Doping Red Flags

These lists are made to imply that anyone faster than certain crowd favorites are dopers, but that the favorites themselves, along with the list-makers when they are not those runners, are not dopers. Of course, when the lists implicate the favorites as well as the "obvious" dopers, then they are not hard and fast in those cases but applicable otherwise.

agip wrote:

GP Runner wrote:

8. A long plateau followed by a massive breakthrough after the age of 30:

hey, NIck Willis is being called out. He is PRing bigtime at 1500 past age 30 after a long plateau.

I'm kidding - I don't thnk Willis is a doper. I bring it up to point out that lists like this aren't meant to be hard and fast - just sort of brain noodles.

I agree that "1" is a red flag but only if it is amended to "having a coach that has previously been involved in doping" not just "doping allegations". Just because other runners, coaches etc make up unsubstantiated rumours or "allegations" about a coach doesn't mean that they should be avoided like the plague - its just that athletes going to them need to do their own due diligence to try to settle their minds about whether the rumours or "allegations" have any foundation.

"7" I disagree with fundamentally. If a coach is looking for legal advantages, they are legal advantages. I have no problem with athletes taking supplements or chemicals if they are not illegal.

"8" I don't think you can be that precise. Not everyone aged 30 is the same, and just because an athlete was only achieving 90% of their potential aged 26-29 doesn't mean that aged 30 they can't find the secret to unlocking that - it just means that they should look back to their earlier years and reflect on how much better they could have been.

"9" is also a little doubtful - yes, if you were running 12:50 for 5k once a week, every week for 52 weeks without injury then that would be unusual. But the reality is that we rarely see athletes like that, they may have multiple peaks or be able to retain that peak for longer, but even athletes that race frequently will have 6-8 week periods throughout the year allowing for some cut back.

"10" is just nonsense - races are won or lost in the last 200m, so everyone that wins must by this definition be a doper. If you are not better than your competitors in the last 200m, you won't be a winner, doping or no doping.

you don't think an elite would know what was going on more than you armchair know it alls?

9. Excessive facial hair on a woman.

For females it's pretty obvious. I think their stomach muscles are a dead giveaway. Although we can't look at this more closely, the size of the clitoris probably indicates steroid abuse too.

GP Runner wrote:

9. Being on all year… it is soooooo hard to naturally be at the best for more than 3 months at a time. This athlete has recently started running very well indoors as well as the stated PB's outdoors

I feel like you're calling out Rupp with this? Anyway you can run well indoors and outdoors... there's a lot of time in between the seasons to train hard and take a break from racing. In fact I can't think of anyone who's on all year, dopers least of all. Think about the more egregious dopers that have been caught recently, like Rashid Ramzi or Sergio Sanchez, or the Russian women. All of them disappear for long periods of time with no racing, only to bust out crazy performances seemingly out of nowhere. This is how you HAVE to do it if you're doping with something big. You hide away doing tons of PEDs and putting in superhuman training, then you get off the dope for a short period of time to do a couple races and not test positive.

Haven't read the article, but for me a HUGE one, maybe the biggest:

-Their governing federation has a history of corruption

also

- No OOC blood testing (historically Jamaica, Ethiopia, Kenya, etc.)

and finally

-Failed an "A" sample

-Citizenship issues

B-Sample wrote:

-Failed an "A" sample

This is a dead giveaway.

The only doping red flag that matters:

Anyone running faster than me must be doping.

I believe he was calling out Mo... He is over 30 and has set indoor records along with his outdoor success.

His 2mile is fairly weak comparatively. If he was at his peak, he could probably go under 8.

Even if he is guilty, it would be covered up. Same goes for Bolt, since they are probably the two biggest stars track and field has to offer.

The red flags in the article pretty much match up with my thoughts on red flags.

I would add, traveling to a particular location (other country, other state, hemisphere) for training. Along with athletes being busted after having been to the location/training group. My primary example in the US would be Albuquerque. Lots of elites were training there when the Russian Pharmacy was open and there were multiple athletes busted or associates (manager, spouse) on the return home. To be serious about catching dopers, you have to go with the guilt by association approach.

I'm pretty sure OP is calling out Rowbury.

I forgot:

Accessible over-the-counter or under-the-counter PEDs (e.g. Christian Hesch was running over the border to Tijuana).

also: training with L.Shvetsov back in the '90s/2000s

analyze this wrote:

you don't think an elite would know what was going on more than you armchair know it alls?

I know that elites are driven by a self belief in their own abilities, and that this colours their opinion as to whether they believe anyone else can be better than them without resorting to alternative means.

I reject the argument that just because an elite says something it necessarily has to be taken as gospel.

What I would like to see is a spreadsheet of T&F dopers convicted over the last few years and see how many of those risk factors actually turn up in their bios. If that proves the point, sobeit, I'm always happy to see / hear evidence.

The article was not written by a top American distance runner, it was written by an ex-runner, ex-coach and current businessman. The list has a few good points, but most of it is subjective and reflects in my opinion a personal bias towards a certain athlete/coach/training group. One of the weaker points is "the group/coach is constantly looking for “legal” advantages". Elite athletes and coaches are always looking for anything and everything that will make them better. Elite athletes will drink cow piss if they think it will make them better and so long as it is 'legal'.

He thinks that coaches don't make a difference but also thinks that the only explanation as to why some athletes are better than others in the last 200 is doping...

This shows the mentality of this person. Are they are a failed coach by any chance?

He also thinks that if your husband/wife has an interest in your running career then you are a doping suspect.

And if you are shy and not an outgoing centre of attention type of personality that you are a doping suspect.

It is a stupid list.

obliques wrote:

For females it's pretty obvious. I think their stomach muscles are a dead giveaway. Although we can't look at this more closely, the size of the clitoris probably indicates steroid abuse too.

Challenge accepted!!

Dreamersmartaz wrote:

obliques wrote:

For females it's pretty obvious. I think their stomach muscles are a dead giveaway. Although we can't look at this more closely, the size of the clitoris probably indicates steroid abuse too.

Challenge accepted!!

GREAT! You get to start with the hammer and shot throwers.

TY for volunteering.

Whilst I agree with many of the red flags, the point I was trying to make is that its difficult to subjectively match some of those red flags to an individual athlete and declare them guilty (or wipe them off an all time list) Just as it is also difficult to say someone is as clean as the given snow if they dont fit one of those red flags (or they come from your country - 'one of our own wouldnt do drugs....')