Pseudo-science

[sniper]

In spite of your earlier attempts to portray it as irrelevant, doping is a relevant variable in performance.
not only is it relevant, many would claim it is decisive.
But ok, decisive or not, let's agree it is at least relevant.
The fact that scientists cannot control for that variable is no excuse to omit mentioning the variable and its potential impact on the data.
Even if you can't control a given variable, there are all kind of elegant ways to nonetheless take that variable into consideration.
I typed "caveat" in google, and got this:

a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations.
"there are a number of caveats which concern the validity of the assessment results"

Such caveats are remarkably absent in much of the scientific output dealing with the physiology of topathletes.

Also, if you can't control a key variable, a central aim of the discipline should be to be able to control for that variable as much as possible. I don't see that desire in much of present-day sports science, of course with the earlier mentioned exceptions (including the links you provided).

On a side, informed speculation is an important part of science. You couldnt be more off equating that with 'opinion'.
http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/what-is-meets-what-if-the-role-of-speculation-in-science
Of course there is plenty of horribly bad scientific output interlaced with opinions that shouldnt be there.
But acknowledging doping as a (highly) relevant variable in performance has zilk to do with opinion.

 

[sniper]

This is from 2013, a scientific volume on the topic of 'Recovery for Performance in Sport'
https://books.google.pl/books?id=wJfc42_KdMUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=recovery+for+performance+in+sport&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitxY37q-rJAhVJ_nIKHc1hAekQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=recovery%20for%20performance%20in%20sport&f=false

We all know that the first thing any serious selfrespecting proathlete looks at to aid recovery is a whole series of doping products.
Now try searching the book for 'doping', 'drugs', 'illegal', or 'steroids'. You end up empty handed.
Disconnected from reality much?

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

The way I see it... If you are a sports scientist testing athletes performance in one contekst or another. Be it nutrition, training or marginal gains... if you dont, given the history of elite sports, at least discuss how you made sure doping was not an issue in the testing or the impact doping would or could have had on the testresults, it may not be pseudoscience, but it's definately bad science.
As it has been mentioned before, it's a matter of ignoring the mammoth in the room.

When you test for say a blood lactate response to exercise, or test for VO2max, or efficiency, whether an athlete is doping or not isn't relevant to the test or reporting of the data. They do a test and attain the results. You are only in a position to report the blood lactate response or VO2max or efficiency or whatever it is that you are testing.

What you can't do from such tests is assess why an athlete generates such results, unless you have also controlled for all the factors/variables involved. Speculating beyond the data would not be science, it would be opinion. Opinion is not science. I'm unsure why this is so difficult to understand?

Then athletes running to scientists to do tests is a waste of time in trying to prove whether an athlete is clean or not. Hence why certain athletes are happy to do them and others cant be bothered.

 

[veganrob]

Re: Re:

The way I see it... If you are a sports scientist testing athletes performance in one contekst or another. Be it nutrition, training or marginal gains... if you dont, given the history of elite sports, at least discuss how you made sure doping was not an issue in the testing or the impact doping would or could have had on the testresults, it may not be pseudoscience, but it's definately bad science.
As it has been mentioned before, it's a matter of ignoring the mammoth in the room.

When you test for say a blood lactate response to exercise, or test for VO2max, or efficiency, whether an athlete is doping or not isn't relevant to the test or reporting of the data. They do a test and attain the results. You are only in a position to report the blood lactate response or VO2max or efficiency or whatever it is that you are testing.

What you can't do from such tests is assess why an athlete generates such results, unless you have also controlled for all the factors/variables involved. Speculating beyond the data would not be science, it would be opinion. Opinion is not science. I'm unsure why this is so difficult to understand?

Then athletes running to scientists to do tests is a waste of time in trying to prove whether an athlete is clean or not. Hence why certain athletes are happy to do them and others cant be bothered.

Bingo!

 

[acoggan]

Ross Tucker (corresponding author) and two co-authors wrote a review in 2013 about the search for the genetic component in East African distance runners and West African origin sprinters that makes them so dominant. One of the review's conclusions was that no study has shown a conclusive genetic factor responsible for this dominance and some reasons were offered to explain why. The paper was interesting to read and had refreshingly little in the way of jargon. But the elephant in the room for me was that doping was not mentioned at all.

Which, as I am sure you realize, is not surprising in the least. Scientific papers are not the place to speculate on things about which you have no data, and hence no special insight. If an/or when somebody tries, a good peer reviewer will generally knock it back as "out of bounds."

Didn't stop Coyle.

Coyle had plenty of data upon which to base his speculations about efficiency, muscle fiber type, etc.

Armstrong's Tour-winning weight, OTOH, was simply a self-reported number (as is Froome's), but since the raw data were included in the paper (it was a case report, after all) no reviewer was really going to blanche at that. That is, for the conclusions that were drawn it didn't really matter whether Armstrong weighed 71 kg or 69 kg or 73 kg when racing the Tour, just that he was significantly lighter than when tested/earlier in his career.

 

[acoggan]

Re:

This is from 2013, a scientific volume on the topic of 'Recovery for Performance in Sport'
https://books.google.pl/books?id=wJfc42_KdMUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=recovery+for+performance+in+sport&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwitxY37q-rJAhVJ_nIKHc1hAekQ6AEIHzAA#v=onepage&q=recovery%20for%20performance%20in%20sport&f=false

We all know that the first thing any serious selfrespecting proathlete looks at to aid recovery is a whole series of doping products.
Now try searching the book for 'doping', 'drugs', 'illegal', or 'steroids'. You end up empty handed.
Disconnected from reality much?

Your logic is circular: you complain that nobody is studying doping, then complain when doping isn't discussed in a scientific publication due to the lack of data.

Seems to me that your true complaint is that scientists haven't expended much effort studying things you think they should be studying. My question is, who are you that you think you are in a position to dictate the research agenda of scientists around the world, all of whom operate under different constraints, have different interests, etc.?

If you truly believe in your cause, I suggest that you donate a large sum of money in an attempt to influence the research community, e.g., like the MacReady (sp?) Prize, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, or even Alfred Novel himself.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

to get back to Ross Tucker, while he may or may not sufficiently address the topic of doping in his peerreviewed output, the great thing about him (imo) is that in his public appearances he takes the topic by the horns, taking it out of the taboo zone into the spotlights.

Rhetorical question: why do you suppose this dichotomy exists?

(BTW, one name you don't appear to have mentioned is Ashenden....don't the vast majority of his peer-reviewed papers deal with doping?)

 

[blackcat]

Re: Re:

A very good thought. What happened to the Chinese guy who was also at the UCI Centre and beat Froome at the B-worlds?

Haijun Ma was his name. He had a great result in Tour des Pays de Savoie in Switzerland, he was either second or third behind Martin on GC, and I think he was second in the queen stage on the race. I think the race was/is like criterium international, 3 stages, 1 chrono 2 road. And the actual mtn stafe (criterium international does not have a mtn finish or stage), he came second to DM in it.

I think he came over the line believing he had won a stage in Quinghai Lake, there was a photo of it, but he was actually second.

He started off as a track cyclist and rode the 1km tt, and I think he had some decent results, either a 1.03" 1km at nationals, or a regional event. This would be around 2005/6. Think his time at World Cycling Centre was in 2008 when Froome was there.

I definitely had the best "mail" on MA Haijun of anyone outside of Aigle World Cycling Centre. He had enormous potential...

 

[blackcat]

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Not sure what it is I'm supposedly admitting?

In any case, performing science that does not deal with an irrelevant variable does not make it bad science.
Science that does not discuss a topic just because you think it's important does not make it bad science.
Science that does not include commentary on something for which there is no data does not make it bad science.

Bas science is that which does not adequately uphold scientific standards.

e.g., speculating on things that are not measurable or for which data does not exist would be bad science. It would instead be opinion. Nothing wrong with opinion, but opinion is not science.

I agree that the terms 'bad science' and 'pseudoscience' are being thrown around in this forum with too little attention to what those terms actually mean. I'm glad to see it spelled out so clearly in this example.

And as acoggan stated above, the best way to get more data on a subject is to offer grant money for that particular area of research. The doping subject may be of great interest to many scientists, but if there is no way to access a consistent source of funds to study it, those primary investigators will explore more fund-able projects.

 

[Benotti69]

Re: Re:

Not sure what it is I'm supposedly admitting?

In any case, performing science that does not deal with an irrelevant variable does not make it bad science.
Science that does not discuss a topic just because you think it's important does not make it bad science.
Science that does not include commentary on something for which there is no data does not make it bad science.

Bas science is that which does not adequately uphold scientific standards.

e.g., speculating on things that are not measurable or for which data does not exist would be bad science. It would instead be opinion. Nothing wrong with opinion, but opinion is not science.

I agree that the terms 'bad science' and 'pseudoscience' are being thrown around in this forum with too little attention to what those terms actually mean. I'm glad to see it spelled out so clearly in this example.

And as acoggan stated above, the best way to get more data on a subject is to offer grant money for that particular area of research. The doping subject may be of great interest to many scientists, but if there is no way to access a consistent source of funds to study it, those primary investigators will explore more fund-able projects.

I dont have much of a problem with forum members throwing around the terms 'bad science' and 'pseudoscience', but I do when Team owners, DS, riders and others in the sport who do it to shoot down doping accusations.

I guess most sports scientists work with athletes to increase the performance with the use of PEDs. The tests they do either are to indicate how much to dope or how effective the doping is.

 

[acoggan]

Re: Re:

as acoggan stated above, the best way to get more data on a subject is to offer grant money for that particular area of research. The doping subject may be of great interest to many scientists, but if there is no way to access a consistent source of funds to study it, those primary investigators will explore more fund-able projects.

The other aspect that is being ignored by the "pseudo-science" crowd are the ethical aspects of performing such research. Some of what has been proposed ("giving known dopers PEDs to see how much they glow") would be questionable at best, and criminal at worst.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I dont have much of a problem with forum members throwing around the terms 'bad science' and 'pseudoscience', but I do when Team owners, DS, riders and others in the sport who do it to shoot down doping accusations.

this.

If one of the principal goals of science is to find out the truths about the world, one of the principal goals of sport science should be to find out the truths about the world of sport.
It's why in my view Vayer is 10 times the scientist Swart is.

 

[Red Rick]

Interesting thread

 

[doperhopper]

Re: Re:

I dont have much of a problem with forum members throwing around the terms 'bad science' and 'pseudoscience', but I do when Team owners, DS, riders and others in the sport who do it to shoot down doping accusations.

this.

If one of the principal goals of science is to find out the truths about the world, one of the principal goals of sport science should be to find out the truths about the world of sport.
It's why in my view Vayer is 10 times the scientist Swart is.

well, the usual game like... tobacco companies doing lung cancer "research", sugared bubble water companies researching child obesity, nuclear company studying impact of Fukushima, Monsanto doing science on negative GMO effects... would you trust any of these?

 

[Arrowfarm]

Re: Re:

The way I see it... If you are a sports scientist testing athletes performance in one contekst or another. Be it nutrition, training or marginal gains... if you dont, given the history of elite sports, at least discuss how you made sure doping was not an issue in the testing or the impact doping would or could have had on the testresults, it may not be pseudoscience, but it's definately bad science.
As it has been mentioned before, it's a matter of ignoring the mammoth in the room.

When you test for say a blood lactate response to exercise, or test for VO2max, or efficiency, whether an athlete is doping or not isn't relevant to the test or reporting of the data. They do a test and attain the results. You are only in a position to report the blood lactate response or VO2max or efficiency or whatever it is that you are testing.

What you can't do from such tests is assess why an athlete generates such results, unless you have also controlled for all the factors/variables involved. Speculating beyond the data would not be science, it would be opinion. Opinion is not science. I'm unsure why this is so difficult to understand?

Well, it depends on what you are researching.
Besides I said "discuss" not "asess", so you are a little off point. Discussing what may or could have influenced results in a test can easily be done without opinion being a factor. your own biases should even be a part of the report.
Merely stating testresults is hardly science. We have machines to do that. Interpretation of testresults is where it happens and in the case of pro sports you simply cant ignore doping as a factor. Sloppy science.

 

[Merckx index]

Re: Re:

When you test for say a blood lactate response to exercise, or test for VO2max, or efficiency, whether an athlete is doping or not isn't relevant to the test or reporting of the data.

What?! Of course it’s relevant, or could be in many experimental circumstances. I think you’re conflating a purely descriptive measurement with science. Generally speaking—studies like Swart’s of Froome or Coyle's of LA are fairly rare exceptions—the purpose of any scientific study is not just to characterize some rider’s physiological or whatever parameters, but to get at causal processes, e.g., what metabolic changes underlie the lactate response. Doping might be very relevant to this.

What you can't do from such tests is assess why an athlete generates such results, unless you have also controlled for all the factors/variables involved. Speculating beyond the data would not be science, it would be opinion. Opinion is not science. I'm unsure why this is so difficult to understand?

Again, this simply is not true. Scientific articles are loaded with speculation. That’s what the Discussion section is for, a place where the researcher is permitted to go beyond the conclusions that are confirmed or strongly supported by the results. Of course you're expected to provide some kind of evidence or reason for your speculation, but it doesn’t have to be strong, let alone compelling. As long as you make it clear that you’re speculating, and why, that’s perfectly fair.

In Coyle’s case, e.g., it would not have been at all unreasonable to speculate that the decline in LA’s V02max when he wasn’t racing might have been due not simply to lack of training, but also lack of doping. To support this, he could have provided evidence that EPO can increase V02max. Of course, if Coyle had so much as mentioned the word doping in the paper, I’m sure LA would have rescinded his permission to study him and publish the results, but that’s another story.

Speculation is not simply permitted in science, it’s vital to it. Science is the process of formulating hypotheses based on data, and testing them to generate further data. But where do these hypotheses originally come from? Speculation. This is the creative aspect of science. Without it, there would be no major leaps in knowledge, because all hypotheses would be known to be true almost for a certainty even before they were tested.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

The way I see it... If you are a sports scientist testing athletes performance in one contekst or another. Be it nutrition, training or marginal gains... if you dont, given the history of elite sports, at least discuss how you made sure doping was not an issue in the testing or the impact doping would or could have had on the testresults, it may not be pseudoscience, but it's definately bad science.
As it has been mentioned before, it's a matter of ignoring the mammoth in the room.

When you test for say a blood lactate response to exercise, or test for VO2max, or efficiency, whether an athlete is doping or not isn't relevant to the test or reporting of the data. They do a test and attain the results. You are only in a position to report the blood lactate response or VO2max or efficiency or whatever it is that you are testing.

What you can't do from such tests is assess why an athlete generates such results, unless you have also controlled for all the factors/variables involved. Speculating beyond the data would not be science, it would be opinion. Opinion is not science. I'm unsure why this is so difficult to understand?

Then athletes running to scientists to do tests is a waste of time in trying to prove whether an athlete is clean or not. Hence why certain athletes are happy to do them and others cant be bothered.

I totally agree, and this it exactly what I have been saying all along about such tests, as well as power meter data or estimates. They are neither dope-o-meters nor clean-o-meters.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

In spite of your earlier attempts to portray it as irrelevant, doping is a relevant variable in performance.
not only is it relevant, many would claim it is decisive.
But ok, decisive or not, let's agree it is at least relevant.
The fact that scientists cannot control for that variable is no excuse to omit mentioning the variable and its potential impact on the data.
Even if you can't control a given variable, there are all kind of elegant ways to nonetheless take that variable into consideration.
I typed "caveat" in google, and got this:

a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations.
"there are a number of caveats which concern the validity of the assessment results"

Such caveats are remarkably absent in much of the scientific output dealing with the physiology of topathletes.

Also, if you can't control a key variable, a central aim of the discipline should be to be able to control for that variable as much as possible. I don't see that desire in much of present-day sports science, of course with the earlier mentioned exceptions (including the links you provided).

On a side, informed speculation is an important part of science. You couldnt be more off equating that with 'opinion'.
http://www.americanscientist.org/science/pub/what-is-meets-what-if-the-role-of-speculation-in-science
Of course there is plenty of horribly bad scientific output interlaced with opinions that shouldnt be there.
But acknowledging doping as a (highly) relevant variable in performance has zilk to do with opinion.

I've never said doping wasn't a relevant variable in athletic performance. I've said that whether or not a test subject is doping may well not be relevant for the science being conducted.

e.g. if a scientist is tasked with assessing what a rider's VO2max is, whether or not the subject is doping isn't relevant to the manner in which the test is conducted or reported. They do the test and report the result.

If then a scientist is asked to comment on why an athlete has a particular level of physiological capability, well that's a different matter and of course there are many factors that influence capability. But such tests will not and never can tease out the doping variable however large or small. So all a scientist can say with certainty is what the data tell them, all else will be speculation.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

I dont have much of a problem with forum members throwing around the terms 'bad science' and 'pseudoscience', but I do when Team owners, DS, riders and others in the sport who do it to shoot down doping accusations.

The incorrect use of such terminology by anyone in the "debate" is unhelpful.

I guess most sports scientists work with athletes to increase the performance with the use of PEDs. The tests they do either are to indicate how much to dope or how effective the doping is.

Sports scientists? Perhaps you mean some dodgy doctors? Doctors <> scientists.

I do imagine that scientists who have performed science with elite doper athlete subjects have been either unaware of the fact, not interested in the fact, or didn't care because for the nature of the science being performed, it wasn't a relevant variable. And yep, perhaps there have been some scientists involved too. Only have to look at state sanctioned examples in history.

The majority of sports scientists I've come across involved in elite sport (not a large number admittedly) wouldn't have had anything to do with such nefarious activity. But I can't possibly know the scope of such things, and nor really can anyone else.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re: Re:

When you test for say a blood lactate response to exercise, or test for VO2max, or efficiency, whether an athlete is doping or not isn't relevant to the test or reporting of the data.

What?! Of course it’s relevant, or could be in many experimental circumstances. I think you’re conflating a purely descriptive measurement with science. Generally speaking—studies like Swart’s of Froome or Coyle's of LA are fairly rare exceptions—the purpose of any scientific study is not just to characterize some rider’s physiological or whatever parameters, but to get at causal processes, e.g., what metabolic changes underlie the lactate response. Doping might be very relevant to this.

What you can't do from such tests is assess why an athlete generates such results, unless you have also controlled for all the factors/variables involved. Speculating beyond the data would not be science, it would be opinion. Opinion is not science. I'm unsure why this is so difficult to understand?

Again, this simply is not true. Scientific articles are loaded with speculation. That’s what the Discussion section is for, a place where the researcher is permitted to go beyond the conclusions that are confirmed or strongly supported by the results. Of course you're expected to provide some kind of evidence or reason for your speculation, but it doesn’t have to be strong, let alone compelling. As long as you make it clear that you’re speculating, and why, that’s perfectly fair.

<snip>

Speculation is not simply permitted in science, it’s vital to it. Science is the process of formulating hypotheses based on data, and testing them to generate further data. But where do these hypotheses originally come from? Speculation. This is the creative aspect of science. Without it, there would be no major leaps in knowledge, because all hypotheses would be known to be true almost for a certainty even before they were tested.

Some fair comments. Perhaps I used the wrong term.

The intent of what I was saying is that speculation is not evidence. Of course informed speculation is vital to advancing science - as a means of determining what further questions might be worth pursuing in future research.

But uninformed speculation is not part of the process.

 

[42x16ss]

Re: Re:

When you test for say a blood lactate response to exercise, or test for VO2max, or efficiency, whether an athlete is doping or not isn't relevant to the test or reporting of the data.

What?! Of course it’s relevant, or could be in many experimental circumstances. I think you’re conflating a purely descriptive measurement with science. Generally speaking—studies like Swart’s of Froome or Coyle's of LA are fairly rare exceptions—the purpose of any scientific study is not just to characterize some rider’s physiological or whatever parameters, but to get at causal processes, e.g., what metabolic changes underlie the lactate response. Doping might be very relevant to this.

What you can't do from such tests is assess why an athlete generates such results, unless you have also controlled for all the factors/variables involved. Speculating beyond the data would not be science, it would be opinion. Opinion is not science. I'm unsure why this is so difficult to understand?

Again, this simply is not true. Scientific articles are loaded with speculation. That’s what the Discussion section is for, a place where the researcher is permitted to go beyond the conclusions that are confirmed or strongly supported by the results. Of course you're expected to provide some kind of evidence or reason for your speculation, but it doesn’t have to be strong, let alone compelling. As long as you make it clear that you’re speculating, and why, that’s perfectly fair.

In Coyle’s case, e.g., it would not have been at all unreasonable to speculate that the decline in LA’s V02max when he wasn’t racing might have been due not simply to lack of training, but also lack of doping. To support this, he could have provided evidence that EPO can increase V02max. Of course, if Coyle had so much as mentioned the word doping in the paper, I’m sure LA would have rescinded his permission to study him and publish the results, but that’s another story.

Speculation is not simply permitted in science, it’s vital to it. Science is the process of formulating hypotheses based on data, and testing them to generate further data. But where do these hypotheses originally come from? Speculation. This is the creative aspect of science. Without it, there would be no major leaps in knowledge, because all hypotheses would be known to be true almost for a certainty even before they were tested.

Not if the test carried out is only about what numbers that the athlete can produce. The thing with the tests like what Froome did is that they are only to see if the numbers are possible clean. If the testing physician was to assume the subject is doped how unprofessional would that be?? You can't get away with anything like this in any other situation, so why when performing threshold testing?

Anyone with real knowledge of the sport would look at the report and be sceptical, due the nature and history of doping in cycling but for someone preparing to submit a report to assume this would be highly unprofessional. They're caught between a rock and a hard place.

All the testing can legitimately do is show what numbers the athlete was able to produce for that test. Whether the numbers were possible clean is another matter, but that is up to interpretation of the numbers at a later date. Unless the study is using subjects that have not only admitted to doping but detailed any and all products used, along with how, this is something that cannot be controlled, so it comes back to the age old question - What elite athlete is going to openly and willing state that they dope?

Having said this, it is another kettle of fish when determining the results, as it can be skewed by the reviewer like the Coyle study. However, at this level, thanks to cycling's repugnant history, its near impossible to determine what truly is the edge of human performance when clean and what isn't.

 

[sniper]

good points 42x16ss.

and I think that Swarts 2015 work on Froome should for those reasons indeed be viewed mildly/positively.

However, while Swart has probably done a methodologically sound job on Froome 2015, I do think he, and the field as a whole, should strive for much much more. The goal of Swart, and of sports science as a whole, cannot be to continue producing insignificant test results.
Then, the irony of Swart's 2015 test results on Froome is that they will become truly relevant for the field only once we know the kind of drugs Froome has been on. Only then can we draw some useful conclusions from it, e.g. in terms of what impact a combination of AICAR with microdosed EPO can have on VO2max.
Even in the absence of reliable 2007 data: his realtime road performances from the prevuelta'11 period give us enough of an impression so as to allow for informed speculation.

---
On a side, other work by Swart seems more questionable in terms of why doping/peds aren't at all mentioned as a possible variable.
For instance, https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Lamberts/publication/23683240_Changes_in_heart_rate_recovery_after_high-intensity_training_in_well-trained_cyclists/links/0c9605200f925314c7000000.pdf
In such a study, the topic of PEDs and their possible impact on the results should at least be touched upon.

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

I dont have much of a problem with forum members throwing around the terms 'bad science' and 'pseudoscience', but I do when Team owners, DS, riders and others in the sport who do it to shoot down doping accusations.

this.

If one of the principal goals of science is to find out the truths about the world, one of the principal goals of sport science should be to find out the truths about the world of sport.
It's why in my view Vayer is 10 times the scientist Swart is.

well, the usual game like... tobacco companies doing lung cancer "research", sugared bubble water companies researching child obesity, nuclear company studying impact of Fukushima, Monsanto doing science on negative GMO effects... would you trust any of these?

*like*

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

(BTW, one name you don't appear to have mentioned is Ashenden....don't the vast majority of his peer-reviewed papers deal with doping?)

i mentioned him earlier on as one bright example.
admittedly, there are probably much more bright examples that I haven't heard of (had no time yet to go through the links provided by Alex Simmons for instance).
But I think it's fair to stick to my point that (large) segments of the field suffer from a lack of acknowledgement of PEDs as a crucial variable in performance.

To be sure, I have no trouble admitting the field at present is probably doing as much as it can in light of its current specific scientific mandate and the way funding is allotted.
The point i think for me is that this mandate should be reconsidered/reformulated, and the study of PEDs (a. detection; b. impact on performance) should be prioritized, if only by explicitly acknowledging the necessity of more research in that area. A paradigm change usually doesnt happen in a fortnight.

And funding or a lack thereof is not an excuse for any science to just accept its flaws without any further contemplation. Physiological tests on athletes of whom we don't know if they doped should certainly continue (there's no alternative at present), but the resulting studies should at least include some sort of contemplation on the topic of doping, and preferably formulate new goals for future research on that matter.