You make a lot of points there - possibly too many to address in one response.
The first thing, which is known to be true by those in antidoping, is that the numbers doping will considerably exceed the numbers caught, because doping continues to be more sophisticated than antidoping. That means athletes will dope but you - we - won't know it (although we may sometimes suspect it).
In many sports - like weightlifting, body-building and cycling - we have seen that doping has become effectively the norm at the top. That means those competitors will have a different set of values from amateurs in previous generations when doping was largely unknown. WADA has put T and F in the same category as the sports above for risk of doping. I add that I do not say all athletes will be doping but the likelihood is that those at the top level will be.
I gave Secretariat as an example of how horse-racing has not evolved in decades, despite breeding and scientific training. (No one in the sport suggests Secretariat was doped - and he was tested immediately after each race in an era when doping couldn't be masked). The continuous rate of improvement in human running cannot be explained by physiological evolution/breeding and even superior training, which is based on the same methods developed decades ago. These improvements go far beyond what I consider is natural. I simply do not believe that an athlete today can run two miles consecutively at the same speed highly-trained athletes in the 60's ran one mile. The prevalence of doping in all sports now tells me how it is done.
You write that, “doping continues to be more sophisticated than antidoping” — on what do you base that assessment? What measures have been taken to allow athletes to take drugs at the same levels as they could forty years ago? I’ve written this before: Valarie Adams is the greatest of all time in the women’s shot put and her PB is only the 183rd best mark in history. The women’s throws, long jump and sprints all time lists are all dominated by marks from decades ago. This does no favours for your position that the doping is always ahead of the the anti doping measures.
You write, “we have seen that doping has become effectively the norm at the top. That means those competitors will have a different set of values from amateurs in previous generations when doping was largely unknown.” I ask again, on what do you base this broad generalisation? Because I am happy to report to you from the top of the sport, that it is in fact not standard. Most of the athletes who advocate for clean sport are not lying through their teeth. The anti doping controls are good at the top level and most athletes are not looking to cross the line or even allow themselves to come too close to it. I’ve seen adverse findings that detected banned substances in the amount of a few parts per billion. The anti doping agencies have the isotope test that works out the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in the testosterone in your sample to verify whether it’s of artificial origin or not. The ABP keeps track of everyone at the top and, perhaps most important of all, you’re guilty until proven innocent in this system.
You write that Secretariat was tested post race. As were Marita Koch and Kratochvílová. And they all passed their one off tests. You also write, “The continuous rate of improvement in human running cannot be explained by physiological evolution/breeding and even superior training, which is based on the same methods developed decades ago.” On what, if anything, do you base this?
Firstly, is it continuous? The world records in the women’s shot put, discus, 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m and high jump may as well be written in granite. The men’s long jump has improved all of 5cm in 55 years.
Secondly, why do you accept that Ron Clarke was able to legitimately run 10000m nearly a minute faster than Vladimir Kuts (who was on drugs) had less than a decade prior, and ninety seconds faster than Zatopek had run, and yet you are in disbelief that the world record could legitimately move one minute more thirty years on, and just twenty seconds further in an additional twenty five years? Ron Clarke wasn’t even a full time athlete for many of his prime years, spending ages 19 to 23 focusing on his accountancy education and career, as well as playing in the VFL. And yet your mind cannot fathom that someone with more talent and who is more focused in his prime years could run much faster.
I’m unsure how this could be difficult to understand, but the 1960s were not the pinnacle of human athleticism. Being able to focus 100% as an athlete instead of having to work at the factory or even at an office to make a wage is a massive advantage. I’ve already mentioned the improvements in nutrition, recovery and yes, footwear. It’s unknowable what the stars from sixty years ago would have run with these improvements, but likely much closer to what we’re seeing now.
However, without any personal or professional experience with today’s top athletes, you continue to close your mind to the possibility that humans are capable of running much faster than the top athletes of sixty years ago. Your heroes from the 1960s and 70s who have stayed in the sport would tell you how wrong you are, if you were to ask them.
You have some points worth discussing but your posts are a little lengthy.
The comment that "doping continues to be more sophisticated than antidoping" comes from David Howman. It is shown by the fact that estimated prevalence still greatly exceeds the numbers caught. It means that testing doesn't catch all the dopers and it can't.
I don't say that the 1960's were the pinnacle of sport. They were however the last decade when most sports were still not significantly infected by doping. However the improvements that have since occurred in sports like running cannot be separated from doping. Tracks and shoes are only a small part of it. You continue to ignore the fact that WADA has included running with body-building, weightlifting and cycling for risk of doping. Would you be prepared to argue those sports are still largely clean?
The improvements that occurred from Kuts to Clarke can be explained by developments in training methods, which saw the adoption of greater mileage as part of base training. However once this became a norm there has been little room for significant developments in training, apart from the adoption of altitude-training in the 70's.
You are insistent that most top athletes are clean yet you appear oblivious to the stream of doping violations that have come out of Kenya in recent years. And then there is Russia, where a whistleblower has said 99% of their top athletes dope. They are all athletes much like athletes everywhere, trying to do whatever they can to succeed at their sport. I see no reason to believe they are much different from athletes anywhere else in the world. That is in accordance with the views of those like antidoping expert Renee Ann Shirley, who says "doping will be found at the top level in all sports and in all countries". The confidential athlete surveys have shown that the incidence of doping at championship level is much higher than we might assume from the numbers caught. That tells us ambitious athletes will do what they feel they need to do in order to succeed. And they can mostly get away with it.
You write that, “doping continues to be more sophisticated than antidoping” — on what do you base that assessment? What measures have been taken to allow athletes to take drugs at the same levels as they could forty years ago? I’ve written this before: Valarie Adams is the greatest of all time in the women’s shot put and her PB is only the 183rd best mark in history. The women’s throws, long jump and sprints all time lists are all dominated by marks from decades ago. This does no favours for your position that the doping is always ahead of the the anti doping measures.
You write, “we have seen that doping has become effectively the norm at the top. That means those competitors will have a different set of values from amateurs in previous generations when doping was largely unknown.” I ask again, on what do you base this broad generalisation? Because I am happy to report to you from the top of the sport, that it is in fact not standard. Most of the athletes who advocate for clean sport are not lying through their teeth. The anti doping controls are good at the top level and most athletes are not looking to cross the line or even allow themselves to come too close to it. I’ve seen adverse findings that detected banned substances in the amount of a few parts per billion. The anti doping agencies have the isotope test that works out the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 in the testosterone in your sample to verify whether it’s of artificial origin or not. The ABP keeps track of everyone at the top and, perhaps most important of all, you’re guilty until proven innocent in this system.
You write that Secretariat was tested post race. As were Marita Koch and Kratochvílová. And they all passed their one off tests. You also write, “The continuous rate of improvement in human running cannot be explained by physiological evolution/breeding and even superior training, which is based on the same methods developed decades ago.” On what, if anything, do you base this?
Firstly, is it continuous? The world records in the women’s shot put, discus, 100m, 200m, 400m, 800m and high jump may as well be written in granite. The men’s long jump has improved all of 5cm in 55 years.
Secondly, why do you accept that Ron Clarke was able to legitimately run 10000m nearly a minute faster than Vladimir Kuts (who was on drugs) had less than a decade prior, and ninety seconds faster than Zatopek had run, and yet you are in disbelief that the world record could legitimately move one minute more thirty years on, and just twenty seconds further in an additional twenty five years? Ron Clarke wasn’t even a full time athlete for many of his prime years, spending ages 19 to 23 focusing on his accountancy education and career, as well as playing in the VFL. And yet your mind cannot fathom that someone with more talent and who is more focused in his prime years could run much faster.
I’m unsure how this could be difficult to understand, but the 1960s were not the pinnacle of human athleticism. Being able to focus 100% as an athlete instead of having to work at the factory or even at an office to make a wage is a massive advantage. I’ve already mentioned the improvements in nutrition, recovery and yes, footwear. It’s unknowable what the stars from sixty years ago would have run with these improvements, but likely much closer to what we’re seeing now.
However, without any personal or professional experience with today’s top athletes, you continue to close your mind to the possibility that humans are capable of running much faster than the top athletes of sixty years ago. Your heroes from the 1960s and 70s who have stayed in the sport would tell you how wrong you are, if you were to ask them.
You have some points worth discussing but your posts are a little lengthy.
The comment that "doping continues to be more sophisticated than antidoping" comes from David Howman. It is shown by the fact that estimated prevalence still greatly exceeds the numbers caught. It means that testing doesn't catch all the dopers and it can't.
I don't say that the 1960's were the pinnacle of sport. They were however the last decade when most sports were still not significantly infected by doping. However the improvements that have since occurred in sports like running cannot be separated from doping. Tracks and shoes are only a small part of it. You continue to ignore the fact that WADA has included running with body-building, weightlifting and cycling for risk of doping. Would you be prepared to argue those sports are still largely clean?
The improvements that occurred from Kuts to Clarke can be explained by developments in training methods, which saw the adoption of greater mileage as part of base training. However once this became a norm there has been little room for significant developments in training, apart from the adoption of altitude-training in the 70's.
You are insistent that most top athletes are clean yet you appear oblivious to the stream of doping violations that have come out of Kenya in recent years. And then there is Russia, where a whistleblower has said 99% of their top athletes dope. They are all athletes much like athletes everywhere, trying to do whatever they can to succeed at their sport. I see no reason to believe they are much different from athletes anywhere else in the world. That is in accordance with the views of those like antidoping expert Renee Ann Shirley, who says "doping will be found at the top level in all sports and in all countries". The confidential athlete surveys have shown that the incidence of doping at championship level is much higher than we might assume from the numbers caught. That tells us ambitious athletes will do what they feel they need to do in order to succeed. And they can mostly get away with it.
You write, “It is shown by the fact that estimated prevalence still greatly exceeds the numbers caught. It means that testing doesn't catch all the dopers and it can’t.” That the police fail to catch 100 pct the criminals does not equate to the criminals being always ahead of the authorities.
You can never expect to catch them all. We haven’t got the resources to take daily blood and urine samples from every top athlete on the globe. What we can provide is the genuine threat of random testing and this, along with testing and retaining samples over long periods of time, has shown to be effective. How else might you explain the complete regression in the women’s shot put and discus compared to the Cold War days? Athletes cannot use drugs as they could in the past and the performances we see today reflect that.
You write, “However the improvements that have since occurred in sports like running cannot be separated from doping.” Are you stating that you cannot tell the difference between a genuine performance and a fraudulent one? That you can believe Jim Ryun running 3:33 on a natural track in Los Angeles 55 years ago but not Chris O’Hare running 3:33 on a modern surface in Monaco? You go on to state, “You continue to ignore the fact that WADA has included running with body-building, weightlifting and cycling for risk of doping. Would you be prepared to argue those sports are still largely clean?” I don’t work closely with athletes in those fields so I’m not in a position to say.
You write, “The improvements that occurred from Kuts to Clarke can be explained by developments in training methods, which saw the adoption of greater mileage as part of base training. However once this became a norm there has been little room for significant developments in training, apart from the adoption of altitude-training in the 70’s.”
On what is this based? You’re stating that coaching development ended c. 1976 and that, “we found out all there is to know on this matter.” It’s a bit daft, isn’t it? You credit progress from Kuts to Clarke to advancement in training methods and yet, you don’t see any room for improvement beyond that. Clarke did not train seriously in distance running from ages 19 to 23 and then even once he did, he was still working as a qualified accountant. He also did essentially the same workouts year round with very little variation, never timed his efforts and never kept a training diary. But you cannot consider that someone of Clarke’s talent (or greater) may have done much better with some periodisation, a stopwatch and a training diary, nevermind an income that kept him out the office full time.
You write, “You are insistent that most top athletes are clean yet you appear oblivious to the stream of doping violations that have come out of Kenya in recent years.” I’m well aware of it and maintain that the second tier of athletes in Kenya and Ethiopia is where much of this pollution is taking place. There are so many talents there, far too many to keep in the testing pool, making it all too easy for a dodgy coach or manager to take a B or C level Kenyan or Ethiopian and pump them up for a single payday and then disappear off the scene. I’ve been personal witness to it. At least at the top level there’s a greater measure of accountability, as we’ve seen with this Titus case.
You continue, “And then there is Russia, where a whistleblower has said 99% of their top athletes dope. They are all athletes much like athletes everywhere, trying to do whatever they can to succeed at their sport.” Your first sentence could not be more correct. Your second could not be more wrong. Russia, Belarus, Ukraine (at least prior to the war) have entrenched doping programs at the state level. It is pervasive there. The athletes there are not like athletes in other parts of the world because most athletes elsewhere are not herded into drugs at an early age by systematic programmes.
Renee Ann Shirley is correct, doping will be found at the top level of sport and in all countries. But modern controls have been able to limit that to about one in five athletes at the top, as opposed to five out of five in Russia. It’s no great shock that Russia had plenty of top level women in the sprints, middle and long distances and field events and yet so few men of the same calibre.
What would it take to change your position on this and instead agree that a solid majority of the top athletes (outside of the established problem states) in our sport are doing this the right way? I would like to think that, were I in your place and didn’t have the experience I have with the athletes, that I would still be close to the mark but that’s all academic, of course.
However, without any personal or professional experience with today’s top athletes, you continue to close your mind to the possibility that humans are capable of running much faster than the top athletes of sixty years ago. Your heroes from the 1960s and 70s who have stayed in the sport would tell you how wrong you are, if you were to ask them
I know a few world or national class runners from the 60s to the 90s. All of them are very suspicious about the legitimacy of the times we're seeing now.
However, without any personal or professional experience with today’s top athletes, you continue to close your mind to the possibility that humans are capable of running much faster than the top athletes of sixty years ago. Your heroes from the 1960s and 70s who have stayed in the sport would tell you how wrong you are, if you were to ask them
I know a few world or national class runners from the 60s to the 90s. All of them are very suspicious about the legitimacy of the times we're seeing now.
I hesitate to name names, however, but there is the only genuine star from those times that I’ve had the displeasure of knowing who is convinced that virtually anyone who has run faster than he did is a dope user. I’ve known others from more recent times who never spent any time with an African athlete (outside of a competition) and were convinced that the whole of the continent is dirty.
But the ones from that era whom I know well and have continued to be active at the top level are not so jaded. From a personal standpoint, if I saw evidence that everything I’ve known in my career about this sport had all been lies, I’d walk away.
We know different people. I'm not sure I could find anyone who was at least national class on the high side of forty who thinks these performances are on the up and up.
You have some points worth discussing but your posts are a little lengthy.
The comment that "doping continues to be more sophisticated than antidoping" comes from David Howman. It is shown by the fact that estimated prevalence still greatly exceeds the numbers caught. It means that testing doesn't catch all the dopers and it can't.
I don't say that the 1960's were the pinnacle of sport. They were however the last decade when most sports were still not significantly infected by doping. However the improvements that have since occurred in sports like running cannot be separated from doping. Tracks and shoes are only a small part of it. You continue to ignore the fact that WADA has included running with body-building, weightlifting and cycling for risk of doping. Would you be prepared to argue those sports are still largely clean?
The improvements that occurred from Kuts to Clarke can be explained by developments in training methods, which saw the adoption of greater mileage as part of base training. However once this became a norm there has been little room for significant developments in training, apart from the adoption of altitude-training in the 70's.
You are insistent that most top athletes are clean yet you appear oblivious to the stream of doping violations that have come out of Kenya in recent years. And then there is Russia, where a whistleblower has said 99% of their top athletes dope. They are all athletes much like athletes everywhere, trying to do whatever they can to succeed at their sport. I see no reason to believe they are much different from athletes anywhere else in the world. That is in accordance with the views of those like antidoping expert Renee Ann Shirley, who says "doping will be found at the top level in all sports and in all countries". The confidential athlete surveys have shown that the incidence of doping at championship level is much higher than we might assume from the numbers caught. That tells us ambitious athletes will do what they feel they need to do in order to succeed. And they can mostly get away with it.
You write, “It is shown by the fact that estimated prevalence still greatly exceeds the numbers caught. It means that testing doesn't catch all the dopers and it can’t.” That the police fail to catch 100 pct the criminals does not equate to the criminals being always ahead of the authorities.
You can never expect to catch them all. We haven’t got the resources to take daily blood and urine samples from every top athlete on the globe. What we can provide is the genuine threat of random testing and this, along with testing and retaining samples over long periods of time, has shown to be effective. How else might you explain the complete regression in the women’s shot put and discus compared to the Cold War days? Athletes cannot use drugs as they could in the past and the performances we see today reflect that.
You write, “However the improvements that have since occurred in sports like running cannot be separated from doping.” Are you stating that you cannot tell the difference between a genuine performance and a fraudulent one? That you can believe Jim Ryun running 3:33 on a natural track in Los Angeles 55 years ago but not Chris O’Hare running 3:33 on a modern surface in Monaco? You go on to state, “You continue to ignore the fact that WADA has included running with body-building, weightlifting and cycling for risk of doping. Would you be prepared to argue those sports are still largely clean?” I don’t work closely with athletes in those fields so I’m not in a position to say.
You write, “The improvements that occurred from Kuts to Clarke can be explained by developments in training methods, which saw the adoption of greater mileage as part of base training. However once this became a norm there has been little room for significant developments in training, apart from the adoption of altitude-training in the 70’s.”
On what is this based? You’re stating that coaching development ended c. 1976 and that, “we found out all there is to know on this matter.” It’s a bit daft, isn’t it? You credit progress from Kuts to Clarke to advancement in training methods and yet, you don’t see any room for improvement beyond that. Clarke did not train seriously in distance running from ages 19 to 23 and then even once he did, he was still working as a qualified accountant. He also did essentially the same workouts year round with very little variation, never timed his efforts and never kept a training diary. But you cannot consider that someone of Clarke’s talent (or greater) may have done much better with some periodisation, a stopwatch and a training diary, nevermind an income that kept him out the office full time.
You write, “You are insistent that most top athletes are clean yet you appear oblivious to the stream of doping violations that have come out of Kenya in recent years.” I’m well aware of it and maintain that the second tier of athletes in Kenya and Ethiopia is where much of this pollution is taking place. There are so many talents there, far too many to keep in the testing pool, making it all too easy for a dodgy coach or manager to take a B or C level Kenyan or Ethiopian and pump them up for a single payday and then disappear off the scene. I’ve been personal witness to it. At least at the top level there’s a greater measure of accountability, as we’ve seen with this Titus case.
You continue, “And then there is Russia, where a whistleblower has said 99% of their top athletes dope. They are all athletes much like athletes everywhere, trying to do whatever they can to succeed at their sport.” Your first sentence could not be more correct. Your second could not be more wrong. Russia, Belarus, Ukraine (at least prior to the war) have entrenched doping programs at the state level. It is pervasive there. The athletes there are not like athletes in other parts of the world because most athletes elsewhere are not herded into drugs at an early age by systematic programmes.
Renee Ann Shirley is correct, doping will be found at the top level of sport and in all countries. But modern controls have been able to limit that to about one in five athletes at the top, as opposed to five out of five in Russia. It’s no great shock that Russia had plenty of top level women in the sprints, middle and long distances and field events and yet so few men of the same calibre.
What would it take to change your position on this and instead agree that a solid majority of the top athletes (outside of the established problem states) in our sport are doing this the right way? I would like to think that, were I in your place and didn’t have the experience I have with the athletes, that I would still be close to the mark but that’s all academic, of course.
Your analogy about the police not catching all criminals is a false one. There is typically a body of evidence required to convict common criminals. But doping control is a very specific process. It comes down to whether an athlete fails a test (or fails to make themselves available for a succession of tests). For over twenty years now antidoping has known that tests will not catch dopers when the drugs are masked. They usually are now. Athletes have also worked out ways to beat the biopassport, by altering their normal blood values through progressive microdosing. It is the given wisdom now in antidoping that "only the dumb and the careless" will be caught. (There is another thread in which Kiptum's coach has just said that about Kenyan athletes).
I wouldn't be so confident that the resistance of the women's shot-put record to improvement is a sign that doping isn't present. The massive improvement in the men's record suggests otherwise. There are several other world-marks that remain but they are all now under threat as records tumble on a near monthly basis. You can virtually guarantee that any record from the last two or three decades will have been doped and so therefore the new marks will also be doped. The best clean don't beat the best doped athletes. If it were so, doping wouldn't exist.
Not all countries dope to the same extent - Russia and Kenya show that - but it is a problem in sport everywhere and even in sports like curling, championship darts and chess.
You have said you don't know much about sports like bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling, but the point is that WADA puts athletics in the same category as those sports for risk of doping. Those sports are notorious for doping - they wouldn't exist without it. And so neither would athletics.
Howman has suggested doping at the top of the sport is likely to be anywhere between 10-40%. If you examine what that means it suggests that the minority of athletes who make it at a top national and certainly a global level are most likely to be in that group, because doping will put an athlete ahead of an equivalent competitor who is clean. At world championship level, amongst the dozen or so runners in a final it is difficult to imagine any will now be clean. That is the view of experts like Victor Conte.
However, I can see how difficult it would be for you to accept this is the likely reality. It would destroy your belief in the sport.
You write, “Your analogy about the police not catching all criminals is a false one. There is typically a body of evidence required to convict common criminals. But doping control is a very specific process. It comes down to whether an athlete fails a test (or fails to make themselves available for a succession of tests). For over twenty years now antidoping has known that tests will not catch dopers when the drugs are masked.” Do you have examples of what masking agents are popularly used by athletes that allow them to use drugs with impunity? Classically, diuretics would be employed to flush a user’s system, however, the diuretics themselves are banned and are detectable. As I wrote earlier, the sensitivity of the tests today is staggering.
You write, “Athletes have also worked out ways to beat the biopassport, by altering their normal blood values through progressive microdosing.” Are you able to detail this process? What methods are they employing to evade the isotope test?
You write, “It is the given wisdom now in antidoping that "only the dumb and the careless" will be caught. (There is another thread in which Kiptum's coach has just said that about Kenyan athletes).” The extent to which I agree with Kiptum’s coach on this is a question on how many instances an athlete is made to provide a sample. One method of evading anti doping measures is to take whatever banned substances immediately after the athlete’s whereabouts window has closed for the day and then to flush their system as much as possible before the window begins again the following day. But as I stated before, if you give the testing authorities enough attempts, they’re likely to find you out. Sprint Capitol was a sophisticated group with respect to doping and they still got found out.
You write, “I wouldn't be so confident that the resistance of the women's shot-put record to improvement is a sign that doping isn't present. The massive improvement in the men's record suggests otherwise.” How many athletes have bettered Barnes’ previous world record in the men’s shot put, and how many women are within a time zone of their shot put world record? Is it only Crouser who has found these new methods and he’s keeping it secret from all the women? I trust understand why the best women shot putters in the world are so far behind the marks set decades ago.
You write, “You can virtually guarantee that any record from the last two or three decades will have been doped and so therefore the new marks will also be doped. The best clean don't beat the best doped athletes. If it were so, doping wouldn't exist.” You’re not in a position to make such a broad statement on the validity of recent records. It’s as if you’re taking the position, “well, I would be a lying cheat were I in their place, thus they’re all lying cheats.” I’m happy to say I’ve known more than a few athletes well enough to know they’ve set new world records entirely within the rules and without illegal assistance. Clean athletes can and do beat cheating athletes. It certainly doesn’t make it any easier, but it happens. Do you assume that Wottle was doping when he beat Arzhanov in 1972?
You write, “You have said you don't know much about sports like bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling, but the point is that WADA puts athletics in the same category as those sports for risk of doping. Those sports are notorious for doping - they wouldn't exist without it. And so neither would athletics.” I struggle to understand your argument here. Of course there’s risk of doping in any sport. And there’s going to be a clear difference in accountability and legitimacy in sports which conform to WADA requirements versus those that don’t.
You write, “Howman has suggested doping at the top of the sport is likely to be anywhere between 10-40%. If you examine what that means it suggests that the minority of athletes who make it at a top national and certainly a global level are most likely to be in that group, because doping will put an athlete ahead of an equivalent competitor who is clean.” I wrote earlier that it’s in the range of 20 pct, but you’re wrong to assume that the drug users are automatically tilted towards the top of the scale. Inferior athletes can also take drugs, as we’re seeing in India. The performing enhancing drugs aren’t magic. Dave Bedford managed to beat Lasse Viren’s record, despite the Finn’s use of blood doping and testosterone. Frank Shorter also finished ahead of three Soviets and Viren in the marathon in Montreal. But given your logic, Shorter must have also been doping because how else could he have beaten them.
“At world championship level, amongst the dozen or so runners in a final it is difficult to imagine any will now be clean. That is the view of experts like Victor Conte.” If you’re a criminal who surrounds yourself with criminals, you’re more apt to imagine that everyone else is also a criminal. Victor and I know many of the same people, and the ones whom he kept company with are the ones I know to keep at a distance.
”However, I can see how difficult it would be for you to accept this is the likely reality. It would destroy your belief in the sport.” I’ve spent decades working closely with top athletes whom have succeeded at the highest levels of our sport. I know what’s legitimate and what is not. I’ve been trying to help you understand that the sport is in much, much better shape than you imagine.
We know different people. I'm not sure I could find anyone who was at least national class on the high side of forty who thinks these performances are on the up and up.
Are your mates still active at the top level of the sport?
You write, “Your analogy about the police not catching all criminals is a false one. There is typically a body of evidence required to convict common criminals. But doping control is a very specific process. It comes down to whether an athlete fails a test (or fails to make themselves available for a succession of tests). For over twenty years now antidoping has known that tests will not catch dopers when the drugs are masked.” Do you have examples of what masking agents are popularly used by athletes that allow them to use drugs with impunity? Classically, diuretics would be employed to flush a user’s system, however, the diuretics themselves are banned and are detectable. As I wrote earlier, the sensitivity of the tests today is staggering.
You write, “Athletes have also worked out ways to beat the biopassport, by altering their normal blood values through progressive microdosing.” Are you able to detail this process? What methods are they employing to evade the isotope test?
You write, “It is the given wisdom now in antidoping that "only the dumb and the careless" will be caught. (There is another thread in which Kiptum's coach has just said that about Kenyan athletes).” The extent to which I agree with Kiptum’s coach on this is a question on how many instances an athlete is made to provide a sample. One method of evading anti doping measures is to take whatever banned substances immediately after the athlete’s whereabouts window has closed for the day and then to flush their system as much as possible before the window begins again the following day. But as I stated before, if you give the testing authorities enough attempts, they’re likely to find you out. Sprint Capitol was a sophisticated group with respect to doping and they still got found out.
You write, “I wouldn't be so confident that the resistance of the women's shot-put record to improvement is a sign that doping isn't present. The massive improvement in the men's record suggests otherwise.” How many athletes have bettered Barnes’ previous world record in the men’s shot put, and how many women are within a time zone of their shot put world record? Is it only Crouser who has found these new methods and he’s keeping it secret from all the women? I trust understand why the best women shot putters in the world are so far behind the marks set decades ago.
You write, “You can virtually guarantee that any record from the last two or three decades will have been doped and so therefore the new marks will also be doped. The best clean don't beat the best doped athletes. If it were so, doping wouldn't exist.” You’re not in a position to make such a broad statement on the validity of recent records. It’s as if you’re taking the position, “well, I would be a lying cheat were I in their place, thus they’re all lying cheats.” I’m happy to say I’ve known more than a few athletes well enough to know they’ve set new world records entirely within the rules and without illegal assistance. Clean athletes can and do beat cheating athletes. It certainly doesn’t make it any easier, but it happens. Do you assume that Wottle was doping when he beat Arzhanov in 1972?
You write, “You have said you don't know much about sports like bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling, but the point is that WADA puts athletics in the same category as those sports for risk of doping. Those sports are notorious for doping - they wouldn't exist without it. And so neither would athletics.” I struggle to understand your argument here. Of course there’s risk of doping in any sport. And there’s going to be a clear difference in accountability and legitimacy in sports which conform to WADA requirements versus those that don’t.
You write, “Howman has suggested doping at the top of the sport is likely to be anywhere between 10-40%. If you examine what that means it suggests that the minority of athletes who make it at a top national and certainly a global level are most likely to be in that group, because doping will put an athlete ahead of an equivalent competitor who is clean.” I wrote earlier that it’s in the range of 20 pct, but you’re wrong to assume that the drug users are automatically tilted towards the top of the scale. Inferior athletes can also take drugs, as we’re seeing in India. The performing enhancing drugs aren’t magic. Dave Bedford managed to beat Lasse Viren’s record, despite the Finn’s use of blood doping and testosterone. Frank Shorter also finished ahead of three Soviets and Viren in the marathon in Montreal. But given your logic, Shorter must have also been doping because how else could he have beaten them.
“At world championship level, amongst the dozen or so runners in a final it is difficult to imagine any will now be clean. That is the view of experts like Victor Conte.” If you’re a criminal who surrounds yourself with criminals, you’re more apt to imagine that everyone else is also a criminal. Victor and I know many of the same people, and the ones whom he kept company with are the ones I know to keep at a distance.
”However, I can see how difficult it would be for you to accept this is the likely reality. It would destroy your belief in the sport.” I’ve spent decades working closely with top athletes whom have succeeded at the highest levels of our sport. I know what’s legitimate and what is not. I’ve been trying to help you understand that the sport is in much, much better shape than you imagine.
You are persuading me to what you believe, not that the sport is in better shape than what I think. I think it has become a farce but I understand you couldn't work in the sport if you came to that view. To continue this discussion I think we will simply go round and round the mulberry bush.
I might add, that I recall Victor Conte's response to a question he was asked about which of the finalists in the men's 100m at Beijing did he consider would be doping. He replied - "all of them. The difference between 9.7 and 10-flat is drugs".
Conte had previously worked closely with top sprinters, supplying them with drugs as part of Balco. I would consider him an expert. Doping continues to develop - it is a massive industry - and, according to experts like David Howman, it remains ahead of antidoping. I have little doubt that what Conte said about Beijing would be just as applicable today. It is everywhere, in all sports and amongst the top athletes.
This post was edited 40 seconds after it was posted.
We know different people. I'm not sure I could find anyone who was at least national class on the high side of forty who thinks these performances are on the up and up.
Are your mates still active at the top level of the sport?
You write, “You are persuading me to what you believe, not that the sport is in better shape than what I think. I think it has become a farce but I understand you couldn't work in the sport if you came to that view. To continue this discussion I think we will simply go round and round the mulberry bush.”
You’ve got it the wrong way around. I work in the sport because I know that clean athletes can and do succeed at the highest level. The idea that every professional in athletics is a liar and charlatan and part of some secret society where no one speaks publicly about what’s really going on is beyond absurd. You speak about the sport as if there's some handbook that every young athlete is handed to guide them through evading doping protocols. This may come as a surprise but most are not so good at keeping secrets.
You write, “I might add, that I recall Victor Conte's response to a question he was asked about which of the finalists in the men's 100m at Beijing did he consider would be doping. He replied - "all of them. The difference between 9.7 and 10-flat is drugs". Conte had previously worked closely with top sprinters, supplying them with drugs as part of Balco. I would consider him an expert. Doping continues to develop - it is a massive industry - and, according to experts like David Howman, it remains ahead of antidoping. I have little doubt that what Conte said about Beijing would be just as applicable today. It is everywhere, in all sports and amongst the top athletes.”
Conte is wrong. 10.00 into a -1.5m/s is believable but a 9.79 +2.0m/s is not, is that right? Of course he would have that position because he chose to surround himself with cheats. The federation officials in Russia did not think that under 2:05 for 800m was possible for a woman without drugs. That’s how far gone the state of mind is for persons with such warped perspectives.
And I would include you in that. You strike me as someone who is incredibly damaging to the sport of athletics, as you clearly know enough to come off as an expert to any layperson, however, the fact that you're so incredibly far off the mark with respect to doping in the sport makes your words poisonous to anyone with the misfortune to hear your outside perspective. Furthermore, you've shown no interest at all in even considering that you might have this wrong. Humans are not horses. Training programmes, equipment and very much legal methods have evolved to allow athletes to get more out of themselves than was possible decades ago. These are all advantages that today’s athletes have on the ones from the past, however they’re all very much within the rules and do not involve taking hormones or consuming illicit substances or aids of any kind. Jim Ryun ran 3:33 on cinders at age 19, but you cannot imagine that a Josh Kerr or a Jake Wightman might run five seconds faster as a full time athlete and with today’s footwear, a synthetic surface and modern training and recovery methods. As if time has stood still in the more than fifty years since Ryun’s day.
The fact that we've had more persons, and thus more potentially talented ones, try their hand at athletics, the more likely over time that we will see better performances. But your mind cannot consider that out of some strange superiority complex that there's no improving beyond the best times of an accountant who never used a watch or training diary. It's as if someone in 1970 state that Ron Clarke must be a drugs cheat because it's simply not possible that anyone could run so much faster than Paavo Nurmi. Absurd, isn't it?
You write, “You are persuading me to what you believe, not that the sport is in better shape than what I think. I think it has become a farce but I understand you couldn't work in the sport if you came to that view. To continue this discussion I think we will simply go round and round the mulberry bush.”
You’ve got it the wrong way around. I work in the sport because I know that clean athletes can and do succeed at the highest level. The idea that every professional in athletics is a liar and charlatan and part of some secret society where no one speaks publicly about what’s really going on is beyond absurd. You speak about the sport as if there's some handbook that every young athlete is handed to guide them through evading doping protocols. This may come as a surprise but most are not so good at keeping secrets.
You write, “I might add, that I recall Victor Conte's response to a question he was asked about which of the finalists in the men's 100m at Beijing did he consider would be doping. He replied - "all of them. The difference between 9.7 and 10-flat is drugs". Conte had previously worked closely with top sprinters, supplying them with drugs as part of Balco. I would consider him an expert. Doping continues to develop - it is a massive industry - and, according to experts like David Howman, it remains ahead of antidoping. I have little doubt that what Conte said about Beijing would be just as applicable today. It is everywhere, in all sports and amongst the top athletes.”
Conte is wrong. 10.00 into a -1.5m/s is believable but a 9.79 +2.0m/s is not, is that right? Of course he would have that position because he chose to surround himself with cheats. The federation officials in Russia did not think that under 2:05 for 800m was possible for a woman without drugs. That’s how far gone the state of mind is for persons with such warped perspectives.
And I would include you in that. You strike me as someone who is incredibly damaging to the sport of athletics, as you clearly know enough to come off as an expert to any layperson, however, the fact that you're so incredibly far off the mark with respect to doping in the sport makes your words poisonous to anyone with the misfortune to hear your outside perspective. Furthermore, you've shown no interest at all in even considering that you might have this wrong. Humans are not horses. Training programmes, equipment and very much legal methods have evolved to allow athletes to get more out of themselves than was possible decades ago. These are all advantages that today’s athletes have on the ones from the past, however they’re all very much within the rules and do not involve taking hormones or consuming illicit substances or aids of any kind. Jim Ryun ran 3:33 on cinders at age 19, but you cannot imagine that a Josh Kerr or a Jake Wightman might run five seconds faster as a full time athlete and with today’s footwear, a synthetic surface and modern training and recovery methods. As if time has stood still in the more than fifty years since Ryun’s day.
The fact that we've had more persons, and thus more potentially talented ones, try their hand at athletics, the more likely over time that we will see better performances. But your mind cannot consider that out of some strange superiority complex that there's no improving beyond the best times of an accountant who never used a watch or training diary. It's as if someone in 1970 state that Ron Clarke must be a drugs cheat because it's simply not possible that anyone could run so much faster than Paavo Nurmi. Absurd, isn't it?
The last point is certainly absurd. The transition from Nurmi to Clarke is well explained by the evolution in training methods in that era. But the transition from Clarke to the record-holders of today isn't, as Clarke trained essentially the same way as they do now.
You really keep ducking the fundamental points. We know that doping is in all sports and we also know that athletics is as susceptible to doping as some of the worst offenders - such as bodybuilding, weightlifting and cycling. That isn't my opinion - it is from WADA. Does WADA have some sort of "superiority complex" in seeing that athletics is a sport with a high risk of doping? Are they also ignorant and ill-informed, as you suggest I am? My views are taken from those who are experts in this field, and the plentiful data that shows doping is a serious problem in this sport. Just look at the appalling stream of doping violations that have come out of Kenya in recent years. They aren't alone.
It has been acknowledged by experts such as Howman and others like Renee Ann Shirley that doping goes far further than the numbers caught. An Al Jazeera investigation revealed that there are innumerable substances that cannot be tested for and that the black market in such drugs exceeds a billion Euros annually. Yet you continue to maintain that most in the sport will be clean. So who are taking these drugs?
I don't say that every athlete in the sport is doping - I don't know any expert who does say that - but the numbers are far higher than most fans would realise. Richard Pound was asked how many athletes would have been doping at the London Olympics. He was given lower estimates, such as about 10%, and those from the likes of former insiders like Conte, who suggested nearly all would be. Pound said it would be more than the lower estimates but perhaps not as much as what Conte said - "somewhere in between". So that's more than 10% but possibly as high as about 90% - or you could take the mean, of around 50%, which is what confidential athlete surveys have indicated. That isn't the sport that you are trying to present, that you say is still largely uncontaminated by doping.
Of course doping will be prevalent. As Howman says, it is always a step ahead of antidoping - and the rewards make doping worth the risk of being caught to many ambitious athletes. The risks are few. As antidoping experts have said for years now - only the dumb and the careless are caught.
Your insistence that the sport is clean is like a clergyman who strenuously maintains that none of his flock are sinners - because he doesn't see it and he can't believe anyone would have their secrets they wouldn't tell him.
Clarke trained by far in different way from today. He improved his WR from 28'15" to 27'39" in one only competition, with a difference of 36" that, following your system of analysis, automatically makes everybody thinking he was doped AFTER his 28'15", because improvements of that greatness are only explained with doping.
It's clear you have some knowledge about training system of the period 60-80, but absolutely not knowledge about a modern training system of today.
Zatopek was abel to run under 14' and 28'54" and with those times never ran a marathon under 2:24, while today 100 women with a PB of 32'30" are able to run the same time.
The WR of 800m had very little improvement from 1979 till now, and the athletes running the final in Los Angeles 1984 could still stay in the final of today with big chances of medalling.
But from that era the general average of 10000m improved of more than 1 minute and the marathon of about 8 minutes, and this means that the training methodology changed essentially for the long distances. Fundamentally, while 40-50 years ago athletes were used to run 300 km per week with long runs at 80% of Marathon pace as intensity, together with other training with limited volume at high intensity not connected with what we need for running a marathon, now the best athletes run LONG and FAST, reaching for long specific runs the percentage of speed of 98% of MP in training. For that reason, while 5o years ago Marathon Runners competed in a lot of different races in one season (Shorter ran during the indoor season too), now they need to dedicate 6 full months of training only before a top Marathon.
I well know it's possible to better WR in clean way, because this is my profession, and I'm very happy if some expert who worked in this field at top level can explain, in his mother tongue and with a lot of words that I fatigue to understand (but the meaning is very clear) can express his opinion, based on the facts he knows and not on suppositions created by continuous "bombing" in media, that step by step go to create in the athletes too the idea that without doping is not possible to win.
About Conte, he was an expert for athletes of "strength" and speed, never had any clue about doping for long distances. So, speaking of Conte as expert for the doping of long distance runners is the same as to speak of the Wagner group expert of peace.
Clarke trained by far in different way from today. He improved his WR from 28'15" to 27'39" in one only competition, with a difference of 36" that, following your system of analysis, automatically makes everybody thinking he was doped AFTER his 28'15", because improvements of that greatness are only explained with doping.
It's clear you have some knowledge about training system of the period 60-80, but absolutely not knowledge about a modern training system of today.
Zatopek was abel to run under 14' and 28'54" and with those times never ran a marathon under 2:24, while today 100 women with a PB of 32'30" are able to run the same time.
The WR of 800m had very little improvement from 1979 till now, and the athletes running the final in Los Angeles 1984 could still stay in the final of today with big chances of medalling.
But from that era the general average of 10000m improved of more than 1 minute and the marathon of about 8 minutes, and this means that the training methodology changed essentially for the long distances. Fundamentally, while 40-50 years ago athletes were used to run 300 km per week with long runs at 80% of Marathon pace as intensity, together with other training with limited volume at high intensity not connected with what we need for running a marathon, now the best athletes run LONG and FAST, reaching for long specific runs the percentage of speed of 98% of MP in training. For that reason, while 5o years ago Marathon Runners competed in a lot of different races in one season (Shorter ran during the indoor season too), now they need to dedicate 6 full months of training only before a top Marathon.
I well know it's possible to better WR in clean way, because this is my profession, and I'm very happy if some expert who worked in this field at top level can explain, in his mother tongue and with a lot of words that I fatigue to understand (but the meaning is very clear) can express his opinion, based on the facts he knows and not on suppositions created by continuous "bombing" in media, that step by step go to create in the athletes too the idea that without doping is not possible to win.
About Conte, he was an expert for athletes of "strength" and speed, never had any clue about doping for long distances. So, speaking of Conte as expert for the doping of long distance runners is the same as to speak of the Wagner group expert of peace.
Absolutely and I think that some of the younger people simply don't understand the differences in running shoes (and I'm NOT talking about super shoes).
If they could see the evolution of shoes from the 1950's to now (and even try running in some of the old shoes) they would see that, that is enough to account for a lot of improvement just because we can stay healthier while training.
Not to mention recovery improvements with nutrition and the fact that these world class runners are pros and are not, typically, working full time jobs in between training sessions.
Many pros spend their days in the gym getting faster and stronger instead of working at a job.
Clarke trained by far in different way from today. He improved his WR from 28'15" to 27'39" in one only competition, with a difference of 36" that, following your system of analysis, automatically makes everybody thinking he was doped AFTER his 28'15", because improvements of that greatness are only explained with doping.
It's clear you have some knowledge about training system of the period 60-80, but absolutely not knowledge about a modern training system of today.
Zatopek was abel to run under 14' and 28'54" and with those times never ran a marathon under 2:24, while today 100 women with a PB of 32'30" are able to run the same time.
The WR of 800m had very little improvement from 1979 till now, and the athletes running the final in Los Angeles 1984 could still stay in the final of today with big chances of medalling.
But from that era the general average of 10000m improved of more than 1 minute and the marathon of about 8 minutes, and this means that the training methodology changed essentially for the long distances. Fundamentally, while 40-50 years ago athletes were used to run 300 km per week with long runs at 80% of Marathon pace as intensity, together with other training with limited volume at high intensity not connected with what we need for running a marathon, now the best athletes run LONG and FAST, reaching for long specific runs the percentage of speed of 98% of MP in training. For that reason, while 5o years ago Marathon Runners competed in a lot of different races in one season (Shorter ran during the indoor season too), now they need to dedicate 6 full months of training only before a top Marathon.
I well know it's possible to better WR in clean way, because this is my profession, and I'm very happy if some expert who worked in this field at top level can explain, in his mother tongue and with a lot of words that I fatigue to understand (but the meaning is very clear) can express his opinion, based on the facts he knows and not on suppositions created by continuous "bombing" in media, that step by step go to create in the athletes too the idea that without doping is not possible to win.
About Conte, he was an expert for athletes of "strength" and speed, never had any clue about doping for long distances. So, speaking of Conte as expert for the doping of long distance runners is the same as to speak of the Wagner group expert of peace.
What is conspicuously absent from your claim that training is more intense - longer and faster - now than it was before 1980 is that doping enables this, and the biggest change to the sport after 1980 has been the increase in doping.
Clarke trained by far in different way from today. He improved his WR from 28'15" to 27'39" in one only competition, with a difference of 36" that, following your system of analysis, automatically makes everybody thinking he was doped AFTER his 28'15", because improvements of that greatness are only explained with doping.
It's clear you have some knowledge about training system of the period 60-80, but absolutely not knowledge about a modern training system of today.
Zatopek was abel to run under 14' and 28'54" and with those times never ran a marathon under 2:24, while today 100 women with a PB of 32'30" are able to run the same time.
The WR of 800m had very little improvement from 1979 till now, and the athletes running the final in Los Angeles 1984 could still stay in the final of today with big chances of medalling.
But from that era the general average of 10000m improved of more than 1 minute and the marathon of about 8 minutes, and this means that the training methodology changed essentially for the long distances. Fundamentally, while 40-50 years ago athletes were used to run 300 km per week with long runs at 80% of Marathon pace as intensity, together with other training with limited volume at high intensity not connected with what we need for running a marathon, now the best athletes run LONG and FAST, reaching for long specific runs the percentage of speed of 98% of MP in training. For that reason, while 5o years ago Marathon Runners competed in a lot of different races in one season (Shorter ran during the indoor season too), now they need to dedicate 6 full months of training only before a top Marathon.
I well know it's possible to better WR in clean way, because this is my profession, and I'm very happy if some expert who worked in this field at top level can explain, in his mother tongue and with a lot of words that I fatigue to understand (but the meaning is very clear) can express his opinion, based on the facts he knows and not on suppositions created by continuous "bombing" in media, that step by step go to create in the athletes too the idea that without doping is not possible to win.
About Conte, he was an expert for athletes of "strength" and speed, never had any clue about doping for long distances. So, speaking of Conte as expert for the doping of long distance runners is the same as to speak of the Wagner group expert of peace.
Absolutely and I think that some of the younger people simply don't understand the differences in running shoes (and I'm NOT talking about super shoes).
If they could see the evolution of shoes from the 1950's to now (and even try running in some of the old shoes) they would see that, that is enough to account for a lot of improvement just because we can stay healthier while training.
Not to mention recovery improvements with nutrition and the fact that these world class runners are pros and are not, typically, working full time jobs in between training sessions.
Many pros spend their days in the gym getting faster and stronger instead of working at a job.
There has been no significant evolution in track shoes since the 1970's.
What is the "nutrition" that you speak of, that doesn't include the usual combinations of carbohydrates, fats and proteins? Doping?