3 ms·

I think you should spend some time plotting throws of the last 20 years using performances from top athletes the worldathletics website. You'll discover that yo

I think you should spend some time plotting throws of the last 20 years using performances from top athletes the worldathletics website. You'll discover that you are mistaken. This suggestion is related to to for why the claim matters, which is familiarity with the sport (as represented by the ability to name its participants). As a longtime participant in track and field, athlete, coach, and fan, I have invariably found that people reduce perceived phenomena to doping usually have no idea what's actually going on in the sport and aren't involved in it in any substantive way. So, "show your familiarity" is a jabby heuristic to prove the point.

lelanthran 5y ago
> You'll discover that you are mistaken. Mistaken about what? That the assumption of doping is not unreasonable? After all, I didn't say the assumption of drug-use was likely correct, I said that the assumption itself is not unreasonable. > So, "show your familiarity" is a jabby heuristic to prove the point. Being involved in the subjects (say, by following their career?) is evidence of bias when drawing conclusions from data points. In other words, the heuristic is actually the other way around - if you're "familiar" with the subjects you're the wrong person to be drawing conclusions from the statistics. It's why we insist on double-blind trials for some things - the researcher has to be ignorant of the subjects involved. Being familiar with them means the conclusions are invalid.