Doping in other sports?

[RobbieCanuck]

You really need to bone up on Englsh and the difference between "general population" and "athletes" and the concept of "differ markedly".

Your study in fact proves Hitch's point futher, because the study you quote from is reinforcing the validity of the study Hitch is using as his point, as they use it in their comparison. If it was not worth citing, comparing their results to Goldman's results would seem silly, wouldn't it?

You clearly do not understand the difference between a study that uses random assignment and a study that does not. Goldman's study was not a properly constituted design with random assignment, and therefore fatally flawed. Furthermore it did not control for answers from athletes versus non athletes.

You are missing the point that when the study is carried out properly it had diametrically opposite results to Goldwin's. I am lost as to the fact of why you do not seem to grasp this fundamental distinction.

The sports blog of Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. explains it further,

"A new study in the British Journal of Sports Medicine by James COnnon, Jules Woolf and Jason Mazanov has tried to replicate Goldman's findings with a rigorous survey of elite North American track and field athletes. They were motivated to do the study because, "there has been little in the way of replication of the Goldman dilemma since 1995."

Titled "Would they dope? Revisiting the Goldman dilemma" the study finds results at odds with that of the Goldman dilemma:

Only 2 out of 212 samples (119 men, 93 women, mean age 20.89) reported that they would take the Faustian bargain offered by the original Goldman dilemma. However, if there were no consequences to the (illegal) drug use, then 25/212 indicated that they would take the substance (no death condition). Legality also changes the acceptance rate to 13/212 even with death as a consequence. Regression modelling showed that no other variable was significant (gender, competitive level, type of sport) and there was no statistical difference between the interview and online collection method.

Goldman’s results do not match our sample. A subset of athletes is willing to dope and another subset is willing to sacrifice their life to achieve success, although to a much lesser degree than that observed by Goldman."

You don't need to be a fanboy for Hitch. What you need is more objectivity.

Edit - I originally used the name Goodwin and should have said Goldman.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You clearly do not understand

I understand but t hurt when I see it.

Perhaps if they were studying the same thing - elite athletes and ther responses, then comparing the studies further would be useful.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

You clearly do not understand the difference between a study that uses random assignment and a study that does not. Goodwin's study was not a properly constituted design with random assignment, and therefore fatally flawed. Furthermore it did not control for answers from athletes versus non athletes.

You are missing the point that when the study is carried out properly it had diametrically opposite results to Goodwin. I am lost as to the fact of why you do not seem to grasp this fundamental distinction.

You are missing the point that you posted quotes from a study that does not support your POV.

To turn around now and quote from an entirely different study and act all high and might like you are schooling me is laughable at best.

Too chicken to own up to your mistake?

You don't need to be a fanboy for Hitch. What you need is more objectivity.

What you need is to go back and learn how to read and then reread what you posted and what I responded to.

Elite athletes are not the same as the general population.

I am sorry you think they are.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What the study Robbie is quoting cannot factor in is the change in honesty in general in society, the disdain now leveled at doping in general, and does not clarify whether these "elite" athletes are also "world class", as was claimed by Goldman.

Critical thinking as well as objectivity is required, Robbie.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Not to mention the quantum leap in medical interventions and dispersal of doping knowledge available now.

You can dope as an amateur using info from bodybuilding forums alone, and the vast Internet information source means most gotchas are readily available, more often than not via personal, first hand accounts.

The question asked previously was

"would you dope to be world champion if it killed you in 5 years" - was valid at the time because doping was killing people.

Asking that same question now is ridiculous by way of comparison for the simple fact that you can dope safely without risk to life and limb, and still win those gold medals. And countless news stories of people doing just that are still occurring today, despite Robbie's belief that all doping stopped in 2006.

But who even cares about gold medals these days? Big, fat contracts are the go now; and riders are doping left and right to get them, as there are far more fat contracts (say 50) on offer than there are gold medals (1 road and one TT) and you can live comfortably on a pro salary without much doping risk beyond a little recovery help.

Of course you would say no to "Would you dope to win a gold medal if you died in 5 years'. Because you'd be thinking to yourself, "I can dope and win a a fact contract instead and then live happily ever after".

 

[sittingbison]

I know there is another thread dedicated to the subject, but be aware that all (bar 3??) players in an Aussie Rules football team (some 34 of them) agreed to be injected with unknown performance improving sunstances and signed a statutory declaration that they agreed to it and absolving the club of responsibility...with the implication their contracts would be torn up... as the manager and "sports scientist" stood over them hypo in hand

So the Faustian Pact now becomes:
"Would you put your life in the hands of your employer to retain your contract...and possibly win a premiership within 5 years...by allowing yourself to be injected with unknown performance enhancing substances" and the answer was a resounding YES

And looking at the subsequent drivel from the fans, media and AFL themselves the answer is a resounding YES across the board

 

[RobbieCanuck]

You are missing the point that you posted quotes from a study that does not support your POV. To turn around now and quote from an entirely different study and act all high and might like you are schooling me is laughable at best.Too chicken to own up to your mistake?

I did not quote from a different study. In post #1131 I misspelled Goldman as Goodwin and I have now fixed this. Any reasonable reading of post #1131 would make it clear I was referring to the Goldman Dilemma I referenced in #1126 and not Goodman. I am sorry you had trouble making that simple link.

What you need is to go back and learn how to read and then reread what you posted and what I responded to. Elite athletes are not the same as the general population. I am sorry you think they are.

You are making a distinction without a difference. The goal of both Goldman's "study" and O'Connor et el's study was the propensity to cheat based on Goldman's Dilemma. I can't help you if you cannot grasp this obvious common purpose in both studies. In addition Goldman's was unscientific and O'Connor's et al was scientific. Goldman did not use random sampling which is so fundamental to the validity of an experiment it is trite.

The O'Connor study was a sampling of 250 randomly selected people whose predilection to sporting activities was canvassed before the Goldman Dilemma was presented to them. Have you ever met an Aussie who does not participate in sport or at least have a huge understanding for sports? For a small country population wise Australia is an amazing sporting country.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

I did not quote from a different study.

Yes, you did. The article mentioned 2 studies, as well as Goldman's. You quote the conclusion from one ("general population differ markedly from elite athletes") and then on this page, in an attempt to belittle me, quoted the conclusion from a different study (athletes only): "Goldman’s results do not match our sample. A subset of athletes is willing to dope and another subset is willing to sacrifice their life to achieve success, although to a much lesser degree than that observed by Goldman."

I can't help you if you cannot grasp this obvious common purpose in both studies.

You don't need to help me, you need to go back and read the article, understand what they are talking about, then realise you made a mistake.

You seem very knowledgeable on the subject, so can you please show me where the Goldman sample was not random.

Have you ever met an Aussie who does not participate in sport or at least have a huge understanding for sports? For a small country population wise Australia is an amazing sporting country.

I have an understanding. I understand that when you get tired, you start making mistakes, and your relative skill level drops. Hence doping in skill-based sports is very much a useful endeavour.

A quick glance at obesity stats says Australia is right up there in terms of obeses nations, so don't count on the typical Aussie knowing anything about sport from a first hand basis. And in my experience, most sports watchers are entertained, not informed.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

Dear Wiggo;1499580] snip

There are only two studies. You are talking about different population samples within the second of two studies, the O'Connor study. Jeesh!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

There are only two studies. You are talking about different population samples within the second of two studies, the O'Connor study. Jeesh!

heheheh no worries.

For the people who may still be reading this, here are the 2 studies - separate from the Goldman one, that Robbie has referenced.

The first study, which looked at general population (not elite athletes) is titled, "Would you dope? A general population test of the Goldman dilemma", can be viewed here: http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/43/11/871.abstract and was authored by J M Connor, J Mazanov.

Its conclusions, quoted by RObbie on the previous page, is as follows:

Conclusions: Athletes differ markedly from the general population in response to the dilemma. This raises significant practical and ethical dilemmas for athlete support personnel. The psychometry of the dilemma needs to be established more comprehensively for general and athlete populations.

The second study, discussed on the following page, where they sample elite athletes and therefore a valid comparison to Goldman's study, is titled, "Would they dope? Revisiting the Goldman dilemma" (see the difference?) and is viewable here: http://www.oliverfinlay.com/assets/...hey dope. revisiting the goldman dilemma.pdf and was authored by James Connor, Jules Woolf, Jason Mazanov (see the difference)?

Its conclusion, which is different to the one above, states,

Conclusions
Goldman’s results do not match our sample. A subset of athletes is willing to dope and another subset is willing to sacrifice their life to achieve success, although to a much lesser degree than that observed by Goldman. A larger scale online survey is now viable to answer important questions such as variation across sports

Despite this clarification, I still feel there are some variables not being accounted for, not the least of which is the ability to safely dope yourself to a fat contract without repercussions or long-term health issues.

 

[blackcat]

also, one of the major differences wrt Goldman, is the social engineering/condition and value judgement on doping.

when asked this question now, will athletes tell the truth, or will they lie to themself, and/or. the questionnaire?

doping = bad. are you of bad/poor character kind sir? well ofcourse, i am of reprehensible character.

personally, i think that this variable in the questionnaire has changed materially. are you a cheat?

how would LAnce answer it. would you believe him?

people lie, even in anonymous questionnaires. but, do people lie more now? I already indicated the altered parameters compared to Goldman. People lie folks. I am hung like a donkey. true

 

[Dear Wiggo]

also, one of the major differences wrt Goldman, is the social engineering/condition and value judgement on doping.

when asked this question now, will athletes tell the truth, or will they lie to themself, and/or. the questionnaire?

doping = bad. are you of bad/poor character kind sir? well ofcourse, i am of reprehensible character.

personally, i think that this variable in the questionnaire has changed materially. are you a cheat?

how would LAnce answer it. would you believe him?

As I stated previously. Not only can you dope with impunity, safely, but the rewards are better, and people are more aware of doping, and the belief that doping = bad.

people lie, even in anonymous questionnaires. but, do people lie more now? I already indicated the altered parameters compared to Goldman. People lie folks. I am hung like a donkey. true

Oh?

 

[blackcat]

thats a eunuch donkey dearwiggo. must be from the court of ming

 

[Dear Wiggo]

thats a eunuch donkey dearwiggo. must be from the court of ming

It's hung. Which is what you wrote!

 

[blackcat]

its a eunuch

i never wrote eunuch

i may have secretly thought it, but i never wrote it

 

[More Strides than Rides]

I think I've said this before, but the "would you/they dope" is the wrong question to ask. A much better question is "could they be convinced to dope"

Individually, no athlete really wants to make themselves out as that kind of person. It's a big step to do the right resources, make the right contacts, and committ to a traditional dopin regime.

But the second question is a much smaller leap. So many athletes who are on the verge, chronically injured, or just not trained well enough do everything they can to find some concise solution. They see something out of their control holdin back their progress, instead of reevaluating their attitue, effort, training, etc. It's much easier psycologically to convince yourself instead "I'm celiac, thats why I haven't reached my potential." If its not gluten intolerence, its asthma. Talk to athletes about their ailments and you'll hear everything from one leg being longer to vitamin D deficiency causing stress fractures. Athletes want their problems to be solveable and simple.

So, in walks the doctor and/or coach, saying they have a solution. Oral steroids for asthma, thyroid hormone, whatever, and tells an athlete "we found a solution to your issue." The athlete never thinks of the word doping, but is now taking a drug they don't need for the purpose of improving performance. An under-discussed episode in Gaimon's book is his asthma "diagnosis". Same character as would get the clean tattoo is told he has asthma by the team doctor and he buys it hook line and sinker. Only after talking with a teammate does he realize it was a shtick.

That goldman's study was useful because the doping was a much more defined choice. Now, its not.

 

[blackcat]

its more than that, its also game theory, when you are aware of your competitors on gear, and riders you used to ride off your back wheel, are now winning, and you are pack fodder.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

heheheh no worries.

What you fail to understand is the very common practice whereby researchers do several variations of the same study using different population samples. This is what occurred here. In each variation the same underlying premise was being challenged, the validity of the Goldman Dilemma. These kinds of studies involve manipulating different variables.

I suggest you do some reading on experimental designs in the behavioural sciences, because you have still not grasped the concept.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

What you fail to understand is the very common practice whereby researchers do several variations of the same study using different population samples. This is what occurred here. In each variation the same underlying premise was being challenged, the validity of the Goldman Dilemma. These kinds of studies involve manipulating different variables.

I suggest you do some reading on experimental designs in the behavioural sciences, because you have still not grasped the concept.

You keep saying I fail to understand things, when the very simple fact is there are 2 studies, you quoted from one - irrelevant to elite cyclists, then the other, and refuse to admit your mistake.

The "Would you" study, conducted in 2009, is even referenced by the 2012 "Would they" study.

I am still waiting for you to prove the lack of random selection in the Goldman study.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

You keep saying I fail to understand things, when the very simple fact is there are 2 studies, you quoted from one - irrelevant to elite cyclists, then the other, and refuse to admit your mistake.

The "Would you" study, conducted in 2009, is even referenced by the 2012 "Would they" study.

I am still waiting for you to prove the lack of random selection in the Goldman study.

Read the Sports Illustrated article. What Goldman did was to talk to athletes he knew or knew in passing in a sort of informal way and then put to them the Goldman Dilemma.

Random selection means not hand picking the subjects you are going to "test" but specifically randomly selecting a sample from a population.

Look. I am really getting tired of trying to educate you about research. I have a Master's degree in Psychology and I have participated in research, designed studies, and performed regression and other statistical analyses on research results. I read research reports all the time. Just go and read something on research design and you will find that ANY study that does not use random sampling/assignment (other than observational studies, which is not the case here) is not worth the paper it is written on.

To help you out, a text commonly used in the USA and Canada universities in research called Fundamental Statistics for Behavioural Science, McCall, 8th Edit. states at pp 310

"It is crucial in a true experiment for the participants in the sample to be randomly assigned to the difference groups in the research design."


@ p. 311

"In random sampling each person in the population of interest has an equal opportunity to be selected in the sample, and thus the results of the observations may be generalized to the entire population of which they are representative"

Goldman did not use random sampling.

@ p. 311, further,

Random assignment occurs after participants have been selected by random sampling or convenience and refers to the random assignment of participants for treatment groups for the purposes of attempting to distribute the characteristics of participants equally across the groups (e.g. athletes, recreational athletes, "non" athletes etc.)

Because Goldman did not use random sampling he did not even get to this second stage. The O'Connor study did. Please note is that one study can have various different independent variables that are manipulated to see how it affects one dependent variable. That is what O'Connor did and why you are confused about his study being more than one study!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Read the Sports Illustrated article. What Goldman did was to talk to athletes he knew or knew in passing in a sort of informal way and then put to them the Goldman Dilemma.

I would rather read the Goldman study.

Random selection means not hand picking the subjects you are going to "test" but specifically randomly selecting a sample from a population.

I have a science degree with a major in statistics. I am well aware of what random selection means. Please point out any post of mine, anywhere, that says otherwise.

Look. I am really getting tired of trying to educate you about research.

I am getting tired of your condescending arrogance.

I have a Master's degree in Psychology and I have participated in research, designed studies, and performed regression and other statistical analyses on research results. I read research reports all the time. Just go and read something on research design and you will find that ANY study that does not use random sampling/assignment (other than observational studies, which is not the case here) is not worth the paper it is written on.

Again, I have a science degree with a major in statistics.

Your masters in psychology is not all that useful if you think any of the posts I have written indicate in any way that I believe random sampling is not useful in research data gathering.

blah blah duh random sampling

Goldman did not use random sampling.

blah blah duh random sampling

Because Goldman did not use random sampling he did not even get to this second stage.

You have suggested I read Sports Ilustrated as proof Goldman did not use random sampling. I do not have access to the article, or a link - perhaps you could help someone out?

Or do you have another source that proves Goldman did not use random sampling?

The O'Connor study did. Please note is that one study can have various different independent variables that are manipulated to see how it affects one dependent variable. That is what O'Connor did and why you are confused about his study being more than one study!

I am not confused. They did 2 studies, with different authors, 3 years apart, with the later one citing the earlier one.

You are confused if you think that is the same study.

 

[RobbieCanuck]

I would rather read the Goldman study.

I have a science degree with a major in statistics. I am well aware of what random selection means. Please point out any post of mine, anywhere, that says otherwise.

I am getting tired of your condescending arrogance.

Again, I have a science degree with a major in statistics.Your masters in psychology is not all that useful if you think any of the posts I have written indicate in any way that I believe random sampling is not useful in research data gathering.

You have suggested I read Sports Ilustrated as proof Goldman did not use random sampling. I do not have access to the article, or a link - perhaps you could help someone out?

Or do you have another source that proves Goldman did not use random sampling?


I am not confused. They did 2 studies, with different authors, 3 years apart, with the later one citing the earlier one.

You are confused if you think that is the same study.

Goldman's "study" was not published. Does that tell you something?

It was a casual and informal poll of athletes he was aware had participated in Olympic or sub Olympic sport. The SI article is at http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...9868/index.htm (This is the link provided by Hitch at post #1006)

The article is entitled Bamberger M, Yaeger D. (14 April 1997). "Over the edge". Sports Illustrated.

1. I understand where you are coming from. O'Connor did two versions of his study published differently a. Br J Sports Med 2013;47:697-700 doi:10.1136/bjsports-2012-091826 and b. Br J Sports Med 2009;43:871-872 doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.057596

2. But they are the same study just difference populations samples. Every other aspect of the design, conditions, independent variable and dependent variables are the same. So lets quite playing games.

3. The independent variable in both is - the Goldman Dilemma

4. The first report of the study (2009) is entitled "Would you dope? A general population test of the Goldman dilemma" and the second report of the study
(2013) is entitled "Would they dope? Revisiting the Goldman dilemma" The only difference is the population samples.

5. Contrary to your statement the two versions of the same study were not done by different authors. The 2009 versions' lead researcher is J M Connor assisted by J Mazanov. The 2013 versions' lead researcher is the same J M Connor assisted by Jules Woolf, and Jason Mazanov. So the only difference is that Woolf was not involved in the first version. That is not the same as saying two studies were done by different authors as you state. Lets have a little intellectual honesty here.

6. You are trying to create a distinction without a difference because the only change in the two versions is the population sample. The research design is the same. The independent variable is the same (the Goldman Dilemma) You are engaging in intellectual mischief.

Assuming I take you at face value that you have a BSc and majored in stats you are either out of touch or you have forgotten what you have learned. If you haven't, your lack of grasp of fundamentals of research for someone with a science degree is appalling.

Next time do your own heavy lifting in searching out the information.

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Assuming I take you at face value that you have a BSc and majored in stats you are either out of touch or you have forgotten what you have learned. If you haven't, your lack of grasp of fundamentals of research for someone with a science degree is appalling.

I am going to keep pulling you up on your BS.

You are saying I am out of touch, yet fail to acknowledge that I did not in fact post once, anywhere, ever, anything erroneous regarding random sampling.

Furthermore, you provide no information whatsoever about what it is that I have allegedly forgotten. Your inability to admit a mistake or comprehend what someone is writing, given your education is made more grotesque but the constant insinuations leveled at my own education.

Next time do your own heavy lifting in searching out the information.

I have clicked the linked SI article numerous times, but the article does not appear, just the SI website (Vault). Searching on "Goldman" turns up a bunch of articles unrelated to anything we are discussing. The interface appears to be broken.

I think it's pretty reasonable to expect someone making a claim ("Goldman's study did not use random sampling") to back it up with something.

 

[D-Queued]

...Assuming I take you at face value that you have a BSc and majored in stats you are either out of touch or you have forgotten what you have learned. If you haven't, your lack of grasp of fundamentals of research for someone with a science degree is appalling.

Next time do your own heavy lifting in searching out the information.

That's appalling!

Appalling!

Are you preaching again? Citing off your degree?

Should we also take you at face value?

BTW, I looked it up on Google and got over 25 million links discussing whether a psychology degree a real science degree. But what do they know?

Here's a question for you, since you read the statistics book and everything.

What is the, I mean your, null hypothesis here?

Dave.

 

[sittingbison]

My null hypothesis is this convo has veered alarmingly towards rocks and shoals, with a Lee shore just off the starboard bow.

Time to move on

Cheers
Bison