here is your original post again
the case where the reduced detection threshold theory may have been effective, as you imlied, unlike the previous example, is the testosterone/epitestosterone (t/e) ratio reduction - from 6 to 4 since 2005. dopers now can manipulate it to a tighter limit.
so again, clearing terminology can avoid a lot of confusion. but i guess it's the clinic, so my efforts are definitely futile.
the first sentence is perfectly valid and perhaps true. then you go into a 'threshold' word that could be interpreted as you are pointing to reductions in substance detection thresholds can lead to reduced doping. this is not the case at all, opposite, it can lead to increased number of doping cases - as amply illustrated by the contador, ovcharov etc cases. clenbuterol is an example of a substance that has ultimately reduced threshold - zero - but the result is more cases.hrotha said:I think the sport is cleaning up, not in the amount of dopers but in the amount of dope they can get away with. From a logical point of view, if the threshold keeps being reduced we'll reach a point where doping isn't worth the risk of getting caught for the benefit it brings. That's the theory anyway. It stands to reason that, as that threshold diminishes, less riders will dope, even if the top GC contenders will keep at it for as long as possible.
the case where the reduced detection threshold theory may have been effective, as you imlied, unlike the previous example, is the testosterone/epitestosterone (t/e) ratio reduction - from 6 to 4 since 2005. dopers now can manipulate it to a tighter limit.
so again, clearing terminology can avoid a lot of confusion. but i guess it's the clinic, so my efforts are definitely futile.