No, benefits are generally not medically necessary but they can be. What if someone is really struggling with his job because he's just dead tired all the time and his doctor says TRT could improve that? And let's say this guy also did a bit of running, raced now and again, and really enjoyed it. If he follows the rules he needs to choose between having a much better time at his job or giving up racing. Yes, if he's just running local road races no one is going to bother him about the TRT but ethically he's doing something wrong if he keeps racing and maybe taking home age group prizes.
As I keep saying, but perhaps not clearly enough, you have dug in with hypotheticals that don't comport with the reality on the ground. And now you've tried to turn it an "ethical" issue rather than someone on TRT actually getting caught. No one cares about a mid-packer and his ethics. At least I don't. This is an issue of competitive fairness.
I repeat: mid-packers are not tested. The second piece: the guys at the top of the podium at USATF events (the ones that have good turnouts at least, like Club Nationals) are training their asses off and performing at a super high level. There's no way that this type of person is "really struggling with his job because he's dead tired all the time" from any medical issue. If they're tired, it's from training 60-90 miles per week, as adjusted for age and/or cross-training time.
So there is no overlap in this Venn diagram.
Rich, you're one of the best posters on this site, but you're doubling down on an argument that's silly. That's why your argument is "simplistic" (not my original words). It's overly cute and isn't what's actually happening.
Actually I care about mid packers' ethics as much as I do the ethics of athletes at the top of the podium. You're proposing a two tier system here where a mid packer who might occasionally grab an age group trophy or $25 gift certificate at the Granny's Brothel and Funeral Home 5k gets to take something like TRT with no consequences and someone winning the 5,000 at the National Championships maybe gets suspended because no one cares about the guy at Granny's race but do care about his race. But that guy at Granny's cheated to get that gift certificate just as much as the guy at Nationals did. I think the consequences should be the same for both, though obviously that's impossible. But I also think that in each case the athlete in question MIGHT be taking something that's banned for a legitimate medical reason.
Consider a top performer who has a heart attack. He's recovered and is back training and racing. But he was told to take Furosemide because excessive fluid around his heart was a problem. Furosemide is banned because it's a masking agent. This guy may not know that, his doctor probably doesn't know that. Should he get banned if he's caught? Well, yes, if he's deliberately taking it so he can take other stuff but really, you want to ban the guy for following legitimate doctor's orders?
If I'm doubling down on this it's because I think drug issues with people on the high side of 50 or 60 or whatever are not as clear cut as with people in their primes and saying the same rules and consequences for both groups should be the same is, well, simplistic. (Now I get to say it too.) Anyway, thanks for the compliments.
No, benefits are generally not medically necessary but they can be. What if someone is really struggling with his job because he's just dead tired all the time and his doctor says TRT could improve that? And let's say this guy also did a bit of running, raced now and again, and really enjoyed it. If he follows the rules he needs to choose between having a much better time at his job or giving up racing. Yes, if he's just running local road races no one is going to bother him about the TRT but ethically he's doing something wrong if he keeps racing and maybe taking home age group prizes.
As I keep saying, but perhaps not clearly enough, you have dug in with hypotheticals that don't comport with the reality on the ground. And now you've tried to turn it an "ethical" issue rather than someone on TRT actually getting caught. No one cares about a mid-packer and his ethics. At least I don't. This is an issue of competitive fairness.
I repeat: mid-packers are not tested. The second piece: the guys at the top of the podium at USATF events (the ones that have good turnouts at least, like Club Nationals) are training their asses off and performing at a super high level. There's no way that this type of person is "really struggling with his job because he's dead tired all the time" from any medical issue. If they're tired, it's from training 60-90 miles per week, as adjusted for age and/or cross-training time.
So there is no overlap in this Venn diagram.
Rich, you're one of the best posters on this site, but you're doubling down on an argument that's silly. That's why your argument is "simplistic" (not my original words). It's overly cute and isn't what's actually happening.
Yes, precisely. Guys getting “dead tired” from their cube farm work aren’t going to be out competing on the roads. Nobody with a brain cares whether the 2nd place 45-49 guy at the turkey trot is on steroids or races in shoes that aren’t WA compliant, either. This is pure circle jerk material.
USATF Masters should list and disclose the names of all Masters athletes that receive a TUE. But, they don't. Why not? Disclosure should be a condition of competition.
I do think it's telling that a lot of athletes who have used synthetic T, have incorporated it into a mix of doping strategies, vs. using T alone and calling it a day. I'm no Italian doctor, but have to think that a lot of the benefits of T are secondary, and it does introduce some risks. For example, if it speeds up the healing of a hamstring so a guy can get back at training days or weeks sooner, that's obviously a big win. But then, if his tendons can't keep up and he loses his achilles, that's not great. And there's the fluid retention to deal with, which is no joke. Clearly there would not be patches hidden away on athlete's ball sacks if it had no benefit, but to your point, just because a balding guy out kicks you doesn't mean he just left a performance clinic. And even if he's on T, that might not be the drug that's bringing him the magic.
Every post on this thread seems to be making the implicit (or explicit) assumption that we're talking about male masters runners. I realize there are precious few women on this board, but I'm genuinely curious about what female masters dope with. I assume EPO works roughly as well in women as in men. I assume anabolic steroids also work, although with side effects that may be more undesirable in women than in men. Many postmenopausal women are on hormone replacement therapy (estrogen or estrogen plus a progestin, the same hormones used in oral contraceptives) but as far as I know these are neither forbidden nor performance enhancing. Thoughts?
For women's masters runners/athletes it's probably going to be Dehydroepiandrostone (DHEA), a hormone produced by the adrenal glands that declines with aging. DHEA is classified as a dietary supplement in the U.S. available OTC.
Testosterone would be too androgenic with females: Voice changes, facial hair, hair thinning, masculine, aggressive behavior - all very undesirable side-effects for your typical female masters runner.
There are some peptides & SARMs that women master bodybuilders/strength athletes are using, but I don't know if endurance athletes would be interested.
Here's some women's cases with DHEA supplementation:
In July 2022, Toccata Murphy, 53, of Alexis, North Carolina, twice ran 400 meters under 60 seconds — the first American over 50 to do so. She shattered the listed record of 61.02 by Emmanuelle “Emma” McGowan at Málaga worlds...
In its news release on Kristi Anderson’s suspension, USADA called her a track and field athlete. Not so. The 51-year-old mountain runner in Colorado says she’s never competed in a masters track meet. Had she been a part of ou...
As I keep saying, but perhaps not clearly enough, you have dug in with hypotheticals that don't comport with the reality on the ground. And now you've tried to turn it an "ethical" issue rather than someone on TRT actually getting caught. No one cares about a mid-packer and his ethics. At least I don't. This is an issue of competitive fairness.
I repeat: mid-packers are not tested. The second piece: the guys at the top of the podium at USATF events (the ones that have good turnouts at least, like Club Nationals) are training their asses off and performing at a super high level. There's no way that this type of person is "really struggling with his job because he's dead tired all the time" from any medical issue. If they're tired, it's from training 60-90 miles per week, as adjusted for age and/or cross-training time.
So there is no overlap in this Venn diagram.
Rich, you're one of the best posters on this site, but you're doubling down on an argument that's silly. That's why your argument is "simplistic" (not my original words). It's overly cute and isn't what's actually happening.
Actually I care about mid packers' ethics as much as I do the ethics of athletes at the top of the podium. You're proposing a two tier system here where a mid packer who might occasionally grab an age group trophy or $25 gift certificate at the Granny's Brothel and Funeral Home 5k gets to take something like TRT with no consequences and someone winning the 5,000 at the National Championships maybe gets suspended because no one cares about the guy at Granny's race but do care about his race. But that guy at Granny's cheated to get that gift certificate just as much as the guy at Nationals did. I think the consequences should be the same for both, though obviously that's impossible. But I also think that in each case the athlete in question MIGHT be taking something that's banned for a legitimate medical reason.
Consider a top performer who has a heart attack. He's recovered and is back training and racing. But he was told to take Furosemide because excessive fluid around his heart was a problem. Furosemide is banned because it's a masking agent. This guy may not know that, his doctor probably doesn't know that. Should he get banned if he's caught? Well, yes, if he's deliberately taking it so he can take other stuff but really, you want to ban the guy for following legitimate doctor's orders?
If I'm doubling down on this it's because I think drug issues with people on the high side of 50 or 60 or whatever are not as clear cut as with people in their primes and saying the same rules and consequences for both groups should be the same is, well, simplistic. (Now I get to say it too.) Anyway, thanks for the compliments.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Unless you can prove you didn't know how it got in your system, you are responsible for what you ingest. There are "legitimate doctor's" prescriptions for many things, this does not mean you should not be prevented from performing certain actions with those substances in your system. Maybe you haven't heard this yet.... life isn't fair.
You rally a gofundme to test local 5K age groupers. It's tough enough to get USADA to test national championships because it ain't free.
Every post on this thread seems to be making the implicit (or explicit) assumption that we're talking about male masters runners. I realize there are precious few women on this board, but I'm genuinely curious about what female masters dope with. I assume EPO works roughly as well in women as in men. I assume anabolic steroids also work, although with side effects that may be more undesirable in women than in men. Many postmenopausal women are on hormone replacement therapy (estrogen or estrogen plus a progestin, the same hormones used in oral contraceptives) but as far as I know these are neither forbidden nor performance enhancing. Thoughts?
One of the biggest (likely) dopers in the Masters ranks is a woman.
As I keep saying, but perhaps not clearly enough, you have dug in with hypotheticals that don't comport with the reality on the ground. And now you've tried to turn it an "ethical" issue rather than someone on TRT actually getting caught. No one cares about a mid-packer and his ethics. At least I don't. This is an issue of competitive fairness.
I repeat: mid-packers are not tested. The second piece: the guys at the top of the podium at USATF events (the ones that have good turnouts at least, like Club Nationals) are training their asses off and performing at a super high level. There's no way that this type of person is "really struggling with his job because he's dead tired all the time" from any medical issue. If they're tired, it's from training 60-90 miles per week, as adjusted for age and/or cross-training time.
So there is no overlap in this Venn diagram.
Rich, you're one of the best posters on this site, but you're doubling down on an argument that's silly. That's why your argument is "simplistic" (not my original words). It's overly cute and isn't what's actually happening.
Actually I care about mid packers' ethics as much as I do the ethics of athletes at the top of the podium. You're proposing a two tier system here where a mid packer who might occasionally grab an age group trophy or $25 gift certificate at the Granny's Brothel and Funeral Home 5k gets to take something like TRT with no consequences and someone winning the 5,000 at the National Championships maybe gets suspended because no one cares about the guy at Granny's race but do care about his race. But that guy at Granny's cheated to get that gift certificate just as much as the guy at Nationals did. I think the consequences should be the same for both, though obviously that's impossible. But I also think that in each case the athlete in question MIGHT be taking something that's banned for a legitimate medical reason.
Consider a top performer who has a heart attack. He's recovered and is back training and racing. But he was told to take Furosemide because excessive fluid around his heart was a problem. Furosemide is banned because it's a masking agent. This guy may not know that, his doctor probably doesn't know that. Should he get banned if he's caught? Well, yes, if he's deliberately taking it so he can take other stuff but really, you want to ban the guy for following legitimate doctor's orders?
If I'm doubling down on this it's because I think drug issues with people on the high side of 50 or 60 or whatever are not as clear cut as with people in their primes and saying the same rules and consequences for both groups should be the same is, well, simplistic. (Now I get to say it too.) Anyway, thanks for the compliments.
I'm not going to engage in the "what-ifs" that you find so interesting. It's all well and good that you think this is a compelling ethical issue, but you're very likely in a very small minority. Sure, I'd like there to be more testing, even at the Granny's races, but I live in the real world and so I care about the elites. Including the age group elites.
Oh, and you're wrong. If it's truly a "top performer," then he'll know the rules. You're trying really, really hard to create an issue here that doesn't exist on the ground.
Actually I care about mid packers' ethics as much as I do the ethics of athletes at the top of the podium. You're proposing a two tier system here where a mid packer who might occasionally grab an age group trophy or $25 gift certificate at the Granny's Brothel and Funeral Home 5k gets to take something like TRT with no consequences and someone winning the 5,000 at the National Championships maybe gets suspended because no one cares about the guy at Granny's race but do care about his race. But that guy at Granny's cheated to get that gift certificate just as much as the guy at Nationals did. I think the consequences should be the same for both, though obviously that's impossible. But I also think that in each case the athlete in question MIGHT be taking something that's banned for a legitimate medical reason.
Consider a top performer who has a heart attack. He's recovered and is back training and racing. But he was told to take Furosemide because excessive fluid around his heart was a problem. Furosemide is banned because it's a masking agent. This guy may not know that, his doctor probably doesn't know that. Should he get banned if he's caught? Well, yes, if he's deliberately taking it so he can take other stuff but really, you want to ban the guy for following legitimate doctor's orders?
If I'm doubling down on this it's because I think drug issues with people on the high side of 50 or 60 or whatever are not as clear cut as with people in their primes and saying the same rules and consequences for both groups should be the same is, well, simplistic. (Now I get to say it too.) Anyway, thanks for the compliments.
I'm not going to engage in the "what-ifs" that you find so interesting. It's all well and good that you think this is a compelling ethical issue, but you're very likely in a very small minority. Sure, I'd like there to be more testing, even at the Granny's races, but I live in the real world and so I care about the elites. Including the age group elites.
Oh, and you're wrong. If it's truly a "top performer," then he'll know the rules. You're trying really, really hard to create an issue here that doesn't exist on the ground.
I might be trying to create an issue but I'm not trying hard at all. I just see a theme here that goes "it's okay to cheat if you're slow enough." I'm all for taking away championships from people who fail drug tests but as I said, I think it's simplistic to think dealing with 26 year old dopers is the best way to deal with 62 year old dopers. And if I am in a small minority who cares about the ethics involved I think there's a problem.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Reason provided:
fix typo
I'm not going to engage in the "what-ifs" that you find so interesting. It's all well and good that you think this is a compelling ethical issue, but you're very likely in a very small minority. Sure, I'd like there to be more testing, even at the Granny's races, but I live in the real world and so I care about the elites. Including the age group elites.
Oh, and you're wrong. If it's truly a "top performer," then he'll know the rules. You're trying really, really hard to create an issue here that doesn't exist on the ground.
I might be trying to create an issue but I'm not trying hard at all. I just see a theme here that goes "it's okay to cheat if you're slow enough." I'm all for taking away championships from people who fail drug tests but as I said, I think it's simplistic to think dealing with 26 year old dopers is the best way to deal with 62 year old dopers. And if I am in a small minority who cares about the ethics involved I think there's a problem.
I care about the ethics too, but my issue is that you're (unwittingly, I think) throwing up fake issues that are used to rationalize cheating. Many/most masters dopers when caught have used the "I didn't know!" or "but my doctor prescribed it!" excuses and I'm saying (again) that these excuses are complete and utter BS at the highest level of age groupers...who, once again, are the only ones actually tested!
In other words, you're imagining an issue that doesn't exist on the ground. There are so many issues like this, but you seem to think that you have cleverly hit upon a novel one. My god, some 55 year old might wear the Adidas Prime X which aren't "road legal"! Or might wear ear buds when not allowed! Or might have someone hand them a drink on the course! Or have a pacer! These are all against the rules (in many or all circumstances) yet we all live with these rule violations when it's a 4 hour marathoner.
So, as much as I love your posting, get over yourself. You're not that clever!
Had to toss an insult in there, eh? If I'm not clever what is it you love about my posting? At every level of the sport it's only top performers who are tested. I'm sure many doping masters know what they're doing but someone who has a doctor prescribe something that would get them banned if they're caught taking it is in a bd spot. I am skeptical as all get out about all the 20-30ish year old elites who have laundry lists of medical conditions that allow them to take otherwise banned drugs. I am much less so about people on the high side of 60 in that same boat.
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Nothing better to do.
Doping is bad to the extent that it denies someone else their rightful reward. An Olympic medal? That's a big deal. 47th instead of 48th place in their age group? Not really a big deal.
But - it's very, very easy for a doping master's athlete to bump someone else off an age group podium in a small local race. Maybe there's just 7 guys in the 65-69 age group, and the doper gets the age group award. And that just sucks for the guy who trains hard to hit a 24 minute 5K at age 68 and misses out on his 15 seconds of recognition and $25 gift certificate. I'm dead serious about this.
If it's really a quality of life issue for someone on TRT, he needs to stay the h*ck away from any situations where he could earn any recognition at all.
It doesn't take extraordinary talent or TRT to finish well on a relatively big stage. I'm not going to win any age group awards at a WMM, but my recent HM time would have been first in my age group in some large, well known races in the tier below that. And I have fairly modest talent (couldn't break 10 for 2 miles in HS). That suggests to me that most master's runners aren't doping, but that someone who was doping could make a big difference in results.
And lets not kid ourselves - compared to everyone else out there, masters runners have the time and disposable income to focus on vanity-enhancing activities like road racing. If we're going to pay $300 for racing shoes or blow $3000 on a Boston weekend, nothing is going to stop someone unscrupulous from doping.
The tragedy is that if you're doing TRT, you aren't even experiencing masters running at all. I'm now in my mid-50s and my times have fallen off a cliff three times. Twice I've been able to figure out the puzzle to get back to linear age-related decline; the third attempt is in progress. It's frustrating but also fascinating. If TRT is your shortcut to avoiding that experience, then we really aren't running the same race, even if we're on the same starting line.
Had to toss an insult in there, eh? If I'm not clever what is it you love about my posting? At every level of the sport it's only top performers who are tested. I'm sure many doping masters know what they're doing but someone who has a doctor prescribe something that would get them banned if they're caught taking it is in a bd spot. I am skeptical as all get out about all the 20-30ish year old elites who have laundry lists of medical conditions that allow them to take otherwise banned drugs. I am much less so about people on the high side of 60 in that same boat.
Sorry if that seemed gratuitous. I'm passionate about this because, as I said, you're raising a complaint that (a) is used as a cover/excuse for doping, and your sympathy to it is part of the problem writ large, and (b) has been raised ad nauseam for years and years. Yet you keep doubling down, hence the "you're not that clever" jibe. Because I hate to say it, but it isn't. It's a silly argument because it has no bearing on the world of competition, as much as you like to think it does. I'll note that you didn't even bother responding about the other rules violations that don't seem to upset you.
I like you're posting about Lydiard of course. And you generally seem reasonable and measured in your posts. But you've lost the plot on this one.
Had to toss an insult in there, eh? If I'm not clever what is it you love about my posting? At every level of the sport it's only top performers who are tested. I'm sure many doping masters know what they're doing but someone who has a doctor prescribe something that would get them banned if they're caught taking it is in a bd spot. I am skeptical as all get out about all the 20-30ish year old elites who have laundry lists of medical conditions that allow them to take otherwise banned drugs. I am much less so about people on the high side of 60 in that same boat.
Sorry if that seemed gratuitous. I'm passionate about this because, as I said, you're raising a complaint that (a) is used as a cover/excuse for doping, and your sympathy to it is part of the problem writ large, and (b) has been raised ad nauseam for years and years. Yet you keep doubling down, hence the "you're not that clever" jibe. Because I hate to say it, but it isn't. It's a silly argument because it has no bearing on the world of competition, as much as you like to think it does. I'll note that you didn't even bother responding about the other rules violations that don't seem to upset you.
I like you're posting about Lydiard of course. And you generally seem reasonable and measured in your posts. But you've lost the plot on this one.
Had to toss an insult in there, eh? If I'm not clever what is it you love about my posting? At every level of the sport it's only top performers who are tested. I'm sure many doping masters know what they're doing but someone who has a doctor prescribe something that would get them banned if they're caught taking it is in a bd spot. I am skeptical as all get out about all the 20-30ish year old elites who have laundry lists of medical conditions that allow them to take otherwise banned drugs. I am much less so about people on the high side of 60 in that same boat.
Sorry if that seemed gratuitous. I'm passionate about this because, as I said, you're raising a complaint that (a) is used as a cover/excuse for doping, and your sympathy to it is part of the problem writ large, and (b) has been raised ad nauseam for years and years. Yet you keep doubling down, hence the "you're not that clever" jibe. Because I hate to say it, but it isn't. It's a silly argument because it has no bearing on the world of competition, as much as you like to think it does. I'll note that you didn't even bother responding about the other rules violations that don't seem to upset you.
I like you're posting about Lydiard of course. And you generally seem reasonable and measured in your posts. But you've lost the plot on this one.
I'd like to end this which doesn't mean I will. But I'll go back to the topic of this thread, that most people getting caught doping are masters. That doesn't surprise me for two reasons.
One is that overall you are dealing with a population that is much more likely to be getting prescriprtions and taking supplements than a younger population is and therefore much more liely to dope inadvertently than a younger population is. Obviously that doesn't mean that there aren't people in this population deliberately taking things they aren't supposed to in hopes of getting away with it and that should be dealt with. I'll even go you one further here and suggest that it's easier for people in that group to get away with deliberate doping than if they were in open competition because it's really unlikely they'll get tested anywhere but at major competitions and should be able to adjust their doping schedules accordingly.
Which kind of leads to another reason that I think explains why you'd see more masters getting popped than you do open athletes. Masters runners probably don't have agents, coaches, shoe company employees, advising them about what to take, how much, when not to take it, and so on and should be able to adjust their doping schedules appropriately.
I don't have any more sympathy for deliberate cheaters than you do as far as I can tell. But I am willing to believe that there will always be a percentage of busted athletes in all age groups who really did not know they were doing something illegal. Even among open athletes who are caught it's possible to avoid punishment by showing that you did not cheat deliberately. And so I am more likely to believe a busted 65 year old who claims not to have known what he was taking was banned than I am 25 year old.
This post was edited 14 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
fix typos
Sorry if that seemed gratuitous. I'm passionate about this because, as I said, you're raising a complaint that (a) is used as a cover/excuse for doping, and your sympathy to it is part of the problem writ large, and (b) has been raised ad nauseam for years and years. Yet you keep doubling down, hence the "you're not that clever" jibe. Because I hate to say it, but it isn't. It's a silly argument because it has no bearing on the world of competition, as much as you like to think it does. I'll note that you didn't even bother responding about the other rules violations that don't seem to upset you.
I like you're posting about Lydiard of course. And you generally seem reasonable and measured in your posts. But you've lost the plot on this one.
I'd like to end this which doesn't mean I will. But I'll go back to the topic of this thread, that most people getting caught doping are masters. That doesn't surprise me for two reasons.
One is that overall you are dealing with a population that is much more likely to be getting prescriprtions and taking supplements than a younger population is and therefore much more liely to dope inadvertently than a younger population is. Obviously that doesn't mean that there aren't people in this population deliberately taking things they aren't supposed to in hopes of getting away with it and that should be dealt with. I'll even go you one further here and suggest that it's easier for people in that group to get away with deliberate doping than if they were in open competition because it's really unlikely they'll get tested anywhere but at major competitions and should be able to adjust their doping schedules accordingly.
Which kind of leads to another reason that I think explains why you'd see more masters getting popped than you do open athletes. Masters runners probably don't have agents, coaches, shoe company employees, advising them about what to take, how much, when not to take it, and so on and should be able to adjust their doping schedules appropriately.
I don't have any more sympathy for deliberate cheaters than you do as far as I can tell. But I am willing to believe that there will always be a percentage of busted athletes in all age groups who really did not know they were doing something illegal. Even among open athletes who are caught it's possible to avoid punishment by showing that you did not cheat deliberately. And so I am more likely to believe a busted 65 year old who claims not to have known what he was taking was banned than I am 25 year old.
If you are fast enough to get tested as a Masters athlete at a major Masters competition, you know exactly what you are doing and just so stupid that you think you won't get picked or too much of an egomaniac that you will get away with it.
I'd like to end this which doesn't mean I will. But I'll go back to the topic of this thread, that most people getting caught doping are masters. That doesn't surprise me for two reasons.
One is that overall you are dealing with a population that is much more likely to be getting prescriprtions and taking supplements than a younger population is and therefore much more liely to dope inadvertently than a younger population is. Obviously that doesn't mean that there aren't people in this population deliberately taking things they aren't supposed to in hopes of getting away with it and that should be dealt with. I'll even go you one further here and suggest that it's easier for people in that group to get away with deliberate doping than if they were in open competition because it's really unlikely they'll get tested anywhere but at major competitions and should be able to adjust their doping schedules accordingly.
Which kind of leads to another reason that I think explains why you'd see more masters getting popped than you do open athletes. Masters runners probably don't have agents, coaches, shoe company employees, advising them about what to take, how much, when not to take it, and so on and should be able to adjust their doping schedules appropriately.
I don't have any more sympathy for deliberate cheaters than you do as far as I can tell. But I am willing to believe that there will always be a percentage of busted athletes in all age groups who really did not know they were doing something illegal. Even among open athletes who are caught it's possible to avoid punishment by showing that you did not cheat deliberately. And so I am more likely to believe a busted 65 year old who claims not to have known what he was taking was banned than I am 25 year old.
If you are fast enough to get tested as a Masters athlete at a major Masters competition, you know exactly what you are doing and just so stupid that you think you won't get picked or too much of an egomaniac that you will get away with it.
Yeah, it's completely silly to think someone at age 65 -- or 55 or 45 -- shouldn't know better than someone at age 25.
Doping is bad to the extent that it denies someone else their rightful reward. An Olympic medal? That's a big deal. 47th instead of 48th place in their age group? Not really a big deal.
But - it's very, very easy for a doping master's athlete to bump someone else off an age group podium in a small local race. Maybe there's just 7 guys in the 65-69 age group, and the doper gets the age group award. And that just sucks for the guy who trains hard to hit a 24 minute 5K at age 68 and misses out on his 15 seconds of recognition and $25 gift certificate. I'm dead serious about this.
If it's really a quality of life issue for someone on TRT, he needs to stay the h*ck away from any situations where he could earn any recognition at all.
It doesn't take extraordinary talent or TRT to finish well on a relatively big stage. I'm not going to win any age group awards at a WMM, but my recent HM time would have been first in my age group in some large, well known races in the tier below that. And I have fairly modest talent (couldn't break 10 for 2 miles in HS). That suggests to me that most master's runners aren't doping, but that someone who was doping could make a big difference in results.
And lets not kid ourselves - compared to everyone else out there, masters runners have the time and disposable income to focus on vanity-enhancing activities like road racing. If we're going to pay $300 for racing shoes or blow $3000 on a Boston weekend, nothing is going to stop someone unscrupulous from doping.
The tragedy is that if you're doing TRT, you aren't even experiencing masters running at all. I'm now in my mid-50s and my times have fallen off a cliff three times. Twice I've been able to figure out the puzzle to get back to linear age-related decline; the third attempt is in progress. It's frustrating but also fascinating. If TRT is your shortcut to avoiding that experience, then we really aren't running the same race, even if we're on the same starting line.
