Doug Logan (ex-CEO of USATF) publicly endorses PEDs

this site's obsession with PEDs is sad. the founders were guys who were close to being elite (nicely done, i mean it) who couldn't make it/be elite due to LACK OF TALENT and nothing else and now have an axe to grind. Yes, ElG took PEDs, as did EVERYONE ELSE he was competing against, and if PEDs had been banned he STILL WOULD HAVE WON. Same goes for Bekele, Lance, and Komen. Komen still would have won the '97 WC by a mile because everyone behind him was also on PEDs. Not saying they should be legal or that they don't help, but they've all been taking them, because their livelihood depends on it and EACH AND EVERYONE of you would have done the same if you were actually elite and competing against other dopers. People commenting on this board don't matter. So too bad you self-righteous men and women. Look at ElG's stride -- he runs like a damn horse. Juice or no juice, he wins. Same for Bekele and Komen and Kennedy and Rupp at the US level.

Get over yourselves. The original post was by one of the LetsRun founders or their buddies. They're trying to make a living just the same. They are not even a little bit better.

The money is in the drugs ----- period.

The more the drugs are illegal, the more money is made by the chemical companies that produce them. Of course they want the drugs to be illegal, so gullible people will think they are worth something, or that they will do something that they don't. What a lucrutive scam.

Look at the money trail. Who is making the money? The chemical companies producing the drugs are making the money.

The people who keep protesting the drugs, are the ones who are driving up the value, price and demand of the drugs.

Gamera wrote:

What I keep trying to point out is, a major problem with this rationalization for legalizing PEDs is that you can't really separate pro sports and amateur sports. You can't say, "ah, let the professionals take whatever they want, it's just entertainment, and they have the right to decide what goes in their bodies", because when you think of pro sports, you see that for the most part the pro leagues are filled not with superstars, but with athletes striving to stay on the team, and athletes a level below them striving to replace them, and college athletes hoping to be able to replace them, and high school athletes hoping to be big-time college athletes, and on down to little league.

You don't have to keep trying to point it out, I get your argument, I just think that it's a conclusion that sits outside of the jump to conclusions mat.

PED's do not affect the base talent of athletes. That's to say, if you give an average high school baseball player HGH, it will most likely have little to no affect on his ability to hit a ball. If you give a 16:30 5k runner who runs 30 miles a week epo, he isn't going to jump down and run 16:00 with no changes to his training. What I'm saying is, PED's simply aren't a game changer for lesser talented leagues and the need to take them to "get to the next level" as you put it doesn't exist.

It exists when improvement and the physical ability to train more hit their limit. That's when you see guys resorting to the needle or cream. It isn't so they can do more with less effort, its so they can have the ability to put in more work then their bodies allow naturaly.

So, I understand your concern with kids, high school, and most collegiate athletes, I just don't think it changes the playing field until you get to the top anyway.

dr. rosenrosen wrote:

Yes, ElG took PEDs, as did EVERYONE ELSE he was competing against, and if PEDs had been banned he STILL WOULD HAVE WON. Same goes for Bekele, Lance, and Komen. Komen still would have won the '97 WC by a mile because everyone behind him was also on PEDs. Not saying they should be legal or that they don't help, but they've all been taking them, because their livelihood depends on it and EACH AND EVERYONE of you would have done the same if you were actually elite and competing against other dopers.

Not true. If a field is entirely doped then the placings could be determined by who is the best drug responder, the same field if they weren't all on drugs might have entirely different placing order.

J.R. wrote:

The people who keep protesting the drugs, are the ones who are driving up the value, price and demand of the drugs.

If we didn't register this the first 100 times you said it, what makes you think we're going register it on the 101st? Or perhaps there's just a consensus that you're either a troll or a f*cking nutjob. In any case, it's way past time for you to stfu.

What makes you think Ryun wasn't on PEDs?

Paavo Nurmi was using testosterone in the 1920s- he won 10 Olympic god medals cheating.

Nazis were giving test to their soldiers in the 1930s and 40s.

I'm almost definite Ryun was using test. Just like Mary Caine is using something now - like EPO and blood doping, monitored by her anesthesiologist dad, just like Webb was having his blood levels monitored by his doctor dad.

the only freaks live in Africa. if you believe otherwise you probably also think Bruce Jenner won the 1976 decathlon gold without steroids.

A Duck wrote:

Don't give the Brojo's so much credit.

The selectively hammer the cheaters they want to hammer, turn a soft eye towards the others (Jamaica/Puma athletes) and permit the smearing of athletes who've not be convicted of cheating.

Too true, and they are chummy with an admitted (though not convicted or banned) drug cheat. It's highly selective and thus lacks real integrity.

Daryl Basarab wrote:

Arguments for Allowing Doping

-Even playing field

FALSE, scientifically invalid!!

Priority please wrote:

The next level is your son finding a career that he likes that also pays well. Track and field is not that career. Let high school (and maybe college) athletics teach him how to work hard to become the best that he can be. And then learn to apply that attitude / philosophy to everything else in his life.

Good thing you weren't a parent of Galen Rupp, Dathan Ritzenhein, Alan Webb, or Ryan Hall. Athletics can and should be "a career that he likes that also pays well." Hell, being the best you can be in anything shouldn't have to result in "pays well," making money isn't the point of life.

15mph wrote:

Nobody dreams of having their every move watched and having to pee in a cup.

Then go find something else to do for a living, nobody gives a crap what CPAs or cable guys ingest in their free time. Competing in professional level sport is a privilege, not a right.

giddy wrote:

PED's do not affect the base talent of athletes. That's to say, if you give an average high school baseball player HGH, it will most likely have little to no affect on his ability to hit a ball. If you give a 16:30 5k runner who runs 30 miles a week epo, he isn't going to jump down and run 16:00 with no changes to his training.

Child please, you have no rational idea how PEDs work, you're trying to put two completely separate things together. You're grasping at straws and pulling guesses out of your anus. Doping allows the average high school baseball player to hit the ball further more consistently and allows him to run faster, giving him higher BH, HR, SB, and fielding numbers than a lot of his peers who don't take PEDS. It also allows him to recover faster between pitching starts, allowing him to pile up higher stats (IP, K, W, etc.) than a lot of his non-doping peers. 16:30 to 16:00 is a 3% improvement, well within what EPO or CERA is known to enable. If you want to have a discussion with the adults, learn at least a little bit of science and reasoning before you come to the table, m'kay?

Doping allows the average high school baseball player to leap over buildings with a single bound, to peer into girl's locker rooms through the walls without glasses, and to pole vault 30 feet without even using a pole! They can pee clear water in a cup, drink without getting drink, and get arrested without getting a ticket!

According to USADA site today, letsrun front pager Evan Jager has only been tested 9 times OOC in his entire pro running career. Compare that to 41 for guys like Leo Manzano or 34 for Webb. It seems like Doug knows what is really going on & is trying to level the playing field. He is a confused & misguided old man as he is suggesting to do so at the risk of these athlete's health.

How many of the current Women's Track and Field world records do you think were set clean?

I think at 3 you are being generous.

Or Nike

RuKiddingMe!! wrote:

sounds like he might be working (a rep) for big pharma

Kiss the baby!

You've made an even better argument for taking them. I'll just throw in a few more baseball stats, because some how I didn't get the fact that pitching or batting better would improve most of them... WHIP, ERA, RBI, SLG, OPS... hmmm, I see much more clearly what your talking about.

When the 5'4'' skinny white kid at the end of my block who sits the pine on the varsity baseball team starts blasting 455' home runs and hitting 500, I'll take your argument more to heart.

the analogies in my previous post aren't good ones, I'll give you that. But acting like giving PED's to just anyone all of a sudden makes them an all star is laughable. The point I was making is that talent and being decently fit to begin with have more of a factor on the effect of a PED than simply just taking them. Giving a fat un-athletic turd hgh isn't going to produce a college lineman.

Not really an endorsement of drug use coming from an insider with experience and insight into the problems and costs associated with drug testing in track. Let the numerous drug enforcement agencies handle things. Track has problems. Fighting over drug testing has proven fruitless. It takes away from the positives in the sport. American Milers recently held a meet. Numerous great times. Attendance? Could count the spectators on one hand. Track is a great sport, but it isn't revenue generating. Have to jettison the negatives and invest all resources into the positive aspects of the sport.

nn wrote:

Not really an endorsement of drug use coming from an insider with experience and insight into the problems and costs associated with drug testing in track. Let the numerous drug enforcement agencies handle things. Track has problems. Fighting over drug testing has proven fruitless. It takes away from the positives in the sport. American Milers recently held a meet. Numerous great times. Attendance? Could count the spectators on one hand. Track is a great sport, but it isn't revenue generating. Have to jettison the negatives and invest all resources into the positive aspects of the sport.

What does this mean?