I'm actually stuck on your "basic fact" that PEDs are rife in the sport. Of course we know from the past scandals that sprinters, milers, power/field events, Chinese and East German women, etc. all benefited greatly from PEDs.But in distance running, it's not clear to me that there are enough basic facts to conclude that PEDs ever made it impossible for clean runners to win, like it was impossible in cycling during the EPO era, or for those competing against the Chinese and East German women.And looking for that "certain" look doesn't sound like a reliable method, based on an axiom that "they all have a "certain" look". They might be high on naturally produced adrenaline and endorphines. Looks can be deceiving.
observator wrote:
There are so many variables that require sorting out before people can make informed decisions about PEDs. But the basic fact remains, they are rife in our sport. Not as rife as cycling, because track and field has to deal with gravity more directly and body impact curtails how hard one can train, PEDs or not. So cycling and swimming and weightlifting as examples have low to zero impact.
Distance running is the lowest impact area of track and field and certain drugs which enable more training are more effective here.
However, if people could just see with your eyes they would know. As a qualitative study, just compare what known EPO users look like at end of race and compare. They all have a 'certain' look about them. Some say they look high.