I once said that it was a not well kept secret that a few people on my midmajor D1 team were doping, and I was ripped for it and called a liar, and that I was a poor sport who simply didn’t want it enough for speculating a lot more of my competition was also doping.
Why do people not think collegiates are doping? It used to be a big deal when even a collegiate athlete broke four in the mile, and now every good program has at least one sub four guy and it just about takes sub four to make the best teams. I promise you it ain’t just the spikes.
What looks ridiculous is extrapolating "a few people on my midmajor D1 team" to "very common in colllege (sic)". How much is "very common" anyway? 2%? 5%? Is that counting recreational drugs?
It's also one thing to say that collegiates are doping, and another to say it made the difference, or was the only thing that could, between success and failure, by any metric, e.g. running "sub four to make the best team".
Music is fake. AI replaced real instrument playing and singing.
The saving grace here is that music has a much lower barrier to entry than film making, professional sports, etc. AI slop will dominate the charts soon enough, but the best music never tops the charts.
I once said that it was a not well kept secret that a few people on my midmajor D1 team were doping, and I was ripped for it and called a liar, and that I was a poor sport who simply didn’t want it enough for speculating a lot more of my competition was also doping.
Why do people not think collegiates are doping? It used to be a big deal when even a collegiate athlete broke four in the mile, and now every good program has at least one sub four guy and it just about takes sub four to make the best teams. I promise you it ain’t just the spikes.
We all know and have always known it, it’s an open secret for kudos, jobs and limited chance of being caught
I once said that it was a not well kept secret that a few people on my midmajor D1 team were doping, and I was ripped for it and called a liar, and that I was a poor sport who simply didn’t want it enough for speculating a lot more of my competition was also doping.
Why do people not think collegiates are doping? It used to be a big deal when even a collegiate athlete broke four in the mile, and now every good program has at least one sub four guy and it just about takes sub four to make the best teams. I promise you it ain’t just the spikes.
What looks ridiculous is extrapolating "a few people on my midmajor D1 team" to "very common in colllege (sic)". How much is "very common" anyway? 2%? 5%? Is that counting recreational drugs?
It's also one thing to say that collegiates are doping, and another to say it made the difference, or was the only thing that could, between success and failure, by any metric, e.g. running "sub four to make the best team".
2%? 5%? You are crazy. Or joking. Add least add a Zero at the end to make it 20 - 50%. And even that is very optimistic. Just look at the ISU coverup. And the almost complete lack of out of competition testing.
I once said that it was a not well kept secret that a few people on my midmajor D1 team were doping, and I was ripped for it and called a liar, and that I was a poor sport who simply didn’t want it enough for speculating a lot more of my competition was also doping.
Why do people not think collegiates are doping? It used to be a big deal when even a collegiate athlete broke four in the mile, and now every good program has at least one sub four guy and it just about takes sub four to make the best teams. I promise you it ain’t just the spikes.
Hmmm, no? This is an overview from Google AI (asked for "newest from the Iowa State XC scandal"):
Multiple members of the top-ranked Iowa State men's cross country team have been suspended for the season due to a violation of team rules, effective October 2025. The university has not officially disclosed the specific nature of the violation, the number of athletes involved, or their names, only stating it was for "breaking team rules". However, widespread speculation and discussion in running news and podcasts suggest that the suspensions are related to potential doping allegations within the program, possibly involving Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs). Key Details: Suspensions: The suspensions were confirmed by Iowa State's Director of Cross Country & Track and Field, Jeremy Sudbury, in late October 2025. Official Reason: The official reason given by the university is a "violation of team rules". Speculation: Running media outlets have been discussing the possibility that this is a doping scandal, though no official anti-doping organization (like WADA or the AIU) has confirmed a positive test for any specific Iowa State athlete as of early November 2025. Impact: The team, which was ranked highly, expects to continue to perform well in the postseason with the remaining, non-suspended athletes. No Further Comment: The university and the athletic department have stated they will not provide further comments on the situation. Efforts to obtain more information are ongoing, and updates from official sources are awaited. The situation has sparked significant discussion about the integrity of high-level NCAA running.
What looks ridiculous is extrapolating "a few people on my midmajor D1 team" to "very common in colllege (sic)". How much is "very common" anyway? 2%? 5%? Is that counting recreational drugs?
It's also one thing to say that collegiates are doping, and another to say it made the difference, or was the only thing that could, between success and failure, by any metric, e.g. running "sub four to make the best team".
2%? 5%? You are crazy. Or joking. Add least add a Zero at the end to make it 20 - 50%. And even that is very optimistic. Just look at the ISU coverup. And the almost complete lack of out of competition testing.
50% is optimistic? Based on what?
From your post above -- it's not sure that the ISU coverup is connected to doping at all. Lack of OOC testing is also a concession that there is no basis to favor 50% over 5%.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.