this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
35 points (87.2% liked)

World News

32288 readers
880 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (10 children)

Friendly reminder that China has one of the lowest positive WADA doping test rates in the world. The US tests positive at more than 5x that rate. India tests positive at more than 15x that rate. Russia tests positive at a similar rate as the US.

The US just can't accept that WADA, which receives more funding from the US than from any other country in the world, isn't biased towards Americans. We know that 6.5 to 9.2% of US athletes are doping, anyway: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11102888/

But sure, those 6.5% to 9.2% of US athletes are all acting on their own and there's no system in place to encourage doping (as if the fact that almost 1 in 10 US athletes get away with doping isn't a system to encourage it).

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 months ago (4 children)

While China’s WADA positive test rate is indeed low, it’s higher than the Chinese anti-doping agency (CHINADA) positive test rate, by quite a significant amount, which may suggest that the national agency aren’t policing doping as closely as WADA. The USA’s national anti-doping agency (USADA) has a higher positive test rate than WADA’s, again, by quite a significant amount. Additionally, WADA has significantly higher sample rate in the US compared to the sample rate in China - despite the fact that CHINADA has a much higher sample rate than USADA.

My point isn’t that the US is better or more honest at handling doping than China, just that the analysis of doping test rates has quite a lot of variance, and it’s difficult to draw meaningful conclusions from them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I've been looking at this data for reference:

https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/2021_anti-doping_testing_figures_en.pdf

Where do you get your claims?

Either way, as another guy pointed out US athletes have a really quite absurdly high rate of TUEs. Maybe that's just because the average American is unhealthy, maybe that's just because the US healthcare system catches more of those things, but it's still odd that those athletes coincidentally take performance-enhancing drugs as medication for their medical condition. It's also odd how low the TUE rate is in other countries in comparison - WADA seems more willing to approve requests from the US, which maybe explains part of the discrepancy.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Global positive test rate is 0.67%. 25% of those are "legal" (~250). Of the illegal ones, 25 Chinese, 57 Americans, 135 Russians.

The Beijing lab reported 25 AAFs, for a 0.23% positive test rate over 10326 tests. The LA and SLC labs together reported 153 AAFs, for a 1.54% positive test rate over 9904 tests. So... Eh? Isn't this the opposite result being claimed? The US is able to run interference for a good proportion of their AAFs by claiming "medical reasons" and other bullshit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago

I feel that that it’s very difficult to formulate any real statistically significant findings from this data because you’d need way more information than we have available to us from the WADA report, personally. Your point that China has a very low rate is completely fair, and I agree with you on that, but there are just so many variables in the mix and the sample sizes are so low, I’d be uncomfortable in making a real conclusion with the data available - all you can really do is point to correlations.

I’m not arguing with you or saying you’re wrong or anything, just to be clear - just saying it’s really messy and complex. And I agree that the US is broadly pushing sinophobic propaganda as per usual.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)