I don't think you have to be doping to compete - they just won't test there. There is probably a diminishing return for doping. So some average athlete won't be a super star from a crash doping program and the top athletes won't be doping as this one competition just isn't enough to throw away the rest of their careers.
I doubt if any clean, top athlete, would want to participate in such a sleazy event. It’s also unlikely any sponsor would sign off on them competing.
I thought intentionally practicing with or competing against a banned athlete could result in you being banned yourself. If say Kerley signed up for a nice payday, on the premise that he is going to beat all the dopers as a clean athlete, wouldn't that possibly result in him being banned himself? Same goes for "clean" athletes intentionally being coached by a banned coach. I might be totally wrong.
I don't think you have to be doping to compete - they just won't test there. There is probably a diminishing return for doping. So some average athlete won't be a super star from a crash doping program and the top athletes won't be doping as this one competition just isn't enough to throw away the rest of their careers.
All competitors would be banned from world athletics just for participation, whether they dope or not.
I thought intentionally practicing with or competing against a banned athlete could result in you being banned yourself. If say Kerley signed up for a nice payday, on the premise that he is going to beat all the dopers as a clean athlete, wouldn't that possibly result in him being banned himself? Same goes for "clean" athletes intentionally being coached by a banned coach. I might be totally wrong.
From the world athletics rulebook:
Where an Athlete Support Person or other Person assists a Person in violating the prohibition against participation during Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension, the Integrity Unit will pursue the matter as a potential Rule 2.9 anti-doping rule violation.
That is my thought also. The "enhanced" games sprinters wouldn't be faster than those that passed drug tests...bringing suspicion of the legitimate sprint world.
Yes. Keep in mind there have been sprinters banned for massive doping where even when they were massively doping they were still slower than scores of decent high school sprinters. Pretty sad when someone massively dopes putting their health at risk and they still are slow. I bring this up because it seems most fans assume doping = fast performances.
The funniest part will be when they don't run faster than tested Olympic athletes.
Why?
Only over-the-hill and not-quite-elite sprinters will dope up for the Enhanced Games. And yes, the drugs will help them run faster than their non-drugged times. But it won't be so much that they run faster than true global elites competing for Olympic glory.
It'll be embarrassing when the "Enhanced" athletes don't outperform non-"enhanced."
Where an Athlete Support Person or other Person assists a Person in violating the prohibition against participation during Ineligibility or Provisional Suspension, the Integrity Unit will pursue the matter as a potential Rule 2.9 anti-doping rule violation.
Sure - but what if there aren't any banned athletes, just doped to the gills athletes and "clean" ones? That should be fine.
Only over-the-hill and not-quite-elite sprinters will dope up for the Enhanced Games.
Yes that's a problem. That swimmer James Magnussen mentioned above in the Coe link retired 5 years ago; his PR is from 2013.
But, they put $1,000,000 on the line. Blake? His 100 m PR in from 2012, his last sub-10 from 2022 (9.85). Maybe. But for him to beat the WR, he'd need to improve 0.5 seconds or so. Maybe Omamyana? 9.84 last year, and that money would go a loooong way in Kenya. I bet he could get at least the world lead.
I wouldn't believe anything that guy says. He's made a living off scamming and conning and now has an event encouraging cheaters to use potentially dangerous drugs so he can make more money.
It is debateable if full scale doping is actually noticeably faster. That is part of what this games would prove when they can’t come close to the WRs…
But it won't prove that, for a few reasons.
First, there's only so much that doping can do. It isn't going to turn a 10.2 100m guy into a record beater. Second, it doesn't magically improve your performance. You have to figure out the right dosage and train optimally and everything. Third even if it improves your performance enough to set a WR, it doesn't mean that you will set one in that event on that day.
The only way this could prove anything is if elite athletes (not former elite. *Current* elite) athletes did this over a period of years. Then you could make some sort of judgment.
(Obviously if one of them blows the doors of the existing record then it will show something, but that ain't happening).
None of the top 10 sprinters, especially the women, would do any better at a legal-doping event. They are clearly on the highest-octane stuff available already.
The women's 100 is like lining up 3 or 4 Flo Jos in one race. Someone's gonna break that WR sooner or later, and this time the wind reading will be accurate.
This is even with the big hair which has to be costing them a hundredth or two.
Dude is just saying this for hype/click/attention. There's no way 4 of the top-10 sprinters have reached out but I do believe they have reached out to those athletes. Maybe a retired guy or two does it. Maybe an ex doper like Gay or Gatlin does it. Nobody actively competing will do it & Bolt definitely won't.
I don't think you have to be doping to compete - they just won't test there. There is probably a diminishing return for doping. So some average athlete won't be a super star from a crash doping program and the top athletes won't be doping as this one competition just isn't enough to throw away the rest of their careers.
All competitors would be banned from world athletics just for participation, whether they dope or not.
Obviously not the same dollars involved, but this reminds me of the LIV/PGA beef. PGA thought they were just going to bully everyone into staying and look how that worked out for them.
If the enhanced games can get some money behind this, world athletics won't have a pot to piss in. It would be enticing to a lot of athletes - a boatload of money and they aren't subject to an archaic anti-doping program that can't catch a cold.
I think that's basically proven for sprints and all women's events. Just look at the 80s and Ma's army. Just roid them up to turn them more and more into men.
But to prove that for the male 1500 or marathon, you'd need to get top athletes in their prime like Inge, Nuguse and ???
Not sure whether any current marathoner could, even doped to the gills, beat 2:00:35. Kipchoge and Bekele are getting slower and slower, and the next fastest, Lemme with his 2:01:48, is already 33 years old. The youngest 2:02 runner, Legese with a 2:02:48, is 29 years old, but would have to improve by over 2 minutes. Plus you'd need a course like Berlin or Chicago with lots of good pacers.
Well if EPO takes 2 mins off your 10k time (see Lombard) we should be able to find a bunch of 28min guys. The reality is a bunch of them run sub 27, it would be depressing how much drugs help.
people will still argue you can get to those blood levels naturally but the evidence for that seems pretty weak. There is a reason why the 5k dropped 20s in the years right after EPO became available…
We all like to think there is some natural talent that rises to the top and if you do that you will not cheat. The number of busts seems to bring that idea into question…