People called me ridiculous for saying doping is very common in colllege

How does this philosophical meandering into stupidity answer whether there is a common consensus on what "very common" means? And is anything in this thread more substantial than sports bar gossip?

What do all the threads you visit have in common? Your presence! There really is no limit to your stupidity.

Another thread victimized by this site's worst poster, armstrongpickmegirl. ME ME ME ARGUE ABOUT ME ME ME DROP THE THREAD TOPIC AND FOCUS ON MY ARGUMENT ME ME ME

I bridge the gap between generalizing gymbro/physique sport/ looksmaxing PED use with competitive running b/c I know guys who attested that UNCG and also D2 or D3 North Carolina schools had some flippant use of albuterol during meets by a decent number of athletes. Certainly not all, but probably a third dabbled at some point.

I know that that isn't EPO and AAS, GH, or ancillaries w/out doctor's orders, but still...

i also concede that generally, distance runners are going to be more conscientious and chalant, compared to your average college athlete or gymbro

Thanks for following up with at least an estimated order ("probably a third dabbled").

I will agree with you that albuterol isn't EPO, AAS, GH. The NCAA even permits albuterol, with a prescription, if it is inhaled, so technically, its use may not necessarily be cheating if it falls within NCAA rules -- although I can understand if some athletes rationalize abusing the rules as not cheating while other fans consider this as gray-area borderline cheating.

I appreciate the detail of your post, but like many on LRC you get it wrong about testosterone.

The challenge with short-ester testosterone (e.g., propionate) or even no ester testosterone (suspension or oil-based) for males is that even though it has short half life, it will still shut down your natural production. So you have robbed Peter to pay Paul.

Try doing most of your training with suppressed levels of testosterone. Whatever short-term gain you experienced (e.g., injecting before key competition or training session), you have screwed your day-to-day training.

Low dose daily injections will keep your levels within physiological range and presumably allow you to fly under testing flags. However, as a young man with sky high natural levels you will have gained little if any advantage at that point.

Now women on the other hand can experience incredible gains on very low dose testosterone and don't face same suppression problem since they only product a tiny amount to begin with.

Holy stray.. Slagowski? Really?? Thats kind of low

That's the narcissist in you.

There is but you will never see it.

And yet here you are, as always. And only responding to my comments. Take your foot out of your mouth.

The thread is about college doping, which quite a few of you don't want to acknowledge is a problem. The deniers get especially agitated when their comments are challenged.

More than 1? Yep - a whole 3. That makes all the difference to the point that she virtually disappeared after the Olympics. But it is probably appropriate that you guys have made her a specific feature in a doping thread. After all, she has chosen a coach with doping associations.

Yep - I'm only attacked by morons and doping-deniers. Quite a few of you.

Just 6 in a row? You can do better, next time 7, OK?

Can you elaborate, and turn what is thus far vague and subjective into something more concrete, adding clarity to the thread?

What was the consensus threshold criteria used to determine something is "very common", as opposed to just "common", or "infrequent" or "rare", or "extremely rare", or, as you put it, "happening", as you claim it to be something quite different than some percentage range of prevalence? For the OP, it was based on the number of sub-4:00 runners, and his own observations about "a few people" on one mid-major D1 team. "A few people" doesn't sound "very common" to me.

No one in this thread denied doping happens in college. This is your usual cop-out strawman to avoid admitting you can't add any substantial value to the conversation, but you still want to be heard. Your negative contributions only subtract from the conversation.

Us guys? You are the one who brought Valby into this thread, and you've been talking about her for the last week over the last six pages. It took you a week to finally look up her results and prove yourself wrong -- rendering that whole discussion completely unnecessary -- only proving to everyone your obsessions are uninformed and you seem severely unable to inform yourself about things which are public.

Is it appropriate to talk about a professional athlete in a college thread?

Poor thing gets attacked. Because it's never you who starts it, right?

This whole thread is wrong. Until with some proof you can name a single college distance runner that is doping and with what, you don’t know what your talking about.