So, amglaze and Nick Bare. Got it (partial sarcasm)
In Response:
1) I think this is about as good a response as someone in your position can give. It's a hard spot to be in: stating that no one is above reproach or suspicion while still attempting to advocate for yourself. Outside of the plain and concise evidence you state in this point and in my opinion, your years-long dedication to the more scientific aspects of the sport (literature, sportsmed, injury treatment and prevention, etc) has always been the mark of integrity that I look for in others.
2) if a person is being financially rewarded by a given interest for the transactional use of their position in a given community, they are a by-trade influencer (part time or full time, the magnitude of their influence notwithstanding). I said Nick Bare earlier, and I stand by that definition - using his position as a sports personality to increase the valuation of his supplement company through audience-based transactional reactions to his performance outcomes. There is an obvious conflict of interest that exists here - and one that is clearly preyed upon by those who would manufacture, distribute, and market performance enhancing drugs.
The solution to this problem of performance enhancement cannot be people like Sam Sulek or Arnold or MPMD - the open discussion of PEDs as though they are a postworkout protein additive. I hear that in the last sentence of your second paragraph here: "they are impacting perceptions of the real elite pros and what is "physically possible" naturally." It's a poor substitute for the hard work you mentioned in your first paragraph.
3) You're not obligated to name names. The fair social trade you get from LRC is that empty epistemological claims get the same empty epistemological claims that you're a coward for not naming those names. I'm learned in the law (not an attorney, not legal advice), so my more-advanced understanding of defamation has a fairer and more-open minded approach. Put simply, because you haven't seen the results of their doping tests (if were any to exist - an undersampling crisis that is doubly bad in ultramarathoning) you can't be held liable for anything more severe than speculation. I'm ready to be told that I'm wrong by some other armchair lawyer, but put simply - there's nothing holding you back from naming names besides your own moral-ethical hangups.
Downrace testing - what you stop short of in your first paragraph of your third point - illustrates the larger legitimacy issue in running. Not five years from now, today: what race director is going to test anyone in the back half of their race? Those people aren't racing. They don't affect prize money. It's ostensibly the same as a police officer testing the tuning on your ECM because he saw you go 55-75mph faster than your car should be able to. Legal speeds, safe operation, illegal equipment. It's a tough sell that I'm in support of, but I'm curious if there's a way you would surmise that these doped influencers (nameless though they may be) ultimately be apprehended.
In closing: You are a coward, in my personal opinion, for saying "I don't like" when people cut switchbacks. It is simply wrong. Further, it's an impermissible action. We don't turn to violence in this sport, and the way you talk about it (previously as well) makes me think you're not the kind of person to turn a course-cutter into race marshals. "what would the race marshals do?" Whatever the code of conduct / rules of the race / rules of the trail empower them to do.
Well spoken and well-put as always, good luck with your 2024 coming out of the winter. Love the work you and Sandi have done on seated posture, it's been absolutely life changing.
Johnson boys you have my phone number, the front page still and always needs a better spell check