IAAF: "road running industry is approaching a doping scandal... worst in sport"

The fact that Khalid Khannouchi now has like the 75th fastest marathon time ever is just laughable. This recent wave of 2:03/2:04 times are all aided by the marinara sauce. Don't give me this nonsense about "younger athletes doing the marathon sooner" or some other line of BS. These are doped times.

Lord Coe is smart to axe the 5/10k on the track. Complete freakshow events. Cheats like "Rhonex" can chase 26:40 or whatever on the road. Keep this fake shiz off the track.

It's a matter of opinion. I don't believe it's reasonable to ask someone to choose between something that legitimately relieves some of the problems of aging and personally would not be bothered if I lost an age group prize to someone like that. If we're talking about making a national team or winning significant prize money I'd feel differently. But that's just me. I do like your suggestion. But I suspect a lot of people taking something would go ahead and enter as a competitor anyway and get away with it because most road races don't have the resources to test. And if we're really serious about catching people we'd have to do out of competition for age group runners which would divert time and money from doing it for open athletes.

rekrunner wrote:

This is something I like to call "argument from ignorance"

Lack of testing is an anti-doping problem -- we do not "need to assume that they are dirty", simply because we haven't looked yet.

Even at 24% OOC testing, if use is high, it would eventually be detected across 6 podium finishes per 50 Gold Label races per year.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Look numerous posters have been pointing out that the dirty runners from the epo era switched to the roads. If they aren't being tested and they are winning gold label events you all need to assume that they are dirty, sadly not the other way around, not given the times they are running. Road running is currently undergoing a PED extravaganza.

Misleading - we're not assuming they're dirty "simply because we haven't looked yet"; we're assuming they're dirty (many of them, anyway) based largely on the known history of drugs in sport.

As far as your comment about how with even a low testing rate, over enough races doping will be caught: well, some doping IS being caught, as one would expect. And I think it goes without saying that not EVERYBODY who dopes gets caught. It is well-known that there are ways of masking doping, of explaining away positive results, of not testing positive just due to timing, of generous test parameters allowing positive results to slide by, etc.

Look at it this way: if 100% of podium finishers were actually doping, and they all were subject to OOC testing, what percentage of them do you think would actually test positive in any given year?

Important points here. As a masters runner I am regularly competing against "pharmaceutically aided" athletes.

These inlude:

1. People who rail against "dopers" but could not train, let along race, without their cocktail of statin, antihypertensive, anti-inflammatories etc, and who regard themselves as healthy despite their reliance on prescription meds. Most masters competitors, especially in the US, seem to subscribe to the idea that taking prescription meds is a normal part of ageing.

"Nearly 70 percent of Americans are on at least one prescription drug, and more than half take two, Mayo Clinic and Olmsted Medical Center researchers say" (2013 stat).

All these meds are performance-enhancing, even if they are not categorised as such by WADA.

2. People who are on testosterone "replacement" and regard that as life-saving, or at the very least life-extending, and know they can get away with it because they are never going to be tested. And

3. People with TUEs for performance-enhancing drugs.

I should have the right to know who I'm competing against, so anyone who is awarded a TUE should be identified as such with as asterisk by their name on entry lists and in results. Keep confidentially - I don't need to know what the drug is or why they are allowed it, but I think it would be fair to know that they are competing with a TUE.

I know a lot about statins and antihypertensive drugs, and they are NOT performance-enhancing.

NSAID’s (e.g. ibuprofen “vitamin I) are a totally different ball game.

In the local running scenes the biggest doping is SARMs and Cardarine. Altho I’m sure it’s used by sub elites and elites as well.

So...you list people who are on medications as one of your categories. And then later you write that those with TUEs should be identified as such.

What is your take on those who are on medications that do NOT require TUEs? Should we disclose those? If so, is it all medications, or just ones that you see as suspect but don't require a TUE? I'm thinking about things like birth control pills, epi-pens, topical acne medications, etc. Do those need to be disclosed? What about OTC medications? What about medications that are prescription in some countries, and OTC in others (Voltaren being a good example).

BTW, I would have no issue with disclosing every medication I'm on if asked, or with having an asterisk by my name as someone who takes prescription meds - I really believe in openness here. But just curious if that is your position also.

You make a good point in noting that nearly all meds are performance enhancing, in so far as they improve the individual's health, and a healthy athlete is going to perform better than that same athlete with health concerns. I think that's one of the tricky issues here. It seems to me that WADA draws the line based on whether the medication would improve the performance of a healthy athlete, though they don't explicitly state that.

[WADA's official criteria are 2 of the 3:

It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance;

It represents an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete;

It violates the spirit of sport]

Charlesvdw wrote:

I know a lot about statins and antihypertensive drugs, and they are NOT performance-enhancing.

Depends on the sport - Beta Blockers are considered performance enhancing in certain sports, including archery and biathlon, and you need a TUE for them in those sports.

[ "road running industry is approaching a doping scandal... worst in sport"

This message brought to you by the doping testing industry.

Your response assume a 100 percent success rate in detection. We all know that’s not the case since many people were tested and not caught before eventually being caught.

rekrunner wrote:

This is something I like to call "argument from ignorance"

Lack of testing is an anti-doping problem -- we do not "need to assume that they are dirty", simply because we haven't looked yet.

Even at 24% OOC testing, if use is high, it would eventually be detected across 6 podium finishes per 50 Gold Label races per year.

Subway Surfers wrote:

Look numerous posters have been pointing out that the dirty runners from the epo era switched to the roads. If they aren't being tested and they are winning gold label events you all need to assume that they are dirty, sadly not the other way around, not given the times they are running. Road running is currently undergoing a PED extravaganza.

big dave22 wrote:

The fact that Khalid Khannouchi now has like the 75th fastest marathon time ever is just laughable. This recent wave of 2:03/2:04 times are all aided by the marinara sauce. Don't give me this nonsense about "younger athletes doing the marathon sooner" or some other line of BS. These are doped times.

Lord Coe is smart to axe the 5/10k on the track. Complete freakshow events. Cheats like "Rhonex" can chase 26:40 or whatever on the road. Keep this fake shiz off the track.

The fact that you are insinuating KK was clean is an even more preposterous idea.

Question is why is the sport's authority, apparently deliberately, not testing ?

Why wouldn't the IAAF test at its major road meets ?

Charlesvdw wrote:

I know a lot about statins and antihypertensive drugs, and they are NOT performance-enhancing.

NSAID’s (e.g. ibuprofen “vitamin I) are a totally different ball game.

100%. Dude lost all credibility to his post when he stated that. Pretty clueless.

I'm all for increasing funding for anti-doping, and improving visibility with more OOC testing. Regarding your "history", we do have a little insight into podiums of Olympic and WC marathon road races. 40 out of 60 Gold Label events are in the marathon. Since it is rare to specialize in the semi-marathon, many of the semi-marathon athletes (17 Gold Label events) likely participate in the marathon too. When the IAAF blood data was leaked, the Sunday Times gave us an estimated breakdown of podium finishes for the marathon in the World Championships and Olympics, coming in at a comparatively low 11% "suspicious", compared to track events ranging from 28% to 54%. There are some issues with 11%, the comparison still seems relavent, and it suggests your 100% doping hypothetical is quite far from realistic. We also have visibility of which kind of anti-doping testing is most effective. In the 2016 WADA ADRV report (the latest available), we see most of the detection of doping is still done with In Competition Urine tests. Here is the 2016 Breakdown for Athletics: Urine OOC: 44 Urine IC: 107 Blood OOC: 3 Blood IC: 4 Non-Analytical (ABP): 47 (including 21 from Russia; 6 from Morocco; 4 for US; 1 or 2 for various countries) Similarly for Cycling: Urine OOC: 23 Urine IC: 108 Blood OOC: 1 Blood IC: 11 Non-Analytical (ABP): 22 The primary success of OOC blood tests is not detection, even when factoring in the ABP, but as a deterrent.

Golge wrote:

Misleading - we're not assuming they're dirty "simply because we haven't looked yet"; we're assuming they're dirty (many of them, anyway) based largely on the known history of drugs in sport.

As far as your comment about how with even a low testing rate, over enough races doping will be caught: well, some doping IS being caught, as one would expect. And I think it goes without saying that not EVERYBODY who dopes gets caught. It is well-known that there are ways of masking doping, of explaining away positive results, of not testing positive just due to timing, of generous test parameters allowing positive results to slide by, etc.

Look at it this way: if 100% of podium finishers were actually doping, and they all were subject to OOC testing, what percentage of them do you think would actually test positive in any given year?

No it doesn't. It only assumes greater than 0 percent. In any case, as I have just shown, according to WADA, blood OOC testing does not lead to many detections, even when counting the ABP.

Argument from ignorance wrote:

Your response assume a 100 percent success rate in detection. We all know that’s not the case since many people were tested and not caught before eventually being caught.

rekrunner wrote:

This is something I like to call "argument from ignorance"

Lack of testing is an anti-doping problem -- we do not "need to assume that they are dirty", simply because we haven't looked yet.

Even at 24% OOC testing, if use is high, it would eventually be detected across 6 podium finishes per 50 Gold Label races per year.

The IAAF does test at the road meets. The presentation was regarding out-of-competition testing (so not at, but before) in the lead-up (up to 6 months) to the race.

lgr56 wrote:

Question is why is the sport's authority, apparently deliberately, not testing ?

Why wouldn't the IAAF test at its major road meets ?

Sweet and salty Moroccans wrote:

big dave22 wrote:

The fact that Khalid Khannouchi now has like the 75th fastest marathon time ever is just laughable. This recent wave of 2:03/2:04 times are all aided by the marinara sauce. Don't give me this nonsense about "younger athletes doing the marathon sooner" or some other line of BS. These are doped times.

Lord Coe is smart to axe the 5/10k on the track. Complete freakshow events. Cheats like "Rhonex" can chase 26:40 or whatever on the road. Keep this fake shiz off the track.

The fact that you are insinuating KK was clean is an even more preposterous idea.

I know, sometimes Letsrun is far funnier than modern comedians.

Why was my comment deleted? All I said was, "I am right".:

BergLaufer wrote:

Usually you can't be all full rocket sauce mode at track races like road races. I predict a 27:20-27:40 time for him.

And some of you wonder why Wanders run mediocre times on the track and run sub 60 minutes for the half on the road.

Sweet and salty Moroccans wrote:

big dave22 wrote:

The fact that Khalid Khannouchi now has like the 75th fastest marathon time ever is just laughable. This recent wave of 2:03/2:04 times are all aided by the marinara sauce. Don't give me this nonsense about "younger athletes doing the marathon sooner" or some other line of BS. These are doped times.

Lord Coe is smart to axe the 5/10k on the track. Complete freakshow events. Cheats like "Rhonex" can chase 26:40 or whatever on the road. Keep this fake shiz off the track.

The fact that you are insinuating KK was clean is an even more preposterous idea.

Nah I wasn't insinuating that.

I remember watching Chicago, when he first broke 2:06. Blew my mind. It was a big deal, a huge barrier broken. Appeared to be a record that would stand the test of time.

Now it's an afterthought. Mo Farah runs faster and people say he's not cut out for the marathon.

KK may have been one doped dude, but he has nothing on the cabal of E. African "teenagers" loaded on the marinara sauce. We've reached peak clown world.