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

Unless you are Usain Bolt, I doubt track and field athletes can afford that much more than fighters. Also the failing rate is similar(1-2%) so it is fair to assume a similar doping prevalence in the UFC

I would assume that the Olympic teams take care of the doping expenses.
Could be wrong though.


Thanks for posting this article though. An acquaintance of mine played D1 college football in the 90s and said 60% of his team was on PEDs. So the results don’t surprise me but it’s nice to see it confirmed by more rigorous methods.
 
I think the number is much higher than 40-60% personally. That's am enormous range by the way. Could've maybe tried to hammer that down closer to a 5% range, I think.
 
The difference is, I’m not assuming everyone is on PED’s just because my favourite fighters are confirmed cheats.

Without evidence it’s unfair to be going around accusing. If you think everyone is on PED’s good for you I guess.

Not everyone, just the guys at the top of the pyramid. We've seen though in a variety of sports this be the case. Beans and rice doesn't build NFL players, I'm sorry it just doesn't.
 
The irony of you telling me to use my head, over a poll, being illogically applied beyond the scope of its own parameters <Lmaoo>.

It has nothing to do with polls. Its been known for a long ass time that athletes are using PED's, especially the athletes at the top of their game.
 
Thought it'd be 99%. Only undercard broke fighters wouldn't use.

I bet many still claim innocent just out of fear that they'd actually somehow get found out for marking the poll as guilty. I know I would just pretend to be clean regardless of whether I was polled anonymously.

Exactly, which is how you know if they admit at a rate of 40-60%, its more likely 80%.
 
It has nothing to do with polls. Its been known for a long ass time that athletes are using PED's, especially the athletes at the top of their game.
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.
 
The NBA and NFL sweeps it under the rug if rumors come out on certain stars.
29d33v.jpg
 
Unless you are Usain Bolt, I doubt track and field athletes can afford that much more than fighters. Also the failing rate is similar(1-2%) so it is fair to assume a similar doping prevalence in the UFC
Only difference is that a LOT of high level athletes fail.

Tyson Gay, Marion Jones, Asafa Powell.
 
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.

I'm not moving any goal post. Professional athletes use PED's. It doesn't matter which sport you point to, if there is a large amount of money to be made, PED's are on the menu. Professional gamers are using PED's to the point where they are considering testing for video gamers. That's how bad it is. If you think most athletes are clean, you are high on crack.
 
I'm not moving any goal post. Professional athletes use PED's. It doesn't matter which sport you point to, if there is a large amount of money to be made, PED's are on the menu. Professional gamers are using PED's to the point where they are considering testing for video gamers. That's how bad it is. If you think most athletes are clean, you are high on crack.
And yet I never said that I thought most athletes were clean, only that this poll and how it's being applied doesn't prove anything, hence why you're moving the goal post.

It's astounding that I need to go in such detail in explaining something so simple.
 
Unless you are Usain Bolt, I doubt track and field athletes can afford that much more than fighters. Also the failing rate is similar(1-2%) so it is fair to assume a similar doping prevalence in the UFC

Only difference is that a LOT of high level athletes fail.

Tyson Gay, Marion Jones, Asafa Powell.

Olmypic athletes are the worst. You aren't the best on the planet clean, it simply doesn't happen. Icarus is a good example of how that works because countries are willing to even state sponsor the cheating. Track athletes are definitely not natty. The one that really hurt people was Carl Lewis. Carl was a gdamn track and field legend, the guy was a hero. Even he used. Ben Johnson broke Carl's world record in the 100 meters and then got caught juicing so they took away his medal and record but they reinstated the record to Carl, who also used PED's lol.
 
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.
Indeed, that is why they say it probably underestimate the real proportion
 
And yet I never said that I thought most athletes were clean, only that this poll and how it's being applied doesn't prove anything, hence why you're moving the goal post.

It's astounding that I need to go in such detail in explaining something so simple.

I don't give a fuck about the poll. The number of pro athletes using PED's is higher than what the poll predicts.
 
Jones should go talk to the Track and Field guys. They seems much better at hiding their toxins!
 
Indeed, that is why they say it probably underestimate the real proportion

If you can get to the top of your chosen profession and that translates to millions of dollars, is it worth the risk? Hell yes its worth it. Look at a sport like MMA, it is not known as a high paying sport. Lets say Jon Jones never fights again. His estimated net worth is 10 million dollars. Was it worth it? I would guess hell yes it was worth it. Now imagine other high paying sports. These guys don't get to the top in that sort of competitive environment, with millions of dollars on the table clean. There is too much at stake.
 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40279-017-0765-4

For the full study, just google its title

Note: This study was done in 2011 and funded by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), but only now did they release the results, it is fair to assume that WADA didn't like the conclusions

Cliffs:
- Historically, only 1-2% of athletes test positive, this figure is consistent with the UFC's USADA program results
- Scientists asked athletes in two elite tested sporting events (Track and Field) whether or not they are on PEDs utilizing a "randomized response technique" which guarantees anonymity for individuals when answering a sensitive question

- Results:
in the first competition(WCA), the prevalence of past-year doping was 43.6% (95% confidence interval 39.4–47.9)
in the second competition(PAG), 57.1% (52.4–61.8)

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."

-
Conclusion:

Doping appears remarkably widespread among elite athletes, and remains largely unchecked despite current biological testing. The survey technique presented here will allow future investigators to generate continued reference estimates of the prevalence of doping.

Just lol @ people who think top athletes are clean

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)
 
took hundreds of drug tests in sambo and judo tournaments (organizations that are clients of the world Anti doping agency) + pride fc in usa.
<28>
No. He didn't.

Sambo and judo it just about took that many samples across all athletes in that time.

Pretty much only time you got tested in those sports was of you won a medal. And that was in comp so you knew it was coming

Bear in mind Wada publish all this data from signatory sports so you can check quite easily.
 
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 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.

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%

They didn't directly ask the athlete if he were doping, but the authors did acknowledge that these results are an underestimation
 
Unless you are Usain Bolt, I doubt track and field athletes can afford that much more than fighters. Also the failing rate is similar(1-2%) so it is fair to assume a similar doping prevalence in the UFC

I would argue that althought it is very demanding physically, MMA has a higher skill & technique aspect (as oposed to purely athletic ability) compared to track and field, who also have a technical aspect of couse, leading to less interest in doping than track and field.
a fat slob trained to run technically will not outsprint a natural athlete with no specific running technique.
a grappling trained fat slob will often beat an atletic guy with no combat sport training.
 
Back
Top