- recently an AIU-expert gave expert testimony that on the order of 1 in 10,000 pork eaters, from as many as 12,000 pigs a year across America, could unknowingly ingest nandrolone, and test positive.
Who? Did they really say that, or are those your words?
Seriously dude, haven't you ruined enough Shelby threads with your trolling?
- recently an AIU-expert gave expert testimony that on the order of 1 in 10,000 pork eaters, from as many as 12,000 pigs a year across America, could unknowingly ingest nandrolone, and test positive.
Who? Did they really say that, or are those your words?
Seriously dude, haven't you ruined enough Shelby threads with your trolling?
That AIU-expert gave us the order of magnitude. I multiplied that with annual statistics of slaughtered pigs.
I haven't ruined any threads with trolling because I don't troll.
I think this would be a good anonymous letsrun poll.
Agreed. I asked in the first place because I'm also perplexed that there may be people out there who are doping even though there's no tangible benefit for them. Maybe they just don't think of doping as cheating and want to see what they're capable of?
This is where I land on it. I have no moral objection to doping at the amateur or elite level. I want to see how fast I can run, and if it takes some grey area or even banned stuff to get there, I’d rather try it than not and never know.
I actually think it is more prevelent than most people would think. Think about how much money the borderline boston qualifier or slightly better some of these people are spendin to get there. This group jumped right on getting the new nike sneakers to get the extra percent, a lot of them pay a lot of money for an online coach that they can text all the time, their instagrams are all about how fast they are ect. At some point they take the basic step of nutrition and supplements and then it's who cares if I take this or that I'm not pro.
I run with a big club and don't know of anyone doping or doing sketchy supplements. I will say that if I were to do it, it would simply be a means to avoid injury. I seem to be at a point in life where even modest 40-55 mpw training with 2 workouts makes me feel like I'm riding the edge of hamstring strains. However, I'm not sure it would be worth the side effects (such as severely diminishing natural testosterone production/possible infertility).
Interesting question, I think the numbers would be very low, below 5% but that's just a guess.
My question is: Does intent matter? If someone is taking TRT and any other shots and supplements just to feel better as they age, NOT specifically to run faster, is that doping? Obviously it matters for the elites and those competing for money and medals, but for back of the packers, who cares?
Around me, these "anti-aging" clinics are very prevalent. A lot of people over 40 take their juice. I think it's primarily middle aged men and women who want to look and feel younger. For a percentage of those, 'feeling younger' might include achieve race times from their youth. I don't think it's the majority of hobby joggers. But if I had to venture a guess, it's probably 10% among masters hobby joggers. I'd guess it's even higher and more intense among sub-elites, since there's a big draw to turn 'sub-elite' into elite.
I avoid it, not only because I think it's a form of cheating, but also because I don't want the side effects and health risks. Perhaps I'm more at peace with the aging process than some. I don't know.
After working in a tri-sport store and conducting road races. I have lots of stories of hobby joggers cheating and high school kids defended by their moms when caught cheating. Some locals take boasting to their friends and winning in the age group category too seriously. They think it's not hurting anyone because it's not lucrative and therefore no big deal. But the parents (specifically the moms) didn't seem ashamed to cause a scene defending their kids cheating. They're not looks up cause and effects of substances. If they can buy it they feel it's safe enough. They will never be drug tested and they don't think it's a big deal. I worked at a tri-sport store. And going off subject. I would love to tell you why Mary Cain is not going to win any major tri events. But this comment would be too long.
Leaving aside the moral and ethical standpoints, for elite/sub-elite masters to anyone with an ounce of common sense, the risks/negatives of TRT or DHEA far outweigh the potential benefits.
I actually think it is more prevelent than most people would think. Think about how much money the borderline boston qualifier or slightly better some of these people are spendin to get there. This group jumped right on getting the new nike sneakers to get the extra percent, a lot of them pay a lot of money for an online coach that they can text all the time, their instagrams are all about how fast they are ect. At some point they take the basic step of nutrition and supplements and then it's who cares if I take this or that I'm not pro.
Big difference in buying a faster pair of shoes or having an on-line coach and taking DHEA. I've done both of the first two - the faster shoes are a legal advantage you are giving up if you don't have them - and I got coached for a while as I'd gone down a wormhole with my own training.
Neither a better shoe, nor a coach are, however, health-endangering. DHEA, for which the benefits are very questionable anyway, certainly has risk elements. TRT, similarly comes with risk which is certainly not worth it except for those who are unfortunate enough to genuinely need.
There are very, very few strongly performance enhancing substances that don't come with high-risk of negative side effects. That's why you can't have an 'everyone take what they like approach.' There would always be the Achilles types that would take the 'short, glorious life' approach, and that would be the end of the sport other than in a coliseum type situation. You certainly couldn't promote it as a healthy activity anymore, and would thus remove its base.
Agreed. I asked in the first place because I'm also perplexed that there may be people out there who are doping even though there's no tangible benefit for them. Maybe they just don't think of doping as cheating and want to see what they're capable of?
This is where I land on it. I have no moral objection to doping at the amateur or elite level. I want to see how fast I can run, and if it takes some grey area or even banned stuff to get there, I’d rather try it than not and never know.
I disagree. If I go to one of the larger local road races (or a track meet or whatever), I want to do as well as I can in my age group. At age 50+, that is really all I have left; it's not like I'm going to be competitive in the overall. So I'm not crazy about the idea of competing against people who think it's okay to cheat because they personally have no moral objection to PEDs and they'd "rather try it [PEDs] than not and never know". That attitude would be fine if you were the only one affected. How about sticking to solo time trials, and not running in races in which your competitors are playing by the rules and you aren't?
I mean, I guess I can see PEDs being a "to each his own" thing. I don't have any objection to a 50+ runner (or any age for that matter) taking all the HgH, testosterone, EPO, stimulants, and whatever else suits their fancy, as long as they stay out of races.
Just looking at the responses here openly admitting banned substance use, it is clear this is stastically significant. The fact that the anti-aging industry exists and is huge is another indicator. As a masters runner competing in usatf nat champs, I have been moved up in the results several times based on random testing. This points to many more using than are caught.
The attitude of "at this level, who cares" is a justification. It seems to be a sad reality that a large percent of the population believes the rules only apply if they benefit and the rules don't apply if they won't benefit. We see this play out in sports, politics, work, school. It is a degradation of our society playing out.
Considering that a reasonable number of high schoolers in my day (late 90s, early 2000s) took creatine or even steroids without actually competing in a sport, I would think that the statistical significance would continue to amateur road racers.
The piece is that there is always an arbitrary line we create internally and which can keep inching. I joke with a few friends who are doctors about what I should get myself on to run like I’m 20 again and the recurring joke answer for a while now has been consistent with our lifetime of jokes about being alpha or beta and it’s the Low-T, TRT, Ryan Hall thing. One guy continues to chime in, “have you not heard of adderall?”
In small sample size of humans I know, there was also plenty of adderall use at the college level and beyond to be able to hang—either in the classroom, the office, or at a party.
I drink coffee, take B and D vitamins, and that’s about it, but compared to some this would cross a line (it would also matter volume and mode and timing of ingestion I would think).
Leaving aside the moral and ethical standpoints, for elite/sub-elite masters to anyone with an ounce of common sense, the risks/negatives of TRT or DHEA far outweigh the potential benefits.
There's some good studies on "DHEA" that show definite benefits for middle-aged & elderly people with increases in lean muscle mass/reduction in bodyfat & an increase in free testosterone in one particular study.
Other than the free testosterone study, the pathway seems to be an increase in IGF-1, which declines significantly with aging. Dennis Villareal, professor of medicine in endocrinology, diabetes & metabolism at Baylor University, has done extensive research with DHEA & aging.
The plasma levels of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and its sulfated form (DHEAS) decline ∼80% between the ages of 25 and 75 yr. Muscle mass and strength also decrease with aging. Published data on the effects of DHEA replacem...
Context Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) administration has been shown to reduce accumulation of abdominal visceral fat and protect against insulin resistance in laboratory animals, but it is not known whether DHEA decreases abd...
As a 50+ competitor who trains as much as I can in between full time career, three kids, and all the other activities that require time, I’m just happy that I’m still able to train hard as I’m getting closer to 60. The largest challenge is keeping healthy, running consistently, and not getting any chronic injuries.
I think there are several OTC basic supplements that most aging runners will benefit from. These are recommendations from running coach and mostly focus on muscle performance and recovery: BCAAs, L-glutamine, magnesium, l-carnitine. These are in addition to a good multivitamin.
I would never consider any steroid or blood enhancer. You’re playing with fire at 50+ unless there’s an absolute need for those meds. Training smarter and focusing on the details will likely yield good results.
I have been going to gyms for weight training for decades on and off and judging from that crowd there are way too many doping for no reason but vanity.
So if you extrapolate from those observations there are too many doping to achieve false gains in time, distance or whatever goal they have.
L Arginine, glutamine also helpful. If joints getting achy, good quality glucosamine is very beneficial. Also, in studies, turmeric is just as effective as ibuprofen, without many of the potential side effects.
L Arginine, glutamine also helpful. If joints getting achy, good quality glucosamine is very beneficial. Also, in studies, turmeric is just as effective as ibuprofen, without many of the potential side effects.
The effect that turmeric had on me was that it gave me the ability to s h i t through a screen door.
I don't know if it's a large number. But I think it is more prevalent in masters runners than in open runners because they can afford it and they are devastated by seeing the natural decline that comes with age. It is really plainly obvious who is doing it when you see someone who was training hard and running decent times in their mid 40s, start setting PRs in their 50s when everyone else is just trying to not slow down.
I get it that nobody should care. But if that is the case, then why have age group records since they are starting to be brought down by obvious dopers? So let's either drop age group records or require random testing for those who are at that level. But for those not setting records, it's mostly just frustrating to the peers of these runners who have to watch all of social media posts of "You are so amazing!" when one of them posts their big breakthrough PRs at age 58 when everyone else is just trying not to get injured.
Consider the amount of cheating, or not following rules and regulations, that occurs in real life.
Many people cheat on their taxes, speed or ignore other regulations when driving, use/abuse other illegal drugs, cheat on their spouse, etc.
Each individual decides if the relative value/benefit they might gain from cheating is worth the relative cost/risk they believe is involved for them to cheat.
I believe cheating in running, at all levels, is definitely statistically significant. Cheating is more prevalent by relatively faster runners, at all levels.
