My default assumption is all the top pro runners are doping. Just the nature of the sport. You have the proverbial magic pill, it is very hard to catch, especially if you run for a big operation like Nike which I believe the US anti-doping agency sees as too big to fail, and a basic cost/risk calculation.
Remember Christian Hesch? It's not the level of results or amount of respect the LRC cognoscenti ascribes to them that satisfies reasonable suspicion. Hell, this board largely refused to believe that Hellebuyck could be doping even when it was all but confirmed. Scherf has been suspect going way back. She has a long-time association with Westchester TC, from when she was a high schooler. She's clearly an ambitious person, with Harvard and Michigan degrees and was a scholarship runner at Oregon. She actually did make US teams, for World Cross. She won plenty of races and prize money (mid 6-figures) on the road race circuit, robbing clean runners. So yes, if lesser lights like her or Mead can be dirty, that's your canary in the coal mine. There are surely dozens of others just at the elite non-pro level domestically who are getting a pharmaceutical edge on their competition. That's not even going into how much more prevalent it is among actual pros or how much it trickles down into age groupers beating a worn path (to borrow a phrase) to the anti-aging clinic docs and shady physios.
This is an entirely fair point. I share the worry about what the doping among “lesser lights” suggests about the sport’s brightest stars. Cycling went through a major crisis along these lines a little over a decade ago (and kind of never STOPPED going through said crisis) and one wonders if perhaps it’s time that track suffer the same crisis.
She applied for a TUE, didn't get it on time, asked the race organizer whether there'd be testing at her goal race, answer: "there was none in the last three years", so she went for it. Then they wanted to test her at that race, she refused, and got rightfully banned for it.
Not sure why she got so much sympathy for that.
But I do wonder whether the race organizer tipped off the testers.
I mean, that's the story. Like some other posters, I always thought it was sketchy.
It's not like she took the test and tested positive for the asthma med. She refused the test, and we have no idea what she might have tested positive for if she'd been tested. I think it would be a lot less suspicious if she'd taken the test and in fact gotten a positive result for the asthma med. But on its own, not a big deal given lack of information and the fact that it was described as "no significant fault of negligence." Combined with this positive, though, she seems like a long-term doper.
Remember Christian Hesch? It's not the level of results or amount of respect the LRC cognoscenti ascribes to them that satisfies reasonable suspicion. Hell, this board largely refused to believe that Hellebuyck could be doping even when it was all but confirmed. Scherf has been suspect going way back. She has a long-time association with Westchester TC, from when she was a high schooler. She's clearly an ambitious person, with Harvard and Michigan degrees and was a scholarship runner at Oregon. She actually did make US teams, for World Cross. She won plenty of races and prize money (mid 6-figures) on the road race circuit, robbing clean runners. So yes, if lesser lights like her or Mead can be dirty, that's your canary in the coal mine. There are surely dozens of others just at the elite non-pro level domestically who are getting a pharmaceutical edge on their competition. That's not even going into how much more prevalent it is among actual pros or how much it trickles down into age groupers beating a worn path (to borrow a phrase) to the anti-aging clinic docs and shady physios.
Can you clarify what was up with Westchester TC? Why is that significant in making her doping more likely?
It's the culture she experienced in her formative years as a runner, being around foreign pro level runners. I have no direct knowledge indicating whether they're above or below board. But it's meaningfully different than what's typical in youth running experience. It's not easy for me to explain it, it's intangible and nuanced and probably goes to my biases. I am not intending to impugn WTC's reputation, I apologize if that's how I made it seem.
This name is a huge blast from the past, she was a mid-2000s college stud… but she isn’t exactly on the level of Hassan Mead, career-wise. That’s why no one’s talking about it. The biggest thing I remember about her is that she liked climbing trees - random tidbit I remember from an interview back in the day.
"USADA makes an interesting note about retirement that an athlete's ban goes on pause if they retire and will only start counting down again if they return from retirement (making themselves available for testing)."
If athletes can't compete that's the same as being retired. Duh! So the bans are permanent now? That's simply more evidence that the whole doping fiasco created by big pharma is total BS.
"USADA makes an interesting note about retirement that an athlete's ban goes on pause if they retire and will only start counting down again if they return from retirement (making themselves available for testing)."
If athletes can't compete that's the same as being retired. Duh! So the bans are permanent now? That's simply more evidence that the whole doping fiasco created by big pharma is total BS.
You have me so confused. What does this even mean?
I remember the dust-up in, as I recall, Australian. I though they went much too easy on her, kind of like that Harvard sprinter who had a way of missing out-of-competition tests.
But why would Lindsay Scherf be doing something like this at her age. I don't remember her as an exceptional runner, and I would have expected her by now to be in a career where reputation means something.
"USADA makes an interesting note about retirement that an athlete's ban goes on pause if they retire and will only start counting down again if they return from retirement (making themselves available for testing)."
If athletes can't compete that's the same as being retired. Duh! So the bans are permanent now? That's simply more evidence that the whole doping fiasco created by big pharma is total BS.
It means she retired, so she's out of the testing pool so the ban timer stops running. If she unretires, the ban timer starts where it left off and she re-enters the testing pool.