The amount of medical ignorance enthusiastically displayed on this site never fails to impress me.
The amount of medical ignorance enthusiastically displayed on this site never fails to impress me.
I guess USADA looks at this on a case by case basis.If you are post-menopausal women with low blood levels, and follow a routine hormone replacement treatment, I guess you are right.
BoulderMasterRunner wrote:
My take away from all this is that we can all take DHEA and compete if we get a TUE waiver. USADA accepted her medical excuse. She was punished for not seeking a waiver.
Looks like your story is just a story. USADA didn't agree.
llort_vbo wrote:
Look, it doesn't matter what her intent is/was. She was taking a substance that was giving her an unfair advantage in competition. End of story.
(Lots more stuff that "doesn't matter")
Well then you misquoted me too. And you seem to be mis-quoting yourself.To be clear, she may "enjoy competitive running" (her words), but, in masters competitions, she is not a "competitive runner" (your words).You might want to double check the results, and your math.Anita Ortiz, a 50 year old master, won the women's marathon in 5:00:54Kristi Anderson, the 51 year old, finished in 5:41:14.That is a difference of 40 minutes and 20 seconds.Maybe you looked at the descent only, where Kristi lost 25 minutes and 29 seconds. If so, you still got the math wrong.The winner of the masters group (and overall winner) averaged 7:06/km while Kristi averaged 8:05/km, nearly 1 minute slower per kilometer (or 1 minute 36 seconds per mile).She (or her friends) might describe herself as having a competitive personality, but in the scope of competing in masters competition for points, medals, trophies, or prize money, her performance says she cannot compete, even with the alleged performance enhancing benefits of DHEA hormone replacement.For the same reason of slow performance, the remaining 175 runners who ran slower, were also not competitive.Regarding your NY marathon challenge, I will say that anyone finishing 40 minutes (or even 25 minutes and 49 seconds) behind their age/gender group winner was not competitive in their category.I don't use "recreational" as the opposite of "competitive". She is a recreational runner, because she is not a member of an organisation (i.e. the USATF) that obligates you to pee in a cup, as a condition of membership. She is not a professional, age group elite athlete with this high obligation to research all her medication, but rather part of the normal recreational population of runners, who should feel free to undergo routine medical treatments available to non-athletes, with the same symptoms.
I'm convinced wrote:
rekrunner wrote:Takes one to know one?
The fact is, she did not call herself a "competitive runner". Technically you lied.
Whatever she self-declares, finishing 40 minutes behind a 50 year old women does not make her a very "competitive runner" in any "masters competitions".
I know that idiot, I was quoting YOU! I quoted her saying on her website as "enjoying competitive running".
As you're the arbiter of what is competitive and what isn't perhaps you would like to go through say something like the New York marathon and tell us, using your rules and guidelines, who is competitive and who isn't, including open, age groups, gender, etc so we know who to dismiss as just "recreational" (note, I'm quoting you there from a previous post).
Also, if you're referring to the 2014 Pike Peaks Marathon regarding the 40 minutes, it was 25 minutes 49 seconds and you forgot to mention she was 7th female out of 182, most of whom were a lot younger than her. Whether it's enjoyable or not is up to the individual to decide, but it's "competitive running".
http://www.skyrunner.com/ppresults/2014ppm_f.htm
Noted. Seems beside the point though.
I'm convinced wrote:
pointon wrote:4) on the intangible side...I really want it more now. I am moving up in the standings and beating people I never used to beat -- that has made the sport more fun - creating a self fulfilling cycle.
Yeh, someone else being "competitive" (in their running universe) and "enjoying" it. rekrunner please note.
There is no reason in the world why someone would have a haircut like that and not be a competitive masters runner.
If DHEA worked it'd be a heck of a lot more expensive, more popular, and its use would be rampant.
Not really the point is it? It can interfere with the determination of the t/e ratio. It is a banned substance and a potential masking agent.
Taking DHEA is not the issue, the issue is she didn’t have a doctors note yet so many sanctimonious pieces of shit want to scream that she’s a drug cheat.
I'd be willing to bet there are tens of thousands of 5+ hour marathoners on some kind of banned substance every year, let's go after them and take that finishers medal back. Some surfer dude runs a 18:00 5K so let's light him up for having THC in his system. I propose drug testing at every turkey trot next thanksgiving and really clean up this sport.
Thanks for the info- it will help.
If I am a knowledgeable distance runner it's because I've been observing it for over 40 years- as an athlete and coach.
I've been lucky enough to coach some VERY talented runners at the high school level and am friends with some pro's- some at the sub-elite level and a few at the highest level of the sport.
I think my main problem is:
I don't do the "other" stuff I used to do- core work, etc and I run about 35-40 mpw rather than the 50+ I used to.
I am working on increasing mileage and the other stuff but I find as I get older I get injured easier.
Letsrun is full of goody two shoes types that know jack about PEDs. Comparing DHEA to Testosterone and EPO? It's like listening to a bunch of virgin nuns sitting around talking about making whoopy. They might put all such acts under the same umbrella, but a BJ ain't getting anyone pregnant and DHEA ain't making anyone run faster.
If DHEA worked it'd be a heck of a lot more expensive, more popular, and its use would be rampant.
No problem. A bunch of ass clowns will just make something up called "DHEA testosterone" and tout the benefits of that.
runn wrote:
Thanks for the info- it will help.
If I am a knowledgeable distance runner it's because I've been observing it for over 40 years- as an athlete and coach.
I've been lucky enough to coach some VERY talented runners at the high school level and am friends with some pro's- some at the sub-elite level and a few at the highest level of the sport.
I think my main problem is:
I don't do the "other" stuff I used to do- core work, etc and I run about 35-40 mpw rather than the 50+ I used to.
I am working on increasing mileage and the other stuff but I find as I get older I get injured easier.
lifting may help - I used to get hurt, but not since I started lifting 2 years ago. It makes sense to me - make everything stronger and it won't fail as much.
I read a study once that found merely standing on one leg for 5 minutes per day (well 5 min per leg) reduced lower leg injuries in runners by some large percentage.
Some people brush their teeth standing on one leg so they do it regularly.
dhea costs like $10 a walmart.
if it were really effective it would cost $100 and a big drug manufacturer would already have claimed it as their own.
you the small amount of brain power you people have. jeeze
There is a lot to this story we can offer opinions about, but the fact remains, Kristi doped and she got caught. (That's not debatable!) Some people are actually blaming USADA as if they did something wrong; they were just doing their job.
I looked at Kristi's pic, she looks very fit and her performance results indicates she takes her running serious. Competitive "Recreational" female master's runners are not stupid, they are always looking for ways to get better. Kristi is a smart lady, I am not buying her somewhat flippant response.
Yesterday I was walking to the bus stop when I noted the bus was already at the stop. I picked up my pace and a guy in a blue USATF blazer and tan hat stuck a yellow card in my face.
Busted for lifting on the way to grandma's house!
Green card at night
walkers delight
yellow card at morning
walkers take warning
Kristi is a smart lady, I am not buying her somewhat flippant response.
The "I'm just a mom" thing doesn't sit well with me either.
TrackCoach wrote:
There is a lot to this story we can offer opinions about, but the fact remains, Kristi doped and she got caught. (That's not debatable!)
Yes it is debatable. DHEA would have been okay if she had gotten a TUE. What is NOT DEBATABLE is she did not have a TUE.
So how effective is DHEA? People showed a study saying it has no value to enhancing performance but others say it is a PED. Which is it?
nail her to a cross wrote:
TrackCoach wrote:There is a lot to this story we can offer opinions about, but the fact remains, Kristi doped and she got caught. (That's not debatable!)
Yes it is debatable. DHEA would have been okay if she had gotten a TUE. What is NOT DEBATABLE is she did not have a TUE.
I am not ready to "nail her to a cross", she is not attempting to make a national team, collect money and its debatable if DHEA has performance enhancing qualities. However, Kristi did dope...that is a fact and I think she did so knowingly. My wife is a master's 'recreational' runner, although she feels what Kristi did is not a big deal, but she also contends that 50 yo women know the bodies. My wife contends there is no way an educated 50 yo woman is going to take a drug without knowing the potential effects.
Question for everyone on this thread saying Masters need testing:
Do they test at FootLocker or similar events? If not, why not? There is way more incentive for someone at that level to cheat. Those athletes could get into the best colleges in the country or sign up as a professional with a good result.
So do they test at FootLocker or not? They're going to go after old Masters that might win a pair of shoes, but not test someone who could get a full ride scholarship to the best school in the nation? We're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars.