Lets Think This One Through wrote:
Anyway, wasn't Coe winning medals...as in Olympic Gold? And if the East Germans & Soviets were doping like crazy, why wouldn't other European nations have some type of PED program (otherwise the E. Germans & Soviets would have ruled "everything" in T&F). Granted there wasn't any rocket fuel yet in the 70s & 80s, but there was high-octane blood doping, HGH & steroids - all beneficial to the mid-d disciplines (especially to a high-responder). I don't how a runner "wouldn't" be at a big disadvantage against another runner supercharged on blood doping & HGH. ?
Do you have any knowledge of the history of the sport from that era? The E. Germans and Soviets did rule 'everything' except the men's middle and long distance events at the time!
The contemporary consensus in the late 70's/early 80's was that steroids would benefit all power events, namely sprints and throwing. And which events were the GDR and USSR ahead of western Europe? The sprints and field events.
Any testing at the time outside of WRs and major champs would have been down to the procedures in place by the national federations and some promoters on the circuit in western Europe. The latter fact explains why most of the East Europeans best marks occurred in their own countries or at least behind the Iron Curtain. We now know that the Russians have a long, ingrained ethos of covering up and protecting their athletes from testing.
At the same time steroids, namely testosterone, was known to make a massive difference in the performances of female athletes in all events, as it made them more male like. Who dominated practically every women's events? The GDR and USSR! No British or Western European female could compete in any event.
The consensus at the time was also that steroids did not benefit male middle distance and distance runners. Yes, with hindsight we know there are some benefits, but these were not known at the time. In this area, the middle and long distances, Britain had a tradition of success, much greater than they did in the USSR and the GDR. A group of British athletes started to dominate Europe, especially in the middle distances.
Now, if this was down to use of steroids, then 2 fundamental questions need to be addressed.
1) Why were UK women and UK men in power events so far behind the East Europeans? This strongly suggests that the UK athletes, in general, were not using steroids and therefore could not keep up with those we now know were using them.
Is it a plausible argument that most UK athletes didn't use steroids, but that all our middle distance guys did? I think not.
2) If the UK's middle distance guys were using steroids, and we know that the East European men either were (Stasi lists subsequently found listed Beyer, etc), or would not have been averse to at least experimenting in an area where steroids were not considered particularly beneficial, then why were the Russian and German athletes not equally dominant in the 800 and 1500, as their female contemporaries and bulky throwing brothers were?
The most logical answer is that none of them were using steroids. Furthermore, we know that plenty of sprinters and throwers from the era were found guilty at the time or soon after of doping, but how many elite middle distance or distance runners were caught and banned for steroid use in that period. The only few I can recall were East European women; e.g Petrova, Kazankina.
In addition, the likes of Walker, Coghlan, Wessinghage, Scott, etc, are all on record as saying that they did not believe Coe or Ovett doped, or indeed any other of their peers.
As a caveat, there were 2 occasions when GDR middle distance men did run way above what they had seemed capable of before or after. They were Beyer in the European Champs 800 of 78 and Straub in the 1980 OLympic final. In both those races, they beat one or other of the 2 Brits, whose record of superiority had been previously and latterly established. What both races also had in common, were that they were held in communist, East European countries behind the Iron Curtain. Strange that the likes of Beyer and Straub ran their best times and best performances in their home country or other East European nations, but could never replicate the same level on the circuit, which admittedly they didn't run often. You can also guarantee that the Russian and Czech testers at those champs would have scrutinised the samples of Coe and Ovett like no others, and probably kept them in storage for posterity.
You go on to mention HGH. Apart from the obvious physical signs of HGH use, namely increased jaw, movement of teeth, none of which can be attributed to Coe, Ovett or Cram, it was only developed as a recombinant HGH injection in late 1981, after Coe's best years had already occurred. Moreover, Wikipedia states, "The first description of the use of GH as a doping agent was Dan Duchaine’s “Underground Steroid handbook” which emerged from California in 1982"
With regards to blood doping. The only athlete to have been caught doing so (IIRC), but only because he had traces of steroids in his blood when taken from his body, was Vainio in 84. This came after there had already been long standing whispering that it was a technique used by many of the Finnish DISTANCE runners. IIRC one other has subsequently admitted to its practise. We also have had a few Italian DISTANCE runners come forward and admit to using autologous blood doping during the 80's. These were all 5 and 10k guys. Whats more, Renato Canova has mentioned this in some of his own posts, stating that there appeared to be no benefits for some and only marginal gains for others. Indeed, one or two actually became slower.
Whatever the benefits of blood doping, and I'm sure there are for endurance events, it was a somewhat risky and dangerous procedure, and one that the only evidence of its use comes from 2 federation approved regimes; Italy and Finland. There is no other evidence, claim or story of any athlete outside of these countries using, and there is certainly no cases of 800 or 1500m runners using blood doping. Therefor there is no evidence of whether or not it would even benefit an event like 800m, which is as much anaerobic as aerobic. Coe led the way for blood doping to be made illegal in 1985. His fastest 1500m time, more endurance based than 800, came after, in 1986.
To summarise, Coe showed no physical evidence of steroid use, in fact losing racing weight over the duration of his career, was tested more often than any other athlete from the period, much of which was overseen by the agent of his main rival, Andy Norman. He would have been part of the worldwide IAAF testing programme in 89, a year in which he was still running 1:43.3 and winning a silver medal in the 1500 World Cup.
HGH didn't exist as a PED until the end of 81, after Coe had run most of his best races and times.
Blood doping has no historical record of being used by 800/1500 runners, and the only evidence of its use is with a few Italian and Finnish distance runners.
As a former British MP and as a high profile politician and head of the IAAF, there would have been more scrutiny of Coe's record as an athlete by the British and world press than perhaps any other figure in sport. If he had taken steroids, HGH or blood doped, there would have been many people privy to this information, yet no evidence has emerged in almost 40 years since his racing heyday. The logical conclusion to all the above evidence is that he did not take any PEDS or indulge in blood doping.