Why didn't you take perf enhancing drugs (or why did you)

Would you really feel as if you had run a sub-4:00 mile if you had taken drugs to do it?

Any accomplishment done with drugs must be extremely hollow.

It all comes down to why you are running in the first place.

I would much rather be a bit slower and know that the performance was the result of my own hard work than get a bit more recognition for doing something unethical.

Silly to say, but the only time I thought about taking EPO was post-collegiate and so that I would run a better marathon. As it was, I was only running 2:40's, but I thought, "what the heck". Was actually going to go down to Mexico to hook up. Alas, never got around to it.

I'm 39 now, recreationally running, and I'm still tempted every now and again. Maybe it's just the curiosity factor; to see if they would really work (and just how well).

God, that is a line of thinking that I just can't comprehend. I've run 2:26, and sometimes feel that there is nothing left in the tank, no way will I ever get that illustrious 2:22 for a Trials qualifer, blah, blah, blah.....but to take something that who knows what it will do to my body? For what?

It's not the illegal part....it's the fact that your blood can turn to soup, and the next time you go out the door could be the day you don't come back.....I just think of those Belgian cyclists. And going down to Mexico, and then taking back something to inject? It's on par with getting it on with an AIDS-stricken hooker.

It isn't illegal to take EPO or some steroids, or some stimulants. It is unethical. Most of the drugs that endurance athletes take (EPO, corticoids, amphetamines, steroids) were all developed to treat sick people and they ALL ARE ALSO used to treat sick people.

It is therefore not illegal.

I never considered it because it is potentially bad for you. It is also cheating. But I never smoked a cigarette, never smoked a joint and only drank alcohol after 20 years old. So I am different than a lot of Americans.

I have heard people say that it is not cheating if other people are doing it. I can't see this point of view. It is still cheating, you are just all cheating the same way and all cheating together. I have heard the excuse that nobody is getting cheated because they all have access to it. IT is still cheating. It is still as against the rules as cutting across the infield. If the whole field cuts one lap off a 5k, so the results stand because everyone ran 4600m? No, everyone is disqualified.

The (clean) guys who can't compete at the doped level are the ones who are getting the shaft; the clean 28:30 10k runners and the clean 10.25 sprinters ... that is who you are cheating.

Again, I don't buy the soup analogy and the hurting the body thing at all. Training at stupid intensity levels is bad for the body. You run a 2:26 marathon. You are damaging your body for sure. The last 2 miles of your marathon run in 100 degree temperature certainly does not do good things to your brain cells... Going training in altitude and coming down fast is very dangerous also, yet, you may have tried that.

On the other comment on sense of accomplishment - I am sure that when you ran, you had access to physiotherapy. Certain people don't have access to that and end up running slower than you. Ultrasounds, TENS... does not sound natural to me. That never hurt your sense of accomplishment, did it?

Again, I'm left with - well its illegal. (and because of that, you are right, it would have hurt my sense of accomplishment - but I don't think that it's rational)

Well, I've never thought I'm really damaging my body.....at the most I've done a few 110 mile weeks...maybe 12 or 15 of them in all.....I don't see that as taking "days off my life." I never viewed it as "training at stupid intensity levels." Maybe I need to rethink it, but I've always used Jerry Lindgren type mileage to guage when damage might be happening..could be wrong though....thanks for ruining my night.

The ultrasound, physical therarpy stuff---I guess I see a disconnect there, as yes, it might be performance-enhancing (speeding recovery), but since I have health insurance, I should feel bad because the guy next to me dosen't? I'm not seeing it. I guess if you are a socialist, not having access to health care would be troublesome on the ethical side of your argument.

With EPO, you have no idea how your body will react....that's "the hurting my body part of it" that I can't get past. You won't have a heart attack? How do you know? What are the long term effects of EPO use? Are there any studies out there? Those are questions I wouldn't be willing to risk to find out. A

And it is illegal (in the governing bodies of the world eyes), and wrong for the reasons stated by others on this thread in regards to what you are doing to your clean competition.

On the bad for the body argument: Although I don't have any raw data to backup my claim: I have found that many runners (what seems to me disproportionate amount) seem to have suffered from heart attacks and strokes. I don't think we will ever find a good study to back this up, since the running population is too small.

On the physical therapy issue: I was just using it as an example of what is OK, but not necesarily accessible to all.

On the EPO side, I am sure that certain doctors are quite experienced with it and can control the situation. You are following Lydiard. If Lydiard had added a chapter on EPO, it would make it easier for the common runner. But, you are right, it does sound complicated and I don't think I really had time to deal with this complexity. I'll add that one to the reasons why I didn't take EPO.

Yes, I would have felt bad about winning by cheating someone who was no longer on the same playing field as me. But then again, on the world stage, all my competitors (and myself) were nobodies and we all knew this.

Then why do all these baseball, football, hockey players take perf enhancing drugs. Well in their case it's their job and they need to take them to maintain their job.

In track, there is maybe 20 or 30 athletes worldwide who make more than a 6 figure income - net of expenses (probably less). I am sure that more than 30 athletes take perf enhancing drugs...