Is doping prevalent at a sub-elite or hobby jogger level?

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

It's amazing how you see your traits in others, but not yourself.

As I have said many times - you are a fantasist. You show this once again.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I suppose that people who take thyroid meds also pay for them. Maybe their health insurance picks up some of it. Do you buy your prescribed daily aspirin?

Are your bananas prescribed? Or are you just bananas.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Are your bananas prescribed? Or are you just bananas.

This thread is about doping, not about bananas or thyroid meds.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

As I have said many times - you are a fantasist. You show this once again.

Case in point

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

WADA probably already knows that faith can make you run faster.

Look at all the winners who bow and kneel at the finish, and point to the sky, and make trinity cross symbols, and thank their god.

WADA permits faith because it falls within the spirit of the sport, and is not considered potentially harmful to health, so falls short of WADA's criteria to ban it.

Fascinating. So faith is performance enhancing but drugs aren't.

Armstronglivs wrote:

What I said, which you have yet to address or dispute, is that there is nothing wrong with aging men, including recreational athletes, with a prescription, and not subject to anti-doping rules, taking testosterone. (quote)

I have addressed it. Athletes who compete in any official competition, at whatever age, are subject to anti-doping rules, and that therefore obviously includes the use of testosterone. So masters athletes who use it are doping.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Fascinating. So faith is performance enhancing but drugs aren't.

Baby steps. Placebo effect has long been scientifically proven -- surely WADA scientists and experts already know this. Lance didn't know it, but Ferrari did.

Do you have any evidence or proof of your claim that performance enhancing drugs aren't? Without evidence, I can't agree with your repeated assertion that performance enhancing drugs aren't performance enhancing. They must be by definition, or else we couldn't call them that.

Note that WADA doesn't ever use the term PED. That is a dumb-downed misnomer often used by many of the most faithful doping worshippers. WADA does ban many drugs, some subset of which are subjectively determined by a committee of experts to be PPE (potentially performance enhancing).

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

What I said, which you have yet to address or dispute, is that there is nothing wrong with aging men, including recreational athletes, with a prescription, and not subject to anti-doping rules, taking testosterone. (quote)

I have addressed it. Athletes who compete in any official competition, at whatever age, are subject to anti-doping rules, and that therefore obviously includes the use of testosterone. So masters athletes who use it are doping.

That doesn't address it. You've replaced one set of subjects with a disjoint set.

ClubRunnah wrote:

I have to say that I thought that doping (taking drugs purely for the purpose of achieving a better race result) was a very very low percentage, probably less than 5%.

However, I searched on some other forums and WOW, I have to say that it was eye opening. I think the numbers are probably closer to 15-20%, there were people openly discussing using this stack and that stack, and these med vs those, often just to get ready for some 5k or whatever.

The drugs were discussed as openly and as casually as we discuss training plans on LR.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

That doesn't address it. You've replaced one set of subjects with a disjoint set.

We are not discussing the use of drugs for approved medicinal purposes but by sub-elite and recreational athletes. If they are competing in any formal competition they are doping under the rules.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You continue to surpass yourself. Millions spent on drugs are only because of "a placebo effect" - how moronic can athletes be, when they might get the same effect from eating bananas or even chewing gum? The experts that WADA use must be harder to explain, since they more than anyone else would know whether drugs actually enhance performance or it's just your "placebo effect". It's a shame that the placebo effect doesn't apply to improving your ability to argue. You are stuck with your natural limitations.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

We are not discussing the use of drugs for approved medicinal purposes but by sub-elite and recreational athletes. If they are competing in any formal competition they are doping under the rules.

On the contrary, you said "Prescriptions for testosterone have gone through the roof in recent years (source: ABC)" which would include "the use of drugs for approved medicinal purposes but by sub-elite and recreational athletes".

I said there is nothing wrong with that, if you have a prescription, and are not subject to rules.

So we were discussing that, whether you realize it or not.

rekrunner wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

We are not discussing the use of drugs for approved medicinal purposes but by sub-elite and recreational athletes. If they are competing in any formal competition they are doping under the rules.

On the contrary, you said "Prescriptions for testosterone have gone through the roof in recent years (source: ABC)" which would include "the use of drugs for approved medicinal purposes but by sub-elite and recreational athletes".

I said there is nothing wrong with that, if you have a prescription, and are not subject to rules.

So we were discussing that, whether you realize it or not.