What stupid questions are those? Why would athletes be clean in the 80s but dope in the 90s??
Or why would they dope in the past but not today?
Can I break the news for you newbies? Doping has been part of the sport: steroids and caffeine in the 1980s; HGH and EPO in the 1990's; EPO and Testosterone in the 2000's up until today, where EPO continues to dominate but there are several micro-doping strategies abounding every 3 months or so. No one is clean and no one needs to be. The sooner you simply acknowledge a level playing field the sooner you'll stop these immature posts.
There's value in honesty and safety. What are we teaching high school athletes when there's no testing but they can buy PED's off the Internet? The lesson is that dishonesty wins in life.
I'd be okay with legalizing EPO with safety limits on hematocrit and hemoglobin mass. HIF stabilizers accelerate cancer, and GW1516 was abandoned as medicine because of cancer in lab animals. AICAR is extremely expensive, at least from reputable sources.
Blood transfusions were legal until 1984 after several Olympic cyclists admitted to doing it, and there was still no way to enforce that. Lasse Viren said in the 70's he didn't know what it was. Does that sound believable?
EPO is more convenient and allows training with more oxygen. Many Kenyans were busted for EPO or the ABP (Rhonex Kipruto) despite living at around 7,000 feet elevation.
Race results are a filtering process of talent, training, and who chooses to dope.
You are speaking to me in hypotheticals about what might be possible. What can you tell me without making any suppositions? Assuming the fastest runners were doping, in order to conclude that all fast times must likely be doped, is a classic textbook fallacy. Too many assumptions without any substantial confirmation. The next step is not to make more hypotheses, but start confirming them with independent evidence.
My reference for characterizing the fastest EPO-era performances was based on performances from athletes like Coe, Cram, Moorcroft, Steve Jones, Barrios, Mamede, and Lopes. Were all of them blood doping? Any of them? When considering the fastest times before 1990 to form the reference, Viren's times weren't particularly fast.
Very few Kenyans busted for EPO and ABP ran fast times. If you have a naturally fast group of talented runners, they will be tested more often, and some percentage of them will fail the tests. This is especially true for Kenyans, as WADA has told us (twice) they are a group frequently targeted for exploitation by local doctors, pharmacists, and foreign agents/coaches. They get free drugs for a percentage of the winnings, if any. Plus, athletes are not tested uniformly. In fact, the AIU tells us that they disproportionally test Kenyans. Don't be fooled by myths that Kenyans weren't being tested. While it is true for a few years for the ABP that athletes in the RTP were not frequently OOC blood tested, they were still OOC urine tested, and most positives are from IC urine samples. It is only after they installed a local WADA lab in Nairobi, the times started dropping in the supershoe era.
What I think (my supposition) is more common is that runners who run slow, or have plateaued, or maybe show the effects of aging, are more tempted to resort to doping, hoping to compete, stay competitive, medal, or qualify for something. They have more to gain, less to lose, and are less likely to be tested if they are not winning. Clean athletes who are already winning, or still improving, will not be as tempted to resort to breaking the rules.
I said meldonium is a drug developed in medicine and used by athletes for performance enhancement; I didn't say it was a new drug, you stupid ****. It is but one drug amongst many banned by WADA but it is known by antidoping there will be many many more for which there is no effective test.
You said this in response to my asking what the new powerful drugs were in the supershoe era, as part of a longer answer speculating that drugs are under continuous development, unlike shoes.
You conceded that the dopers do not come forward and tell us exactly what they are doing.
Yet you argue without basis that the world record holders are among these silent dopers motivated by hope.
When athletes dope in every sport and at every level and have been used for decades, and are known to be used for performance gains, only someone as ****** stupid as you are can say we don't know why they take them.
But I do know why -- rumor, faith, hope, belief, and exploitation.
This thread is about a new record holder, and not about dopers per se.
What stupid questions are those? Why would athletes be clean in the 80s but dope in the 90s??
Why does it matter to performance?
My question isn't whether, or which, athletes then and now are doped or clean, but how doping impacts the fastest performances, if at all. How can we tell without suppositions that assume what we want to conclude? We should first establish whether, and which, doping makes, or can make, clean athletes faster.
Why am I being asked to "Suppose that all the microdosing methods that are undetectable have a combined worth of 30 seconds in the men's 5,000 meters (rumors were that EPO used to be 20 to 50 seconds)"? Why not suppose 5 seconds, or 0.5 seconds? Why suppose any benefit at all?
Can I break the news for you newbies? Doping has been part of the sport: steroids and caffeine in the 1980s; HGH and EPO in the 1990's; EPO and Testosterone in the 2000's up until today, where EPO continues to dominate but there are several micro-doping strategies abounding every 3 months or so. No one is clean and no one needs to be. The sooner you simply acknowledge a level playing field the sooner you'll stop these immature posts.
Doping isn't a level playing field; it is an arms race. Getting the edge on your competition is what drives it - not making it "fair". That, and knowing if you don't do it you'll have no chance.
When athletes dope in every sport and at every level and have been used for decades, and are known to be used for performance gains, only someone as ****** stupid as you are can say we don't know why they take them.
But I do know why -- rumor, faith, hope, belief, and exploitation.
This thread is about a new record holder, and not about dopers per se.
If doping didn't produce performance gains it wouldn't exist. It would be in the same category as eating popcorn - but it wouldn't taste as good and wouldn't be done to win. But it does produce results and since the best know that records can't be achieved without it.
It would be nice if the science had solid answers, but instead it's a matter of judgement with regard to rumors and history. The pro cyclists from the 90's have some wild stories, and Lance Armstrong did some elaborate schemes as well. He won.
What is obvious to me, from reading the science and policies is that professional sports organizations do not want to stop doping. That suggests, but does not prove, that a clean athlete doesn't have a chance to win at the international level.
I said meldonium is a drug developed in medicine and used by athletes for performance enhancement; I didn't say it was a new drug, you stupid ****. It is but one drug amongst many banned by WADA but it is known by antidoping there will be many many more for which there is no effective test.
You said this in response to my asking what the new powerful drugs were in the supershoe era, as part of a longer answer speculating that drugs are under continuous development, unlike shoes.
As I have said, drugs are continuously developed because they are primarily based on medical research, which never stops. They are also produced by labs (like Balco was) that have identified drugs that are known to have performance enhancing effects and they mask the drugs. This means the drugs may never be detected - which is why WADA keeps test samples for 8 years, in the possibility they may eventually be able to detect an illicit substance. Sometimes they are lucky. The Al Jazeera report on doping said there are likely to be a hundred substances at any one time used by athletes that cannot be tested for. That is why antidoping is always trying to play catch up to doping - and failing. For the most part we will not know what drugs athletes are using because most users aren't caught. That does not enable you to say there is "insufficient data" to conclude they are doping - there is, we know there is doping - or that there are no new drugs being developed simply because they haven't been identified and may never be.
It would be nice if the science had solid answers, but instead it's a matter of judgement with regard to rumors and history. The pro cyclists from the 90's have some wild stories, and Lance Armstrong did some elaborate schemes as well. He won.
What is obvious to me, from reading the science and policies is that professional sports organizations do not want to stop doping. That suggests, but does not prove, that a clean athlete doesn't have a chance to win at the international level.
Professional sports bodies may want to stop doping but they know if they seriously tried to do so they would kill the sport. Also the expense and effort would go far beyond what they are prepared to do. Antidoping remains as a form of window dressing, to enable fans to continue to believe they are watching clean sport. They aren't. Your conclusion that a clean athlete is unlikely to be able to win at an international level is a sound one; it could only be otherwise if antidoping had largely eradicated the practice. It hasn't. It can't.
The testing policies in American team sports are a joke.
Even in pro running and cycling there are obvious ways to improve detection. For example:
The primary biomarkers of the passport are obviously chosen to allow manipulation by hydration, and even the secondary biomarkers are only half as good as some proposed in a 2021 paper. 2 weeks versus 4 weeks detection window of microdoses. And they can be done with dried blood spots which would allow non-refrigerated transport and slow travel time.
Molidustat, the likely replacement of EPO, could be better detected by requiring better sensitivity of lab equipment and using hair tests.
WADA has research papers on advanced detection of AICAR, yet it's completely missing from their procedural and legal documents despite rumors in 2019 in a major cycling news source, finding AICAR in the trash in 2009 at a major race, and a mouse incremental treadmill test showing performance enhancement. A real head scratcher there.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.