Doping, supplements, training and today mentality

ukathleticscoach wrote:

'Personally, I have the feeling Tyson Gay is not a cheater. Also his statement after knowing the positive results shows the personality of a morally clean person (this is my feeling, because I can’t put my hands on fire for any person I don’t know personally). He admitted to know what happened, ready to accept all the consequences on his career.

If my feeling is correct, how is it possible to put together these two different situations (a CLEAN DOPED ATHLETE knowing exactly what he took) ?'

I feel exaclty the opposite

What he said is ambiguous contradicts itself while clearly laying the blame on someone else.

What's ambiguous about it? Consider this:

You own and operate ukathleticscoach service, running a coach (bus) service. You don't ever have to change your name.

You hire drivers, and ask them about their driving record, any history with substance abuse, etc., and obviously refuse to hire anyone who gives you an indication of a poor driving record or drug abuse.

Then one day, one of your new drivers craches his coach and seriously injures or kills passengers because he was driving while impaired.

Are you, the company owner, able to be held liable for the actions of the driver you hired? Yes, you are.

Is that that same as purposefully trying to higher unsafe drivers? No, it isn't.

Wouldn't you, as the company head, say something along the lines of, "this is tragedy, we do our utmost to select only the best qualified drivers, and obviously we erred in our judgement in this particular case, but ultimately, the responsibility lies with us, as it's our company."

Daryl Basarab wrote:

I'm starting to think this anti-doping stuff is a joke.

Seriously "Doping" is using chemicals that are naturally found in citrus fruit?

And many drugs are chemicals found in plants, but at higher concentrations etc.

coach d wrote:

What I found out is oxilofrine is a prescription name for methylsynephrine, which is not licensed for sale in the USA, but is also sold as synephrine in sports and energy drinks.

The USADA website (usantidoping.org) has a resource called Supplement 411, which gives you a list of high-risk supplements and what they think is in them. I went through that list today and found 10 items--sports supplements, remmeber--containing methylsynephrine or synephrine, and in half of those items, USADA claims the drug names were NOT found on the label of the product. So you could pick one of these up and honestly believe that you were NOT doping.

Did you notice this on the WADA prohibited list:

WADA says:

The following substances included in the 2013 Monitoring Program (bupropion, caffeine, nicotine, phenylephrine, phenylpropanolamine, pipradol, synephrine) are not considered as Prohibited Substances.

xenonscreams wrote:

I'm very anti-doping but, following that line of logic, I'm wondering what it is that makes it socially acceptable in the running community for people to take 1000% the RDA of iron in some OJ daily for a week or two to quickly boost their ferritin from a level that is in the normal lab range but suboptimal for performance to a level that is ideal for performance.

And I say that as someone who, for reasons I can't really justify, thinks that the iron thing is totally OK and does it before every season.

The top African runners have very low levels of iron.

I agree completely with your assessment.You won't sway

many here though,that would disarm them of the phsycological crutch they use to convince themselves

the reason whites can't compete with Africans on the

track is PEDS.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

You are pretty sure about what you don't know. I want to explain you something, but probably you are not able to understand, due to your small brain :

1) In 2012 there were 43 athletes running under 2:07 in marathon, and 127 in the all-time lists.

2) In 2012 there were 36 athletes running faster than 13:10, and 207 in the all-time lists.

3) Among the 127 athletes running under 2:07 in the athletic history, having a lot of controls, only 2 were positive : Goumri (Maroc), 2:05:30 (38th) for the biological passport, and 1 Kenyan (Wilson Loyanai), 2:05:37 (40th) for a stupid substance (nothing to do with EPO). This means a percentage of 1,57% of doped under 2:07.

4) Among the 207 under 13:10 in 5000m, there were 5 athletes positives : Mourhit (Belgian from Maroc), 12:49 ; Goumri (but at the time of the track never was positive), 12:50 ; Saidi-Sief (Algeria), 12:50 ; Baumann (Germany), 12:54 in the controversial case of toothpast (and personally I believe he was innocent) ; and Kisorio (12:57), 67th in the list. If we consider the percentage, including Goumri (he was banned 6 years later when moved to Marathon), and Kisorio (who admitted starting to take some PED only when decided to move to Marathon, so officially he was clean when ran his best 5000m), we have 2,41% of doped.

5) About the money you can earn, if Kenyan, running 2:07, I want to tell you what happens in Dubai Marathon 2012, for example : the 10th at the finish ran 2:06:29, the 11th 2:07:28 and went home with a T-shirt. Currently, there is NO APPEARANCE for an African running 2:07, and prizes are very little.

6) About the money you can earn in 5000m, last year in Paris there was the fastest seasonal race. I had Thomas Longosiwa running 12'49", he was 5th (same position at the end of the season) and earnt 2,000 USD. Kenenisa Bekele ran 12'55", he was 9th and earnt 200 USD. On the other hand, because the reimbursement of the air ticket is a forfeit of 700 USD coming from Africa, but in July the cheaper cost is 1200 USD, they had to spend 500 USD from their pocket, so for running 12'55" Bekele spent 300 USD....

7) About 100m (the event where there is the 30% of the money in every meeting), in the all time list there are 150 athletes under 10.05. In this list, with major offenses or minor offenses, 5 athletes among the top 10 were charged for some doping offense : Gay (2nd), Blake (3rd), Powell (4th), Gatlin (6th) and Mullins (8th), with a percentage of 50%. And, if we want to continue, other 4 in top 20 had some problem with antidoping (Rodgers 11th, Boldon and Obikwelu 15th, Christie 20th).

This fact clearly demonstrates that the culture of sprinters, and generally of all the athletes competing in events where the main qualities are strength and coordination (in other words, connected with the nervous system), is to look for some external aid, may be legal at the moment, walking on the line of illegality with big risks because the margin separating what is legal from what is not legal is very thin, and difficult to control.

But, of course, in Kenya doping is WIDESPREAD. There are no top athletes positives BECAUSE IAAF WANTS TO PROTECT THE THIRD WORLD, while they don't care about the best sprinters in the world, or about all the Russian banned, belonging to the Country organising WCh. Of course IAAF and WADA are so clever that want to cover doping of unknown african runners for not ruining the image of athletics, while they go to ban the best sprinters in the world because this can increase the credibility of all the system.

You, and all people thinking as you, are an idiot, with your eyes covered by slices of salami.

Question for RenatoWhat do you think about the biologic passport and do you think it´s a strong method for drug caught ?

Do you remember Armstrong, do you remember Marion Jones, do you remember sprinter Canadian Johnson. Do you remember Mourith caught 3 times with EPO, always denied after each new positive test ? How many times that individuals did deny or early deny ?

Do you remember Tyler Hamilton caught with exogenous blood doping, EPO, testerone and more, he did deny that I did dope about anything at all.

What´s the percent of confessions among positive tests ?

Even Michel Ferrari, after all this years and so many doping allegations, he did deny in court that even did something illegal ! Isn´t that a joke ?

With this sports profile deny do you want that we trust in Gay ? What we might expect from Gay ?

Renato. Ther´s no science about if EPO works or don´t in distance runs. But what we know is that people that were caught did enhance their results and the reason is because they combine drugs with training. We know about facts that were olympic winners, world champs and that they did win with drug add. We also know that in the past world records were reach with drugs add. Therefore, drugs and the positive effect of drugs on performance enhance is a reality, despite in some cases didn´t result.

It´s ok that Christopher Fromm did a good Mont Ventoux Stage on the final climb course. However you got to consider the wind speed/velocity and the weather temperature on that day and the past years that Armostrong, Pantani etc. Other aspect to consider is that in what point of the Tour the France the Mont-Ventoux is this 100th Tour and in the past – first week, second week, last week ? . Also another aspect to consider is how many kilometers is this Tour and the past Tour, how many climb stays this years and past Tours ?

Another aspect is that Fromm needs to get some advance from the others because he got a weak team that barely can help him when Armstrong got a very strong team, so he didn´t need to be at his best at that stage.

That means that we simple can´t relate one Mont-Ventoux climb performance with another one from the past years straight. In distance runs also, the chrono result it depends of several variables, the same with cycling and you consideration about the drug effect on cycling based on that Fromm Mont-Ventoux stage performance is not a proper one.

The good basis is that Armstrong with drugs did win 7 tours the France, otyhere did win with drugs. Let´s see how many Fromm will win.

Finally, about Kenyans and Africans and the others. Have you ever seen one black guy win the Tour de France or any stage from Spain, Italy or France Tours ? No you don´t. Even that you try to train one African on bike and if you put some drugs on him they willn´t do nothing special in Cycling tours, competing against Caucasian cyclists without drugs.

By the same reason in distance run, it´s possible that a Kenyan without drugs can win over a Caucasian with drugs.

The day the distance runs in Olympics, WC, etc would be not 2 runner by country – as it´s today –but something similar to what are Tour de France teams, or just the worlds best runners performers will run in the Olympics independently of what´s the country and we would have a participation of the world best runners not by country but by best performances, on that very day all the heat runs, semi-finals, finals from 800m up to the marathon would be done with JUST african runners. No other runner out of Africa birth would be present.

Just see the WCCChamps. By the reason that each country team is with more than just 2 runners, African runners dominate almost absolutely. This is the reason why actually the WCCC is just once every 2 years, because the African teams did smash all the rest.

By this same kind of reason is that you might say that your runners and almost all the Kenyans are our of drugs and they still win, not because drugs don´t work, but because African supremacy on that run distances.

Long ago, in 1973, the Swiss editor of Spiridon magazine did envision that with the boom of African supremacy in distance runs, in the next decades more and more Africans will dominate the distance runs, up to the point that the Africans will run in competitions and the non-africans will be just spectators of that runs, because out of Africa born willn´t exist no one with chance to compete with African runners. That day is more near in 2013 that was in 1973, but we are approach of that state. This is why Kenyans can win without drugs, not because the drugs doesn´t not performance enhance.

All the rest, your atitude, the need of proper mentality etc, i agree with you.

ps - Renato. Don´t forget my question if you please. What do you think about the biologic passport ?

Greetings

Antonio

Querfeldein wrote:

More than his performances (by far the best climber and almost the best time trialist), his change in physique over the past few years is simply stunning.

Froome in 2009, already a Pro riding the Tour de France:

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3423/imgp0188th.jpg

Froome in 2013:

http://www.estrepublicain.fr/fr/images/BC98DD7F-39C7-4A87-A951-4BF24AFA0811/LER_15/apres-avoir-rempli-a-merveille-son-role-d-equipier-christopher-froome-s-est-senti-pousser-des-ailes.jpg

I'm not saying it means he's not doping (which given how Armstrong-esque he is crushing the field I think is unlikely), but you do know Froome was diagnosed with bilharzia parasites between those two pictures? It's really not surprising he's lost that much weight (and I guess it makes it even more surprising that he is still able to perform at such a high level).

Antonio, I start from the end of your post.

May be you have reason, and doping can work also for the best Kenyans and Ethiopians. I don't have proves it can work, and nobody has proves it can work, because all the best never used EPO for winning and for their WR. So, this is a supposition only.

Instead is a fact that the best African distance runners of today are clean, and doped athletes (that obviously exist) are in positions of middle level in the international field.

May be they are too much stronger than runners of other Countries, and this not only for genetic reasons, but because their life is totally different from the life of Western Countries.

When you need to be so aggressive in training, when you need to have so high threshold of sufference during races and training, when you need to sacrify, for long periods, the quality of your life in order to achieve results which can change the future life of you and your family, you cant simply press a switch and change your mental and physical attitude.

African are like this because their life, when young, is more tough than the life of our children. In every family death of some member is something normal, to be sick without medical solutions is normal, to be hungry is normal.

Top marathon runners have a methabolism completely different from the marathon runners of our Countries. They ate very little when children, and the morphology of their body reflects this situation : small and fragile bones (this is one of the reasons for so many injuries), immune system weak (this is one of the reasons for so many sicknesses), not great muscle strength (they don't need in their main events).

On the other side, the consumption of fuel for running fast is very little, and they have a particular "mental endurance" coming from their normal life when children.

This is not something genetic only : surely, the suns of Haile and Paul Tergat will not have any motivation for becoming runners, and also in Kenya the areas producing top talents become, every year, smaller.

But I want to go inside their mentality, now.

Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia (the African Countries I know, I don't like to speak about what I don't know) are Countries moving to the future at different speeds, depending on the domestic situations. While the big cities (Nairobi, Addis, Kampala) are not very much different from European or American cities (in this case we can really speak of globalization), the periferal rural areas (the only still producing runners) are still more connected with the past traditions. If you are sick in Nairobi or Addis, you go immediately to the hospital. If you are sick in some village near Kapsabet or Iten, you go to a traditional "wizard" giving you traditional medicine, because local people still believe more in these medicaments than in modern medicine (and in any case the level of it is still very low).

The most part of new athletes look at going in some training camp, for one main reason : THERE THEY HAVE TO EAT.

In Iten, there are plenty of runners eating once per day (when they can) because absolutely no money. These athletes have talent, but cant recover their training not because don't have some supplement, but BECAUSE DON'T HAVE FOOD.

Many of them, after 3-4 months of better training, but specially BETTER AND MORE FOOD, are immediately able to run a marathon under 2:10, may be also 2:07.

When you don't have food, you don't look at some supplement, YOU LOOK AT FOOD. And, for that reason, NOBODY asks for some supplement.

May be some coach or some manager can propose medicines for better recovering, and some Kenyan /Ethiopian, in their innocent ignorance, can take. But talking about "Widespread doping" is something so unfair and stupid that doesn't merit any answer.

Why all the bests are clean ? Because they are under the control of professional coaches and managers who well know what is legal and what is not legal. And, because they win in any case (as you wrote), nobody pushes for giving some PED, with the risk to be penalized for nothing.

My position is very clear :

1) There are rules, and everybody has to follow these rules.

2) If you take something illegal, you are responsible in front of the law, and you have to undergo the consequences of your mistake

3) This doesn't mean I have to look at everybody as cheaters, because I know how difficult is, especially for athletes without proper education, to distinguish between what is legal and what is "officially" illegal.

4) For me, cheaters are all people doing something for having advantages compared with other people, and to cheat is something including the WILL to cheat. Different is to do some mistake, and today I think the most part of doped athletes are not real cheaters, but people involved in some mistake.

What I wanted to say in my OP, is that we can't be indignant with the most part of athletes, when the normal culture is a pharmacologic culture.

If the posters of Letsrun go for some antidoping with blood test, I think more than 50% are "officially" doped, because of the widespread use of supplements in our life, WITHOUT ANY REAL AND LOGIC REASON. So, why have we to think that athletes, working with their body at very higher level than normal people, must not use what we normally use ?

How Ato Boldon says, today everybody uses supplements and stimulants. This is a fact, also if we have different positions about the problem. For him, the solution is to reduce the list of illegal substances, increasing the penalties for major offenses (steroids, EPO, GH...).

For me, is to change mentality, thinking the most part of supplements don't give any advantage, finding again the joy to train very hard using the personal will and personal strength, in order to improve themselves. And I'm not sure we can't reach better results, discovering new energy and motivation in ourselves, refusing external aids.

Now I go to the biological passport.

This is something new, but for the endurance events can work in good way in 90% of cases.

I have, during a season, an average of 5-7 blood tests with my athletes, African and not, and ALWAYS saw very little fluctuation in the values of Hct and Hgb.

The old system, before the possibility to find EPO in direct way, was very unfair, putting a limit of 50 Hct as legal condition for competing. The fluctuation of these values is absolutely individual, and to decide one objective limit is absolutely arbitrary.

I remember, when I was Italian National Responsible, that Gelindo Bordin won OG in Seoul with 12.8 of Hgb and about 40 of Hct, while Genny Di Napoli (3'32" in 1500m) had normally values of 18.5 and 52, and when had 17.5 of Hgb his feeling was to be anaemic.

But in any case, nobody can have too big variations if their parameters, if not sick, in natural way.

We had in the past cyclists jumping from 40 to 60 or more of Hct, and this is possible only using some doping.

A normal variations, during a season, due to different volume and intensity of training, and (in case of athletes living at sea level) to the stay in altitude for some period, can be of no more than 5 points (for example, 42/47), WITH THE LOW VALUE WHEN THERE IS THE BEST SHAPE.

For making the biological passport, WADA put together all the test athletes had, in competition and out of competition, creating a graph which can have too big variations. They go to control other parameters, too, like proportions in the blood among different values.

When the deviation between higher and lower values is abnormal, the athlete becomes a "special controlled", and can't escape from the consequences (or decides to be clean, reducing his performances).

In all this action, there is only one thing not working : it's not possible to make the biological passport (today) for the most part of athletes, because it's not possible to have all the data we need for so many people. So, what can happen is that athletes in top 30 in the World (all under the Whereabout system) have to be clean (otherwise can be banned), while athletes at the moment out of the whereabout system can take some doping during their training periods, because are sure not to be controlled out of competition.

So, there are big differences in antidoping, when we look at events of "endurance" or events of "strength". In the first case, we can have a Biological Passport giving clear data about the trend of any athlete, and WADA can ban also athletes never failed any test, basing everything on the graph of values for long periods of time. In the second case, at the moment we need to find the illegal substance directly in the urine of the athletes, so they can risk during training periods for being clean during the competitions.

Last thing : one of the reasons because I think the case of Gay, Powell and the other Jamaican is fruit of a wrong mentality, but is a mistake (they didn't want to cheat), is that the control was during competitions, when they well know they are tested (not out of competition). And, whith all the experience they have, being positive knowing you will be tested is something I don't think possible.

All of this is pure bullcrap.

Those of adult age bear the INDIVIDUAL PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY for what goes into their body.

If they don't know what's in something and put it into their body anyway, THEY ARE AN IDIOT.

The best and easiest thing any athlete can do is eat natural foods (no, coca leaf, etc.are not foods).

Anything else, especially foods prepared in a factory somewhere, and especially those that list chemicals as ingredients rather than recognizable whole foods, is complete bullcrap and shouldn't even be touched.

To ingest that stuff is equivalent at best to negligent behavior, and worse than that, if an athlete has even a hint that something might be in it, could be willful blindness.

Yes, we sanction acts and omissions that are associated with negligence and willful blindness. ALL ADULT ATHLETES ARE EXPECTED TO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THIS. IT IS NOT BEYOND THE COMPREHENSION OF ANYBODY EXCEPT CERTAIN MINORS AND CERTAIN PEOPLE WITH DEMONSTRATED COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT.

Of course, the sanctions vary based on the mental component, whether something was intentional, willfully blind or with reckless disregard, or negligent--but the point is, there are sanctions levied in each case, and they are fair.

To say that Gay or Powell is not a "doper" or a "cheater" is imprecise, and misleading. Each of them violated extremely easy-to-follow rules. Furthermore, because they violated one or more rules with the prospect of achieving some sort of performance advantage, legal or not (they did not test positive for something that is alleged to have been found in a whole natural food, but instead in "supplements"), they did what they did in the full knowledge that they bore a high standard of care that is associated with the general duty of care that they bear to society as expressed through the governing bodies.

In seeking a performance advantage, they breached that duty of care that they agreed, in advance, to owe to society (you and me) in general and to their competitors in particular. Breaching that duty of care, that is incredibly easy to satisfy, is cheating.

EVEN IF IT WASN'T INTENTIONAL, WHICH IT MAY WELL HAVE BEEN, IT IS STILL CHEATING BECAUSE AN ATTEMPT WAS MADE TO SECURE A PERFORMANCE GAIN WITHOUT COMPLYING WITH THE RULES.

The idea of strict liability is not a new one. It is like "statutory rape"--all that must be proven is the act, not the mental component. In doping, a positive result from the A sample is viewed as evidence that the act of a rule violation has occurred, and a positive result from the B sample is viewed as further evidence of the same, that strengthens the quality of the evidence represented by the positive result from the A sample.

Strict liability is used in certain situations where it is deemed that compliance with the law or regulation is sufficiently easy, relative to the potential harm that would result from a violation, that a mental component does not have to be proved in order to justify the imposition of sanction.

It is a sliding scale. Although not always easy to tell if an individual is "of age", the harm that could result if the wrong determination is made is deemed so great that strict liability is imposed--so, the burden put on an individual to police their own actions is justifiably very high--if there is even a slight hint that somebody is under-aged, you must stay away. If you do not hold yourself to such a standard of conduct, you play with fire--knowingly.

In the case of doping, the sliding scale seems to me to work the other way--it is not that the resulting harm is particularly great, it is instead because compliance with the regulation is so incredibly easy, that strict liability is imposed.

And make no mistake, it is easy. Don't take any supplements, or if you do, take only those that are approved, and let agencies know in advance, and keep detailed records.

Note that nothing is absolute. In the case where something is questionable--like whether or not an athlete can return a positive finding for the metabolites of clenbuterol ingested by consuming meat--the agencies will make, and have made, concessions. In effect, they use their discretion to not levy any sanctions, or to recommend that sanctions not be imposed, or to annul a positive finding, or whatever other mechanism you choose to describe the situation.

But neither Gay nor Powell is making any such argument, for now. They haven't claimed they ingested something as a result of eating some whole natural food.

EVEN IF their actions were merely negligent--of which there is currently no evidence--they most certainly "cheated" the system.

Renato Canova wrote:

1. Froom and Quintana are doped MORE THAN ARMSTRONG, in spite of the biological passport

I would not include Quintana in this discussion. Quintana is a climbing specialist, probably the best in this tour. He is considerably lighter than Froome. Froome is listed at 72kg (probably weighs less though) while Quintana is listed at 57kg(!).

Quintana lost almost 3 and a half minutes in the first ITT on Froome, and that was only 30km.

Thanks Renato

Just one detail.

You mean about Chris Fromm and hise extraordinary climb performance of the last part of Mont Ventoux stage.

I did watch that on Eurosport. Fantastic Fromm, without drugs - i hope so. As was been fantastic Marco pantani "Il Pirata" on that same stage and others form the Tour the France. Later on, what a deceiving, Pantani caught with drugs.

On the same Stage of Tour de France in 1967 on the ascendent of hard part of the Mont Ventoux Tom Sipson, another british as Fromm he was on drugs, amphetamine and alcohol, a diuretic combination which proved fatal and dies.

Just to remember how much sophisticated the drug is as time passes by.

Thanks again. Keep up with your sport ethics and moral and with your temper and i hope that will move some to a rich mentality and rich training and not the pharmachologic addiction mentality.

Mr. Canova sir,

I have a question, I wonder if you could comment on. It seems that the bulk of elites at the top level caught doping are sprinters. By that, I mean the bulk of elite athletes that are not in countries that are known to have a culture of doping, such as Russia, Spain, Morocco, etc.

Obviously, you coach distance and middle-distance athletes, but I wonder if you could comment on sprinters. With distance, there is the idea a higher quantity of work will bring further success. Sprinters don't seem to have quite the same attitude, because of the nature of sprinting (rest, maximal effort exercise, acidosis concerns, etc.)

Do you think that Sprinters tend to naturally look for supplements (legal and illegal) to become more competitive, and, do you think that it is possible for, say, a non-supplemented Tyson Gay to ever be competitive to a (probably clean) Usain Bolt? Your answer to this question is very important in order to answer my second question.

In American running, particularly in the Salazar school, there is the idea that east Africans have physiological advantages, due mostly to living at altitude since birth and walking/running as a mode of transportation.

Salazar seems to think that the only way to compete against east Africans is with a "any legal means necessary" approach. Hence, thyroid medication, underwater treadmills, etc. The idea is that Westerners are inherently inferior, and thus need to take every advantage.

Do you think the Salazar approach leads to doping, either intentionally, or unintentionally? What would you say to Western athletes who don't have access to Salazar's tools, and still want to compete against east Africans? Do we stand a chance, without supplements? I seem to remember you worked with a great Italian Marathoner, and for a short time, Ryan Hall, so I am curious if you can refer to them as examples

You know I really respect Renato Canovas knowledge and experience in the sport.

But at some point the excuses and attempts at justification for athletes caught and performance trends (career wise or seasonal) are just too much.

Tyson Gay knew what he was doing, rolled the dice and lost. Its thats simple. It is exactly the same with everyone who gets caught. Its this simple. Why can we simply not accept that some people will cheat to win.

Chris Froome? He was an average cyclist who has lost a lot of weight on an already lean body and who can now ride at 430 watts on 20km of Ventoux yet still keep pace with the time trial experts on the flat. Has he been caught - no - but again its as simple as this - it doesn't mean anything.

Renatos puristic outlook on all of this is commendable - it really is. It does sadly also insult our and his obvious intelligence.

Nice post, except Canova is to be commended only if his beliefs are genuine.

Nothing personal, Canova.

Objectively, you have a significant personal and professional interest in the situation about which you are making self-serving statements.

Brojos:

You going to put this thread on the front page? Senior Canova poses interesting points and a healthy discussion could be had...

I don't excuse the athletes, I supposed to be clear in my opinion. So, I fully agree the last post of Sprintgeezer.

What I want to say is that doping, before being a fraud for winning and earning money, is a product of a widespread mentality, coming from the most civilized Countries.

THERE IS NO YOUNG ATHLETE, in EUROPE AND AMERICA, THINKING POSSIBLE TO DO SPORT WITHOUT TAKING SOME EXTERNAL AID.

When I say that the greatest "motivator" for doping is the current ambience of antidoping, inclusive of all the discussions around the problem (which of course exists) that appear in newspapers and TV only when there are big scandals (because media have interest to spread this arguments not with the goal to educate, but to ride the horse of topical subjects interesting people at the moment), I look at the consequences of a wrong approach, in my opinion :

1) How I already explained, there is a wide diffused idea the role of doping in performances is very much bigger than the reality. This because the antidoping agencies need to give more importance to their job and their role.

2) This fact provokes the over estimation of the advantages athletes can have using PEDs.

3) So, ALL YOUNG PEOPLE (or veterans, or amateurs) COMPETING IN ANY SPORT WHERE THERE IS NO ANTIDOPING CONTROL, KNOWING THEY CAN TAKE WHAT THEY WANT WITHOUT BEING CONTROLLED, ARE MOTIVATED TO TAKE PEDS not only for increasing their performances, but also for improving their physical shape without any agonistic goal. There is a lot of doping inside competitions for veterans, cyclists or runners, FOR BEATING SOMEBODY ELSE FOR THE 3Oth FINAL POSITION.

4) The main responsible for the wide diffusion of doping, at basic level, is the current behavior of antidoping. Always we speak about two different points :

a) To use PED doesn't put all the athletes on the same plane (so the hypothesis is everybody must have the same opportunities)

b) To use PED can provoke risks for the health.

But these two points are pure demagogy.

NEVER is possible to give the same opportunities to everybody. While one boy is born where there is a track and a good coach, another is born far from every facility. While a young European or American can eat steaks every day, an African of the same age faces problems in finding some humble food once per day. While one lives in a democratic and free Country, another lives in Countries where human rights are not respected (for example, women in Saudi Arabia, speaking about sport). While one has 50,000 USD from the family for going to University, another with the same (or better) brain has to stop studying because his family doesn't have money.

In all the individual sports, the final and direct user of the advantages produced by top performances is the individual, not the Country. But every individual can be helped by the best organization around him, and this organization is very much more professional and rich in some Country than in another, and this means there is not "par condicio" (same conditions) between different individuals.

And, about the risk for health : this is true, but if we want to speak in scientific way, we need ABSOLUTELY TO INVOLVE THE DOSAGE IN THIS POINT. Something very dangerous at high dosage, in medicine but not only (for example alcohol or tobacco) are real killers in high dosage, but don't mean anything in little doses. There is big difference between an alcoholist and who drinks one glass of wine in one day, or between who smokes 80 cigarettes per day and who smokes 2 when nervous.

But for antidoping the voice DOSAGE doesn't exist. If I can understand this situation under legal point of view (you are positive when one illegal substance is in your body, not depending on the dosage), the message about risking the health, in those conditions, doesn't have any scientific foundation, so it's clear that the only goal is TO SCARE PEOPLE NOT EXPLAINING WHAT CAN REALLY HAPPEN.

The final goal of the antidoping agencies is not to educate people to another mentality, but to produce among people playing sport at top level fright about a lot of things, creating confusion and complications, without, on the other hand, giving any moral education.

When I read of a research made by WADA with some Kenyan for arriving at the conclusion that doping works with Kenyan too, AND THE RUNNERS WERE "ATHLETES" HAVING A PERSONAL BEST OF ABOUT 10 MINUTES IN 3000m improving, after 1 month of training using EPO, a the average of 25 seconds, I can have only 2 reactions :

1) They are completely IDIOTS, and if WADA does some research with idiots we can't be confident in any Agency with so stupid workers

2) They know very well the research is a bullshit, but have to show that their final thesys is correct, AND CONSIDER ALL OTHER PEOPLE LIKE IDIOTS. In this case, they are CHEATERS.

Too many times I read, as proves of how much doping works, the following words : "if doesn't work, why the most part of cyclists used ?".

There are of course several proves that with doping athletes in different sports were able to rich higher levels thyan before, SO DOPING WORKS. The question is : WHY THEY ARE ABLE TO IMPROVE ?

We can have two different answers :

1) BECAUSE DOPING CAN GIVE YOU SOME UNFAIR AND SUDDEN ADVANTAGE AT THE MOMENT OF THE PERFORMANCE (for example, a beta-blocker during a competition of clay-pidgeon shooting)

2) BECAUSE DOPING CAN ALLOW YOU TO BETTER RECOVER, SO YOU CAN TRAIN MORE

But in this second case, I have another question :

"How many athletes tried to train more without taking any PED ?", because it's clear the improvement is DIRECTLY connected with the increase of training, not with doping, and doping has the task to support that increase.

So, the reality is that very few athletes have the courage to increase volume and intensity of their training, when the external conditions remain the same.

In cycling, there are not coaches, but doctors, and this because pharmacs are more important than methodology.

In my opinion, doctors must do their job, which is to try to cure sick people or, if physiologists, TO STUDY EVERY PHYSIOLOGICAL VARIATION PRODUCED BY TRAINING. When a doctor goes to prepare a training plan, his priority is to enhance the blood values for having more training. When a good coach goes to prepare a training plan, his priority is to enhance the performance, and normally, when the performance improves, the blood values goes down.

This means that the blood values are EFFECT of training, not CAUSE of performances. Doctors reverse this point.

Zimmerman, I think that sprinters tend to naturally look for supplements BECAUSE ARE FROM COUNTRIES HAVING PHARMACOLOGICAL CULTURE, such as US, Canada and Jamaica.

And I don't consider different, under the point of view of their mentality, if they take something legal or illegal, when the reason because they look at some support is the same.

Morally and psychologically speaking, which is the difference between taking the illegal nandrolone of ancient memory, or the legal creatine, IF THEY WANT IN BOTH THE CASES TO INCREASE THEIR STRENGTH ?

This is exactly one of the points creating confusion in the antidoping rules : there are too many supplements with some small illegal substance inside, that is not possible to control deeply everything, and many of them are completely useless.

But, because it's not possible to be sure of anything, my proposal is to have a list of major doping (steroids, GH, EPO and something else), and a lists for minor doping, specifying the QUANTITY which can start to help a performance, since in small quantity these substances don't have any effect in any direction.

When we speak about "same opportunities", don't forget that where there is big medical organisation is also very much easier to have EXEMPTION FOR THERAPEUTIC REASONS.

How many US runners have the exemption for asthma, for example, with very little symptoms, and how many kenyan runners have real asthma, without knowing anything about the correct road for making everything official ?

About your question regarding Salazar's ideas, I agree with him in more general way : American, European and Australian/Zealander runners can fill the gap they have under the pure specific talent training and living in more professional way (that in the case of the best African, too, is very far from European and American standard).

Training is something complicated, there are many points involved in any performance : physical, technical and psychological. And these points depends in great part on the enviroment.

For example, with African runners is almost impossible to have a professional way for recovering after injuries, also when we look at the greatest stars. Bekele was injured 7 times in the same point, refusing to have a physio with him. I had some top athlete with stress fractures, and gave a recovery-plan with exercises in the pool and specific type of aquagym : they didn't do.

When a top African athlete is injured, his solution is "stop and wait".

Nobody of them organises his life FOR athletics, and stronger they are, more busy in other things but training they are.

During winter 2009-2010, Mo Farah was in Iten and trained several times with me, till European Championships. At that time, he looked at 5000m only, not thinking of 10000m.

After one month of training, one day I told him :

"You need to look at 10000m, because in this event you go to win Olympics at home. This not because you are the strongest in the World, but because, among the group of strongests, you are the only one having the real opportunity to prepare this event in the right way. You have economic support by UK Federation and by your Company, you don't need to compete in too many meetings like Kenyans for surviving, and to prepare 10000m is something specific that Kenyans don't do, because the event disappeared from top meetings, so they need to chose between the preparation for 5000m and for Half Marathon, and both are not specific".

So, the opportunity offered in western Countries are, of sure, better than in Kenya or Ethiopia, and in many cases I think possible to fill the gap (but not in marathon, at the moment).