WADA funded study confirms: ~ 40-60% of athletes are on PEDs but only 1-2% are caught

So it was a Survey? Im sure lots of athletes simply denied roiding, because that's how big of a taboo subject it is, even if it's impossible to find out if they did it, they probably lied just to be sure......


So it's probably more like 80-90% of athletes are roiding.
They acknowledge this in the conclusion.

It's interesting to see hard numbers though. The fact that so many are willing to admit on an anonymous test says a lot about the real total. It also begs the question of how the fuck so many are getting away with it, but guys like Jones, Barnett, etc. end up getting popped multiple times.
 
It has everything to do with what I was talking about. I was pointing out the flaw in how TS was using this equally flawed "study". You moved the goal post and are arguing over something I took no stance on.

Use your head.

You should tell WADA with all your righteousness that they paid $155k for a flawed "study"
 
The results were released years ago. 2014/15 if I recall perhaps even earlier. I've certainly been aware of it for several years. Not sure why you are saying it's only just been released

The study was also hugely flawed..it relied on asking athletes if they dope. Even set up the way it was athletes will still lie.

40-60% is not only a huge spread and remarkable vague it is also way too low.

Anecdotal evidence suggests in some sports its closer to 90-95%




Also the 1% of samples positive is a little misleading. Yes, that's the correct percentage, but that doesn't mean 40-60% of samples contain prohibited substances and they aren't detecting it.

If only 1% of the samples contain PED's because they are cycling, microdosing etc, then only 1% can ever be positive. (of course it's higher that contain PED's as we know from the success of retroactive testing)

And this just further illustrates how bad of a job the drug testers are doing. If 90-95% of athletes are using, WADA is failing terribly.

But I seem to recall you refusing to acknowledge this, the same way you refuse to acknowledge anything else you disagree with.
 
You should tell WADA with all your righteousness that they paid $155k for a flawed "study"
Are you trying to suggest that a study's validity and logic corresponds with the amount of money spent on it?

WADA spent six figures on what is essentially a poll, the results of which cannot be used to prove any hypothesis.
 
Well, if 40-60% are that means 60-40% aren't

The article states that's only how many admitted it on an anonymous questionnaire. The conclusion is it's probably underestimated since a lot won't even admit it anonymously.

'Scientists agree that, due to the probabilistic nature of the study, they are likely UNDERESTIMATING the doping prevalence "Sensitivity analyses, assessing the robustness of these estimates under numerous hypothetical scenarios of intentional or unintentional noncompliance by respondents, suggested that we were unlikely to have overestimated the true prevalence of doping."'
 
The paper was published last year but the results were discussed in the media before

We would note that there was a delay of nearly 6 years between the completion of the data collection and the publication of this paper, due to negotiations between WADA and the IAAF, and subsequently between the IAAF and the authors, regarding the authority to publish the results. This process has been described in reports in the popular media.



They didn't directly ask the athlete if he were doping, but the authors did acknowledge that these results are an underestimation


As I say, it was published years ago, in 2015. Parliament select committee published it .

http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/uk-parliament-publishes-blocked-tubingen-study/

https://www.parliament.uk/business/...ent-2015/chairs-statement-blood-doping-15-16/

Ive certainly had a copy for at least two years.




but anyway, thats largely by the by, isnt really important. i just wanted to clarify it was published several years ago.

its so flawed as a study though, its hard to really pay too much attention to it.

=====


Should also be noted IT WASNT WADA THAT BLOCKED ITS PUBLICATION
, it was the IAAF, so you inferrance that wada blocked publication because "they didnt like the conclusions" is way off the mark. they were trying to publish it, IAAF kept blocking it.

Quote from Tubingen University

"This study was commissioned in 2011 by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), but WADA has been unable to publish it because the IAAF has refused permission for it to do so The IAAF’s delaying publication for so long without good reason is a serious encroachment on the freedom of publication,"

https://www.parliament.uk/business/...ent-2015/chairs-statement-blood-doping-15-16/
 
Last edited:
As I say, it was published years ago, in 2015. Parliament select committee published it .

http://www.sportsintegrityinitiative.com/uk-parliament-publishes-blocked-tubingen-study/

https://www.parliament.uk/business/...ent-2015/chairs-statement-blood-doping-15-16/

Ive certainly had a copy for at least two years.




but anyway, thats largely by the by, isnt really important. i just wanted to clarify it was published several years ago.

its so flawed as a study though, its hard to really pay too much attention to it.

=====


Should also be noted IT WASNT WADA THAT BLOCKED ITS PUBLICATION
, it was the IAAF, so you inferrance that wada blocked publication because "they didnt like the conclusions" is way off the mark. they were trying to publish it, IAAF kept blocking it.

Quote from Tubingen University

"This study was commissioned in 2011 by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), but WADA has been unable to publish it because the IAAF has refused permission for it to do so The IAAF’s delaying publication for so long without good reason is a serious encroachment on the freedom of publication,"

https://www.parliament.uk/business/...ent-2015/chairs-statement-blood-doping-15-16/
That one looks like a rough draft

Pretty sure they only published the full text last year:

https://sci-hub.tw/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4


Why do you say it is flawed when the authors clearly state that these numbers are a lower bound of actual doping use? The survey method used has been applied in several other studies and achieved consistent results
 
That one looks like a rough draft

Pretty sure they only published the full text last year:

https://sci-hub.tw/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4


Why do you say it is flawed when the authors clearly state that these numbers are a lower bound of actual doping use? The survey method used has been applied in several other studies and achieved consistent results

the fact they come up with such a wide range shows of how little value the data is.. 40-60 is a massive variance.. and even then, they admit it could be far too low..

so what is it, 40-70%, 40-80%

you may as well just write a load of numbers on a list and stick a pin in.
 
40-60 overall. But "top" athletes? It's got to be close to 100 percent.
 
That one looks like a rough draft

Pretty sure they only published the full text last year:

https://sci-hub.tw/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4


Why do you say it is flawed when the authors clearly state that these numbers are a lower bound of actual doping use? The survey method used has been applied in several other studies and achieved consistent results

Because his actual knowledge of the scientific method is sadly lacking. When all you can do is a longitudinal study, that is all you can do. It is the basis of solid information gathering. Remember that he will defend WADA at all costs, and when shown to be wrong he will put you on ignore, so good luck.
 
Add the 40% to the 60% then subtract the 2-4%.. Now we are living in reality. Injuries make it NECESSARY, and that's why USADA is fkn stupid, and the test should be a fight night testosterone test.
 
I agree, lots of top athletes ARE doping.

That's why the UFC is so clean, there are very few "top athletes" and the rest simply cannot afford the type of PEDs you use to pass USADA testing.

So JBJ couldn't afford it???
 
Well known fact to fail a dope test you gotta be dumb enough to fail an IQ test
 
Self-report is almost never a reliable way to test something, which when it comes down to it is how this was done. I'd be interested in reading more about the methods for this study though. I would find it hard to believe that so many high profile athletes in other sports (especially the UFC) get busted if it is that beatable. Many of them make in the mulitmillions also, the top guys anyway (Jones, Anderson, etc.). those track athletes are mostly not Lance Armstrong rich.
It was published in scientific journal so they always have to describe their methods in detail in the paper. You can check out the paper to see. The authors are fully aware of the pitfalls of self-reporting. They took several steps to minimize these issues but of course can’t do so completely. There’s not an obviously better way to get an estimate tho.

One doesn’t need to be Lance Armstrong rich to cheat successfully. Lance Armstrong and his entire team were doing it before he got popular (and rich).

I also suspect there may be a learning curve with finding the right people who know how to beat the tests. Olympic athletes have been tested rigorously since about the early 90s. MMA athletes have only had this problem a few yrs now. Maybe the most effective methods of cheating will get more widespread as time goes on. Look at Overeem: it’s obvious he didn’t have someone who knew how to beat the tests cuz he just stopped roiding completely after being busted and subsequent tests showed his t-levels went to shit as a result. Don’t know if he’s since found someone to guide him effectively. Maybe years from now someone of his stature or anderson’s or whoever will prob have easier time finding the right cheat guru.
 
Its pretty hard to cheat now with USADA. If your on gear and fighting a clean fighter thats fucked up. Your lying about your abilities and lying about your wins. The whole thing is a sham because you took a cheaters way out. If they can live with that then they are a POS human being.
 
Back
Top