You're granted a one-time use magical power to know with 100% certainty if a T&F athlete used any PEDs. Who would you choose?

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

I would go for Bolt, simply because he’s the Goat. (His 100m pb ++). And if he was clean (my first guesses -but based on almost nothing admittedly) authority to my view on achievements or progression as bull as markers for doping would increase substantially… Not that this is all that is needed -we can still extrapolate from Elliot and Snell and Ryun (their doping options fairly limited -amphetamine not that suitable) to El Guerrouj (good, but not sensational good relative speaking)…

I wouldn’t cast away my magical boost ability on Jakob. -Pretty sure he’s clean. (The Norwegian regime of even using a portable testing wagon during covid to keep up isn’t that important to me -athletes may have their contra measurements, according to experienced scientists -my view is based on repeated sayings from Jakob: That his dream is to realise and unveil his potential to see what it is! And my interpretation of his words is this: He’s not here to see how fast dope can run. And his sayings of “becoming the greatest ever” doesn’t (in my reading) mean that he sees his times never being beaten in the 1500m. -He has discovered a possibility to be the one to break El Guerrouj’s and Komen’s and Cheptegei’s records (and that would indeed make him the greatest ever); not because of a freak talent, but because he knows how to train and getting his potential out… And the Worlds and Olympics are of course important, but not per se; I’m pretty sure he doesn’t want to win the 5000m because of being the best 1500m runner in the field, nor the 1500m because somebody acted as a rabbit. I think he regards the how he wins the championships (by pure dominance and revelation of potential -simply being the best, and not the guy with the best day, luck, tactics or team mates) as fare more important than the golds in them selves… And I think he’s quite aware of himself being a marginal talent in the 1500m, and can live very well by a new WR breaking athlete in the event f.ex a year after he himself permanently has moved up in distances (post setting the 1500m / mile WRs himself)…

I wouldn’t waste my one time doping insight on El Guerrouj or Lagat or Cheptegei or Bekele or Kiplimo or Kipchoge. -None of them have to be dirty -they can simply be better talents than Jakob (if considered more impressive than him, in some distances, essentially everything being adjusted for better shoes / tracks an so on)…

Conclusion: One doping / none doping assertion isn’t enough -we need a lot. And maybe we then would se fare more doping than expected. But maybe also some unexpected clean….

A genie wrote:

Expanding off the subject:

- Assume the public knows you received this power and HAS TO accept what you find out (and you are required to truthfully share it). Basically, these message boards can't be full of posts saying you're lying or "how can we trust the magic actually worked?"

- You would also learn how each instance of PEDs got in athlete X's body (for the cases like Shelby's, Gatlin, Ajee Wilson, etc.), and where they got it from. This could potentially expose a dirty coach / agent as well.

- You can pick an active or retired athlete.

- WA and any other organizations are still free to do whatever they want after learning this information. They will also treat it as fact.

Curious how many people here would use this power to go after something they think was doping vs. try to prove their favorite athlete was clean? Keep in mind, the answer you get might be the opposite of what you were hoping for!

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Because doping is right through the top level of the sport - all sports - and it defies all understanding of why athletes dope and how it works to believe the very best clean athletes are superior to the very best doped athletes when the talent margins are so small at that level.

Both you and I (me also under the handle “est un autre”) try to say something real about the doping problem by using logic -but logic is a fragile thing, as seen by philosophers and scientists throughout history, who have been horribly wrong… Because logic without hypothesis to be tested / falsifiable is just a too dangerous approach to reality..!

In this last post you emphasise this logic (if I get you right): In an event, f.ex men’s 5000m, one can have 10-15 athletes with (clean) upper ceiling 12.45. -If f.ex 5 of these dope they will go through the roof (or floor or whatever), meaning f.ex 12.40 +-, with the best some ten sec (or more) below the natural 12.45…

I admit that the example above sounds logical. And the way the doping is administered can be something like this: The athletes micro dose their drug just after the daily one hour window for testing, knowing the parameters in the blood / urine will be too low 24 hours later to be popped, or use sophisticated none detectable methods, and knowing that even if their blood pass will be effected the ceiling is too high to give any real problems. And one can also use two failed “whereabouts” a year…-All this is not my invention / speculation; researchers in WADA have said that they can see (from the fluctuations in the ABPs) that something like this is going on in a significantly % of the athletes’ blood / urine samples…

So here is my problematisation: There’s not 10-15 clean athletes around 12.45, because such an estimate doesn’t account for a natural diversity that occurs in this event. Meaning: Some of the 12.45 guys may be 12.50 / 55 but doped, whereas some may be clean. And the guys with below 12.45 capacity / prs: Some may be clean and some doped. And of course the best (f.ex Cheptegei / Jakob / Aregawi / Kiplimo) may very well be clean (or f.ex only one of them doped) if the bulk / everyone of the dopers had a 12.50 / 12.55 natural ceiling (but now being 12.45ers because of the dope)… An unlikely and “to good to be true” example? Maybe or maybe not -we just don’t know! Is it unlikely that there is such a huge gap between elite athletes that some who dope never will catch up with the clean ones -yes; if the ones who choose to dope are far (enough) behind in their clean starting point. So what is the realism here? -Have there been clean athletes before in the history of the sport with a huge gap to their competitors? Yes, f.ex Herb Elliot. Wouldn’t he have won gold in 1960 if his competitors had micro doped? - I would say he would have won anyways..! (Nearly 3 sec winning margin).

Armstronglivs wrote:

Doping has developed more than anything else in the sport - more than training and more than shoes - because science, medicine and pharmaceuticals are constantly evolving, whereas the principles of training have changed little in decades and shoes are technologically rudimentary compared to drugs. But until the early seventies doping wasn't known to be a significant feature in distance running because the drugs before that era were not known to enhance stamina - as blood doping and, later, EPO were found to do. The drugs that were available were mainly in the nature of steroids, that aided strength, and stimulants, like amphetamines, and were used chiefly by athletes in speed, strength and field events.

But once the genie was let out of the bottle athletes would use whatever would give them an edge, and so doping became endemic in sport and big business. The result is that it is now impossible to separate doping from the sport, whereas in Elliott's era you would have been pressed to find it.

What this means is that in the more distant past it was likely the best in the sport weren't doped, whereas now the reverse probably applies. It is hard to imagine athletes today making championship finals if they aren't doped, let alone winning or medalling. The reason is simple; they are going to be better if they dope - sometimes much better - and when the differences in ability at the top are so small the gains from drugs will make all the difference in outcome.

A genie wrote:

Expanding off the subject:

- Assume the public knows you received this power and HAS TO accept what you find out (and you are required to truthfully share it). Basically, these message boards can't be full of posts saying you're lying or "how can we trust the magic actually worked?"

- You would also learn how each instance of PEDs got in athlete X's body (for the cases like Shelby's, Gatlin, Ajee Wilson, etc.), and where they got it from. This could potentially expose a dirty coach / agent as well.

- You can pick an active or retired athlete.

- WA and any other organizations are still free to do whatever they want after learning this information. They will also treat it as fact.

Curious how many people here would use this power to go after something they think was doping vs. try to prove their favorite athlete was clean? Keep in mind, the answer you get might be the opposite of what you were hoping for!