Jeremy Stangroom

Yep, 8 sub-elite mid/distance runners. This is what people mean when they say ‘The IOC looked at ALL THE DATA, listen to them’.

Is that supposed to be a serious study!? If so, it's utterly bonkers. Eg, we don't know anything about respective training loads before the 2 races. Or anything about a myriad of other potentially confounding variables.

2 minute read. https://www.sportsci.org/2016/WCPASabstracts/ID-1699.pdf# …

Yes, but they're trying to make the point there isn't a significant difference. That's a win for them.

If a reasonable scientist was there, they should of asked what was the design's ability to detect meaningful differences. The answer would of not been convincing.

Yes, of course. But in terms of their crappy design, null hypothesis is no difference between age-graded scores pre & post-transition (because post score is age-graded score for women). High p-values means you fail to reject null hypothesis. That's why they're being quoted.

The scientifically responsible strategy for them would of been to 1) perform an equivalence test (but the n requirement would be too large), or 2) show that if there was a true important difference they would likely have significant p-values. They went with neither strategy.