased estimate of the fraction that dopes, provided this setup makes individuals answer truthfully (More realistically, it merely reduces the bias the downwards bias by reducing, but not eliminating, lying).


The statistical cost of this procedure is that the estimator becomes noisier, but with a large enough sample, that doesn't matter.

In theory, you could do the same thing asking just medallists, but because the sample is much smaller, the noise problem would be worse, and in addition, because the sample is smaller and easily googable and recognisable, it might invite unwelcome public speculation about which individuals, if x% of them dope, are the dopers.

Anticipating this, medallists would be more likely to lie regardless of the setup.
 
Thanks SS, that was my understanding of it. It might work for finalists and medalists if the sample is large enough (not sure how big it has to be), but the incentive to lie and lower the percentage is greater as it's a smaller group, it's defined and easier to point fingers at.
 
Years ago, the basic premise of these was go into a booth.
Toss a coin/roll a die
Heads answer the question part A (doping or whatever sensitive subject)
Tails answer the question part B (did the coin land on tails)

Things have got a bit more sophisticated and a lot of these are done electronically and automatically.
 
Jul 11, 2013
2,656
0
0
I heard the head of ADD (antidoping Denmark) comment on the survey today.

He said the usual stuff:

-Things was bad back then
-Bad leadership back then
-no proper testing back then
-It was to be expected that we would find past issues

It's funny how ,whenever these things come up, it's always a thing of the past.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts