WHAT? The drugs that were making cyclists go faster work for other athletes as well?

fukawitribe wrote:

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Which is why I will keep espousing that the big winners are usually the biggest cheats.

..of course they are. What you keep espousing, however, is that every single one of the winners are cheating - that's somewhat different and perhaps not what Gizmo_ was saying (although I may have that wrong, apologies to him if so).

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Olympians themselves have confessed as much; given the chance to cheat without being caught the greater majority said they would.....

Well I suppose "the greater majority" is better than the "virtually 100%" you've previously quoted. I'd ask again, which poll was that ? Answers to variants of Goldman / Mirkin i've seen (including removing the terminal behaviour) haven't come up with anything remotely like that so i'd be interested to know some more. Any links please ?

Well I guess I ought to apologise. It was Goldman's survey, so just over 50% said they would take a PED if it guaranteed them undetectable victories for five years, even if it was followed by instant death....I guess something the guys at Androni Giacotolli subscribed to. To be honest with you, and I really care what you think Fukwit, it's not the percentage that counts, but more the anthropological motivation and capability, because if you have read up on these things you know how far athletes will go. It sounds like you have.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Well I guess I ought to apologise. It was Goldman's survey, so just over 50% said they would take a PED if it guaranteed them undetectable victories for five years, even if it was followed by instant death....I guess something the guys at Androni Giacotolli subscribed to. To be honest with you, and I really care what you think Fukwit, it's not the percentage that counts, but more the anthropological motivation and capability, because if you have read up on these things you know how far athletes will go. It sounds like you have.

Firstly thanks for the arg. ad hominem.

As for the survey, as you have read up on this you'll be aware of the discussion around the Mirkin / Goldman results and the more recent research by James Connor et al (some of the results of which are similarly contentious) - hence my question. As for motivation, yes - i'm aware that there is huge incentive to cheat in all forms of competition and i've never said anything to suggest that I believe that doping is not still rife in all elite competitive sport (and elsewhere).

Where I draw the line is to insist, as you seem to do, that that implies that all winners in these sports are necessarily cheating - even by your much quoted survey nearly half the respondents would not take the magic bullet and there is little analysis on the reason for that. What i'm not sure I understand is why you believe that all the winners have to be cheating even if there are others that are ? Physiologically it isn't a requirement and opportunity and incentive do not always lead to action. Statistically I find it hard to believe that out of the huge number of winners in elite competitions so few have been detected cheating or having anomalous values (including retrospectively) if they are all doping - even given the difficulty in analytical detection. I don't think that's entirely unreasonable position but obviously YMMV.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

Which is why I will keep espousing that the big winners are usually the biggest cheats.

..of course they are. What you keep espousing, however, is that every single one of the winners are cheating - that's somewhat different and perhaps not what Gizmo_ was saying (although I may have that wrong, apologies to him if so).

Correct, that's not what I'm saying. There are clearly some clean winners. There are some athletes who appear to 'develop overnight' and I still believe they are clean. There are some who dope and still lose, and some who dope to win.

I've said before that we all have our personal 'sh#t list' of people who we believe to be cheats. For me Vino in 2012 was probably doped but also he clearly paid Uran to look the other way. I personally believe Kelly Holmes' two golds in 2004 bear close scrutiny (after moving to train with the equally suspicious Maria Mutola and gaining a suddenly different physique after ten years of training). Serena Williams, enough said. Usain Bolt: sorry, I don't buy the "he's got long legs" thing.

And today we hear about lots of swimmers - well, anyone who saw the Olympic pool in 2012 saw some incredible performances.