Knighton was an elite athlete; one of the best in the world. He may not have won an Olympic medal but that he was doping suggests he was better than if he were clean.
Ask yourself this: if doping is known to be widespread in the sport (athlete surveys indicate this, as well as WADA likening t and f to body building, weightlifting and cycling) are those athletes who are doping gaining an advantage? That's the first important question and the one that concerns WADA the most, because it affects the fairness of sport. If athletes aren't gaining advantage then the attempts to eradicate doping are redundant, but if they are gaining an advantage then it doesn't mean a) they will beat all other doped athletes (Knighton won't be the only doped sprinter), or even b) that an athlete of lesser ability will beat a clean athlete of much greater ability.
But the differences in ability at the top are often marginal. So doping will make a difference in outcomes; of who wins and who loses, and who breaks the records. It is hard to see at that level how a clean athlete can beat the best dopers. It means that every successful athlete now can be suspect - but some show they are much more suspicious than others. That is what most of the discussion centres on. It is a speculative assessment because it applies necessarily to those athletes who haven't been caught. Most dopers aren't, so there is no getting around that speculation is ultimately all we have. But the speculation has often been on the money - Ramzi, Katir.
That goes back to me saying, if everyone is doing it then what is the difference?
Or I'll amend that: if, as you say, many at the top are doping, and we still have consistent results... meaning, the same people win the majority of the time, then what is the difference? Because then it's just a case of dopers racing against one another and the fastest person is still winning the majority of the time.
So, again, what is the difference?
Or on the other hand, in cases like Shelby Houlihan, was she beating other people who were also doping or was she beating people who were clean?
Is Cole Hocker doping? Is Grant Fisher doping? They've had incredible results lately. Are they beating other people who are suspected of doping while they're clean?
Is Jakob Ingebrigtsen doping? Or is he beating others who may be suspected of doping while he's clean?
In Sydney McLaughlin's case, is she doping? Or is she beating others who may be suspected of doping while she's clean? Or are most of the top women in the 400m doping and she's beating them while she's doping too -- one doper beating other dopers?
I fully understand the speculation aspect of all of this. Just how far does it extend though to the point of absurdity?
You've just made an argument, in a nutshell, that no top runner can be trusted. Any of them could be doping. That is where the sport is now.
But that isn't to say ALL top athletes are doping - I haven't seen expert estimates that claim that. But up to 80% has been estimated for some sports. T and F estimates have ranged from 1 in 3 to possibly more than 1 in 2 championship level athletes.
Additionally, athletes don't all take the same drugs in the same dosages and some are better responders than others. One size doesn't fit all, so it doesn't produce a level playing field - albeit the overall level may go up. Doping is better likened to an arms race in which athletes look to gain an edge.
However the main issue that it gives rise to is that it makes it more difficult to trust that we are seeing genuine - natural - achievement and fair competition out there. Add to that WADA'S concern that athletes are risking their health.
You can choose to take the view that no athlete is doped till they are caught, which unfortunately overlooks the fact that few dopers are caught, or you can assume that most are doping and so what. We won't eradicate doping; it appears the best we can hope for is that it is made harder for athletes to dope; there will be a possibility they might be caught.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
That goes back to me saying, if everyone is doing it then what is the difference?
Or I'll amend that: if, as you say, many at the top are doping, and we still have consistent results... meaning, the same people win the majority of the time, then what is the difference? Because then it's just a case of dopers racing against one another and the fastest person is still winning the majority of the time.
So, again, what is the difference?
Or on the other hand, in cases like Shelby Houlihan, was she beating other people who were also doping or was she beating people who were clean?
Is Cole Hocker doping? Is Grant Fisher doping? They've had incredible results lately. Are they beating other people who are suspected of doping while they're clean?
Is Jakob Ingebrigtsen doping? Or is he beating others who may be suspected of doping while he's clean?
In Sydney McLaughlin's case, is she doping? Or is she beating others who may be suspected of doping while she's clean? Or are most of the top women in the 400m doping and she's beating them while she's doping too -- one doper beating other dopers?
I fully understand the speculation aspect of all of this. Just how far does it extend though to the point of absurdity?
You've just made an argument, in a nutshell, that no top runner can be trusted. Any of them could be doping. That is where the sport is now.
But that isn't to say ALL top athletes are doping - I haven't seen expert estimates that claim that. But up to 80% has been estimated for some sports. T and F estimates have ranged from 1 in 3 to possibly more than 1 in 2 championship level athletes.
Additionally, athletes don't all take the same drugs in the same dosages and some are better responders than others. One size doesn't fit all, so it doesn't produce a level playing field - albeit the overall level may go up. Doping is better likened to an arms race in which athletes look to gain an edge.
However the main issue that it gives rise to is that it makes it more difficult to trust that we are seeing genuine - natural - achievement and fair competition out there. Add to that WADA'S concern that athletes are risking their health.
You can choose to take the view that no athlete is doped till they are caught, which unfortunately overlooks the fact that few dopers are caught, or you can assume that most are doping and so what. We won't eradicate doping; it appears the best we can hope for is that it is made harder for athletes to dope; there will be a possibility they might be caught.
We're going in circles now...
Again, this goes back to me saying, if everyone is doing it then what is the difference?
Or I'll use your words of most at that top: so if most at the top are doping, what is the difference? Because the same people win the majority of the time.
Also, I fully understand that athletes don't all take the same drugs in the same dosages so it's not a level playing field in that regard. At the same time, some athletes are born faster than other athletes will ever be, so it's not a level playing field in that regard either.
As for Sydney McLaughlin, if she is doping, is she the only woman on the planet running the 400m that's doping? If that's not the case then, if she is doping, then she's beating other women who are doping too.
Additionally, if you maintain that it's impossible for a clean athlete to beat one who's doping, then everyone who wins has to be doping.
If you don't feel that way, and feel that it is possible for a clean athlete to beat one who is doping, then... what are we doing?
Last... "But that isn't to say ALL top athletes are doping"
So we're just basically picking and choosing who we think are? If so, fine... I guess.
I’m willing to buy at this point that they were all inspired by the long career of Isaac Makwala. If they were in their teens when he started doing well, the timeline would matchup fairly well, no?
Right because inspiration is all that is needed for a small, poor country to suddenly start churning out world class sprinters by the handful.
You’re being facetious, but it kind of is, no? Culture is huge. Why is Canada so much better globally at hockey than at virtually any other sport we try our hand at? We’re a relatively small nation (not a handful of million small, but not hundreds of millions large).
Hockey is huge here.
and before you go and call for infrastructure for the Botswanans the 400m doesn’t take all that much. They can sprint year round. Might have a good genetic pool for it. And don’t discount the impact of Isaac Makwala.
Maybe he got everybody into doping, but he almost certainly inspired, too, and that’s a powerful thing.
How many middle aged North American male distance runners still deify Pre? He inspired.
Salvitore Stitchmo09/16/2025 4:17pm EDT1 month ago
Not sure we fully understand the gravity of what we witnessed in the mens 400m semi-finals earlier today.Botswana pulling some "Team USA circa '90's tomfoolery and have 3 men in the final of the 400m. Even though this was qui...
Raisin Willis was in tears and didn’t stop in the mixed zone.
No wonder she didn't stop. On her IG story, Willis is saying she thinks she let her country down and is feeling the weight of it, and saying "I'm just so sorry" to everyone. I truly hope she has people with her who are helping her get more perspective on this, and that by the end of the day she'll have much more peace.
I was referencing the previous individuals other posters had cited in the discussion I was having with them. You should have done some research before butting into the conversation.
All the guys you and everyone else have cited are all recent. We’re not talking decades of dominance in the sport like from the US. We’re talking a relatively short period of time where one tiny, poor country suddenly develops a ton of top tier athletes. Not just good, but the very best of the best. If you want argue the semantics of my use of “sudden,” have at it. It doesn’t change anything.
Raisin Willis was in tears and didn’t stop in the mixed zone.
No wonder she didn't stop. On her IG story, Willis is saying she thinks she let her country down and is feeling the weight of it, and saying "I'm just so sorry" to everyone. I truly hope she has people with her who are helping her get more perspective on this, and that by the end of the day she'll have much more peace.
She's been very open about her struggles. I believe she's got everyone's support.
Armstrong says he hates doping but he really loves it. It is what he lives for. Waiting to automatically accuse any great runner of doping. He says not all elite runners dope but in ArmstrongWorld the only ones who are clean are the back of the packers. I think we should just universally ignore him. He turns every discussion ugly and who needs that? (except Armstrong) Yes, doping is a problem in athletics, but give me a break. I am also glad they no longer can get away with (most of the time) using the kind of anaerobic steroids that was so prevalent in the 60s, 70s and 80s. But acknowledging the used of PEDS is one thing. Armstrong is a joke.
So how is ignoring me working out for you?
LOL Your hard to ignore Armstronglives but it's true you ruin every discussion by your recitation of drug abuse. You love doing the same negative line everytime and ruin what everybody was talking about Everybody knows ped abuse is a problem. but great performances does not mean the athlete is glowing so continuing that discussion is pointless.
Just an FYI: if you are a registered user of these boards, you can block the posts of certain posters so you don't have to see anything by them. It can hugle improve the experience here.
Just click on the username of the poster, the option is there
Firstly, everyone is not doping but many at the top are. Secondly, they don't all take the same drugs and don't all respond the same. It's a chemical arms race.
Well, who gets to decide which people at the top are doping?
And if you aren't doping, why aren't you? It's impossible for someone clean to beat someone doping, right? Or is it? Or don't you know?
For example, Erriyon Knighton we assume was doping but he never won an Olympic medal. So what happened there, was he not doing it right? And is he the only 200 guy doping or are the others doing it too, but they're just doing it right and winning and not getting caught? Do you know?
Not all dopers can win medals, obviously. Just take the official IAAF admission from some 8 - 10 years ago that at least 30% of the world championship athletes are dopers. So basically, all finalists.
And it's been long established that most dopers do never get caught.
I'd turn this around. Given the above, no clean athletes can win medals. It is what it is.
LOL Your hard to ignore Armstronglives but it's true you ruin every discussion by your recitation of drug abuse. You love doing the same negative line everytime and ruin what everybody was talking about Everybody knows ped abuse is a problem. but great performances does not mean the athlete is glowing so continuing that discussion is pointless.
Right because inspiration is all that is needed for a small, poor country to suddenly start churning out world class sprinters by the handful.
You’re being facetious, but it kind of is, no? Culture is huge. Why is Canada so much better globally at hockey than at virtually any other sport we try our hand at? We’re a relatively small nation (not a handful of million small, but not hundreds of millions large).
Hockey is huge here.
and before you go and call for infrastructure for the Botswanans the 400m doesn’t take all that much. They can sprint year round. Might have a good genetic pool for it. And don’t discount the impact of Isaac Makwala.
Maybe he got everybody into doping, but he almost certainly inspired, too, and that’s a powerful thing.
How many middle aged North American male distance runners still deify Pre? He inspired.
Deifying Pre doesn't seem to have helped most US distance runners in these championships. Maybe they needed someone else?
You've just made an argument, in a nutshell, that no top runner can be trusted. Any of them could be doping. That is where the sport is now.
But that isn't to say ALL top athletes are doping - I haven't seen expert estimates that claim that. But up to 80% has been estimated for some sports. T and F estimates have ranged from 1 in 3 to possibly more than 1 in 2 championship level athletes.
Additionally, athletes don't all take the same drugs in the same dosages and some are better responders than others. One size doesn't fit all, so it doesn't produce a level playing field - albeit the overall level may go up. Doping is better likened to an arms race in which athletes look to gain an edge.
However the main issue that it gives rise to is that it makes it more difficult to trust that we are seeing genuine - natural - achievement and fair competition out there. Add to that WADA'S concern that athletes are risking their health.
You can choose to take the view that no athlete is doped till they are caught, which unfortunately overlooks the fact that few dopers are caught, or you can assume that most are doping and so what. We won't eradicate doping; it appears the best we can hope for is that it is made harder for athletes to dope; there will be a possibility they might be caught.
We're going in circles now...
Again, this goes back to me saying, if everyone is doing it then what is the difference?
Or I'll use your words of most at that top: so if most at the top are doping, what is the difference? Because the same people win the majority of the time.
Also, I fully understand that athletes don't all take the same drugs in the same dosages so it's not a level playing field in that regard. At the same time, some athletes are born faster than other athletes will ever be, so it's not a level playing field in that regard either.
As for Sydney McLaughlin, if she is doping, is she the only woman on the planet running the 400m that's doping? If that's not the case then, if she is doping, then she's beating other women who are doping too.
Additionally, if you maintain that it's impossible for a clean athlete to beat one who's doping, then everyone who wins has to be doping.
If you don't feel that way, and feel that it is possible for a clean athlete to beat one who is doping, then... what are we doing?
Last... "But that isn't to say ALL top athletes are doping"
So we're just basically picking and choosing who we think are? If so, fine... I guess.
You're effectively making an argument for the Enhanced Games. You might want to explore the arguments against the sport going in that direction.
LOL Your hard to ignore Armstronglives but it's true you ruin every discussion by your recitation of drug abuse. You love doing the same negative line everytime and ruin what everybody was talking about Everybody knows ped abuse is a problem. but great performances does not mean the athlete is glowing so continuing that discussion is pointless.
Just an FYI: if you are a registered user of these boards, you can block the posts of certain posters so you don't have to see anything by them. It can hugle improve the experience here.
Just click on the username of the poster, the option is there
It is important to block opinions you don't like. That way you can hold on to the views you prefer. Jimmy Kimmel has just been blocked.
You’re being facetious, but it kind of is, no? Culture is huge. Why is Canada so much better globally at hockey than at virtually any other sport we try our hand at? We’re a relatively small nation (not a handful of million small, but not hundreds of millions large).
Hockey is huge here.
and before you go and call for infrastructure for the Botswanans the 400m doesn’t take all that much. They can sprint year round. Might have a good genetic pool for it. And don’t discount the impact of Isaac Makwala.
Maybe he got everybody into doping, but he almost certainly inspired, too, and that’s a powerful thing.
How many middle aged North American male distance runners still deify Pre? He inspired.
Deifying Pre doesn't seem to have helped most US distance runners in these championships. Maybe they needed someone else?