Suspect signs of doping

New
  • wtfunny
    registered
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 3:33am CST
    Forum Index
    So I'm wondering what are the key indicators of doping, for most folks on this site.

    1) Athlete sets a WR
    2) Athlete nearly sets a WR
    3) Athlete sets a WR and retires
    4) Athlete MIGHT set a WR but retires beforehand
    5) Athlete has a short career
    6) Athlete has a long career
    7 Athlete sets a WR and runs a victory lap
    8) Athlete grins after the WR, indicating arrogance
    9) Athlete does not look happy after setting a WR, indicating guilt
    10) Athlete is African
    11) Athlete is Chinese
    12) Athlete is East European
    13) Athlete is Jamaican
    14) Athlete recovers too quickly
    15) Athlete doesn't get injured
    16) Athlete is always "injured"
    17) Lance Armstrong never tested positive either
    18) Athlete runs with NOP
    19) Athlete drops huge PR
    20) Athlete wins a race
    21) Athlete has the form of a doper
    22) Athlete has poor form, yet wins races
    23) Athlete has a big twitter following
    24) Athlete does not have a big twitter following
    25) Athlete has a funny name
    26) Athlete ran in the 90's
    27) Athlete breaks middle distance records
    28) Athlete gets braces as adult
    29) Athlete is too buff
    30) Athlete knows someone who knows someone
    31) Writer of post knows someone who knows someone who knows someone
    32) Athlete wins a race and does a workout
    33) Athlete's workout schedule is harder than mine
    34) Athlete was not junior phenom
    35) Athlete was/is a junior phenom

    There's gotta be more. Are there certain tell-tale shirt colors or shoes we should look for? Hair styles that might be a dead giveaway? How about race numbers? Just add to the list, we can each keep a copy of it, and then we won't need all these threads where 200 anonymous screen names declare that athlete XYZ is a doper.
  • Augustinius
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 5:24am CST
    re: wtfunny
    Forum Index
    Can be said more simply:
    (Almost?) every top competitor in a physical demanding sport where winners receive big money and fame are using performance enhancing drugs
  • gullible too
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 5:27am CST
    re: wtfunny
    Forum Index
    I agree. T&F is clean. Fans of the sport should stop questioning Heroes.
  • Fat Boy
    registered
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 5:34am CST
    re: wtfunny
    Forum Index
    I look at the stopwatch. If the time is quicker than is physically possible without PED's then he/she is a user. I currently put that at about 11 flat for women, 10 flat for men 100 meters. If they're under that then they are users.
  • Daryl Basarab
    registered
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 6:56am CST
    re: wtfunny
    Forum Index
    The only moderately accurate indicator is the one about poor form. I'd add athlete never has an off day, doesn't go up and down. Never has to peak.
  • fred
    registered
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 7:00am CST
    re: wtfunny
    Forum Index
    http://www.extremepeptides.com/aica-ribonucleotide-aicar-50mg/
  • xuder
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 7:11am CST
    re: fred
    Forum Index
    Couple things that popped up.

    http://velorooms.com/index.php?topic=412.0

    http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/11395/Doping-AICAR-Telmisartan-and-the-need-for-vigilance.aspx
  • umm
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 7:11am CST
    re: wtfunny
    Forum Index
    36) Athlete is consistent
    37) Athlete is inconsistent
  • Steelman4ever
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 7:13am CST
    re: wtfunny
    Forum Index
    wtfunny wrote:

    So I'm wondering what are the key indicators of doping, for most folks on this site.

    1) Athlete sets a WR
    2) Athlete nearly sets a WR
    3) Athlete sets a WR and retires
    4) Athlete MIGHT set a WR but retires beforehand
    5) Athlete has a short career
    6) Athlete has a long career
    7 Athlete sets a WR and runs a victory lap
    8) Athlete grins after the WR, indicating arrogance
    9) Athlete does not look happy after setting a WR, indicating guilt
    10) Athlete is African
    11) Athlete is Chinese
    12) Athlete is East European
    13) Athlete is Jamaican
    14) Athlete recovers too quickly
    15) Athlete doesn't get injured
    16) Athlete is always "injured"
    17) Lance Armstrong never tested positive either
    18) Athlete runs with NOP
    19) Athlete drops huge PR
    20) Athlete wins a race
    21) Athlete has the form of a doper
    22) Athlete has poor form, yet wins races
    23) Athlete has a big twitter following
    24) Athlete does not have a big twitter following
    25) Athlete has a funny name
    26) Athlete ran in the 90's
    27) Athlete breaks middle distance records
    28) Athlete gets braces as adult
    29) Athlete is too buff
    30) Athlete knows someone who knows someone
    31) Writer of post knows someone who knows someone who knows someone
    32) Athlete wins a race and does a workout
    33) Athlete's workout schedule is harder than mine
    34) Athlete was not junior phenom
    35) Athlete was/is a junior phenom

    There's gotta be more. Are there certain tell-tale shirt colors or shoes we should look for? Hair styles that might be a dead giveaway? How about race numbers? Just add to the list, we can each keep a copy of it, and then we won't need all these threads where 200 anonymous screen names declare that athlete XYZ is a doper.

    _______________________________
    How long did this take you OP?
  • 800 analyzer
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 7:17am CST
    re: wtfunny
    Forum Index
    The primary clue that one is possibly doping is when one posts a time close to or better than the times currently regarded as WRs since many of those are very clearly doped or highly suspected of being doped.

    Did we really have to explain this?
  • battonwedgie
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 8:33am CST
    re: wtfunny
    Forum Index
    you took too long making that stupid list. were you trying to prove some point?

    For me the biggest clue is consistency. when you see someone go from natl class to suddenly running wc times, you have to wonder.
    beyond the obvious (a big change in body composition) that's usually what I look at, and why I don't toss out allegations hither and tither.
  • Zat0pek
    registered
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 9:05am CST
    re: battonwedgie
    Forum Index
    I've said it before and I'll say it again:

    I competed in track and cross-country for two different universities, one NAIA and the other NCAA DI in a BCS conference. I have a close friend and law school classmate who went to work for the NCAA as an investigator. Later he worked directly for the NFL, and then went to work for two NFL franchises. Through a combination of both my sport and my profession, I have been very fortunate to get to know a good number of world-class and professional athletes in a variety of different sports. Because of my profession, I am regularly provided a large amount of information because those giving it to me know that it is privileged and cannot be divulged. So, in this summary don't expect many details or names because you won't get any. Rather, I will distill and explain more generally my understanding of the subject into a few main principles. In a separate post, I will provide a few selected examples not as anecdotal evidence but rather as examples or illustrations of the concept.

    Here goes:

    PRINCIPLE #1: The cheaters are (almost) always ahead of the testers. The hardest thing for people to understand is that negative test results truly don't mean a thing. They really don't. Whether or not an athlete has never tested positive is absolutely, completely and totally irrelevant. Marion Jones passed 162 drug tests during a period of time when she was using a designer steroid, EPO and HGH. I have seen guys take the medicine chest one day and test clean the next. The multiple reasons for this (use of undetectable substances, masking agents, cycling the drug use, pre-testing and monitoring done by sponsors or even governing bodies to assist with avoiding detection, etc.) are many and beyond the scope of this simple post.

    Just like in the BALCO scandal, there are labs who create undetectable drugs for the sole purpose of evading testing. Remember, in BALCO the only way the designer steroid that Regina Jacobs and many others were using was discovered was because a syringe containing a tiny amount of the drug was provided to WADA. From there, they created a test and went back and tested previously tested samples that had been frozen and preserved. Had it not been for Trevor Graham providing that syringe, we still wouldn't know about that designer steroid. You can rest assured that there are other substances out there that were created for exactly the same purpose that we still don't know exist, and may never know exist.

    The key point to understand here is that when someone tests positive, that is the exception not the rule. The rule is that it is normal and ordinary for drug cheats to test negative. A positive test usually results from either absolute stupidity or just sheer bad luck. It is critical that you understand this. As the saying goes, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

    PRINCIPLE #2: Doped up athletes are good for business.
    Doped up athletes run faster, jump higher, set records, perform more consistently, defy the aging process and are generally more exciting to watch. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that if doped up athletes are more exciting to watch and attract more fans, TV viewers, and revenue, then those who profit from that increased revenue are more than willing to, at the very least, turn a blind eye to doping but are far more likely to even participate in, and possibly even encourage, the doping and avoiding detection. This includes everyone from the athletes themselves to the governing bodies to sponsors to the media to agents to sponsors and even teammates and spouses.

    The motives to dope are many and large. Agents work on a commission, so a bigger contract for the athlete means a bigger commission for the agent. One way to get a bigger contract is to perform better and one of the most certain ways to perform better is to dope. Pro teams make money by selling tickets and through TV contracts. If you want to sell more tickets and attract more eyeballs to more TV sets, then doped athletes will unquestionably help your bottom line. I could go on and on.

    It is also true of governing bodies. As I have posted before, our own governing body performed pre-testing prior to the 1984 Olympic Trials and Olympics in order to aid our own athletes and avoiding detection: http://articles.ocregister.com/2009-...-irving-dardik.

    Even though I've posted before, it's worth repeating here:


    LOS ANGELES - The U.S. Olympic Committee, concerned about the potential embarrassment of a doping scandal involving American athletes at the 1984 Summer Olympic Games, conducted an informal drug testing program in the months leading up to the Los Angeles Games that allowed Olympic-caliber athletes testing positive for banned substances to escape sanctions, according to documents obtained by The Orange County Register and interviews with three officials involved with the program.

    At least 34 U.S. track and field athletes either tested positive or had possible positive tests during six weeks of informal testing by USOC in the spring of 1984, according to confidential USOC memos. None of the athletes was sanctioned or lost eligibility, according to USOC documents and interviews.

    Athletes were informed of their positive tests and told continued use of banned drugs could result in positive tests at the U.S. Olympic Trials and Olympic Games, where violations would lead to bans from competition.
    "It gave them a heads up," said Ollan Cassell, executive director of U.S. track and field's governing body from 1980 to 1997. "It let them know what was coming, what to expect."

    . . .

    To get ready for drug testing structure ready for the 1984 Olympic Games, the USOC not only had to get the drug testing lab accredited by the International Olympic Committee but had to set up numerous crews to collect urine samples at competition sites.

    . . .


    Dick Pound, the former president of the World Anti-Doping Agency and a International Olympic Committee member from Canada, criticized the informal testing program, saying the United States "was running a drug counseling program."

    "They were allowing athletes to check their clearance times," Pound said, referring to the time from when an athlete takes a banned substance to the time when that substance will not be detected by a drug test.

    But Kenneth S. "Casey" Clarke, the USOC sports medicine director who oversaw the informal testing, and Cassell are unapologetic about the program that they said also tested athletes in other sports at the USOC Training Center in Colorado Springs.

    "It was done quietly and efficiently," Clarke said of the informal testing.

    . . .

    While they said the program was in part set up as a dry run to the drug testing operation that would be used at the 1984 Games, the former officials said the USOC's desire to avoid a repeat of a drug scandal that marred the 1983 Pan American Games was a driving force behind the informal testing program.

    Athletes were caught off guard when Germany's Manfred Donike revealed a new test to detect steroids at the Pan Am Games in Caracas, Venezuela. After a Canadian weightlifter tested positive for steroids athletes, a dozen American athletes in several sports unexpectedly left Venezuela and returned to the United States.

    The USOC, Cassell said, was "embarrassed, upset after the Pan Am Games."

    . . .

    "There was a feeling at the USOC that the Russians were getting (away with doping) and that we should be getting ahead of (the issue)," Dardik said. "But I also remember a lot of USOC meetings talking about testing there were a lot of people concerned 'if we do this are we going to ruin our team?'

    "It was really political."

    . . .

    Fifty track athletes were contacted by the USOC in the early spring of 1984 and all 50 participated in testing conducted by Dr. Harmon Brown, a USOC drug testing crew chief, on March 27 in Los Angeles, according to a confidential USOC memo. Brown died last November.

    . . .

    The tests for 28 of the 50 resulted in "possible positive findings" of banned substance use, according to the June 5, 1984, "Informal Drug Testing of Track &Field Athletes" memo from Clarke to Cassell.

    . . .

    Ten track athletes were tested by Brown on May 8, 1984 also in Los Angeles, according to a July 9, 1984 Clarke memo to Cassell.

    Six of the 10 had "positive findings" for testosterone, the memo said.

    Clarke said athletes in other sports were tested based on "basically whoever was available at the (USOC) training center" in Colorado Springs.

    It's not just the East Germans and Moroccans whose governing bodies are more than happy to help their drug athletes avoid detection.

    The bottom line is that there is a tremendous support system in place that encourages, fosters and promotes athletes doping. Athletes ascending the performance ladder are surrounded by coaches, teammates, spouses, agents, sponsors, teams, and governing bodies who all benefit from their doping. And, of course, the athletes themselves benefit.

    PRINCIPLE #3: You should never be surprised by who tests positive.
    The most surprising thing about a positive test is that someone actually slipped up and got caught. However, as to who that someone is there should be no surprise. The reason for that is that the incidence of drug use is so high and the risk of detection is so low. The high probability of any one athlete out of a population of athletes with a very high incidence of drug use simply means that you cannot be surprised when someone turns out to be a drug cheat. Negative tests mean nothing, and activism against drug use means nothing. That said, while no one can be above suspicion because the incidence of drug use is so high, there are certainly those who are suspected more than others (see Principle #5 below).

    The very best quote I've ever seen regarding this point was by KevinM when he said in reference to Floyd Landis that "When the Amish kid tests positive, no one can be above suspicion."

    PRINCIPLE #4: Cheaters are extremely skilled liars.
    There are a lot of reasons for this. Many truly do not believe they're doing anything wrong because "everybody does it" and they are surrounded by people supporting and protecting them in their drug use. It's a little bit of a chicken and egg question; do they only lie after beginning to cheat or is it because they are liars that they cheat? I've never fully answer that one to my satisfaction. All I know for sure is the drug cheats are some of the most magnificently skilled liars I've ever encountered.

    PRINCIPLE #5: I can't define it but I know it when I see it.
    When you've had a peek inside that world, he learn that otherwise very subtle or innocuous things can mean a great deal. There often isn't any one telltale sign of cheating, although there can be (like Lagat's recent braces, acquired in his late 30s despite previously having previously flawless teeth; a prominent sign of HGH use). It's usually a combination of a variety of factors, including competition patterns, performances, the company they keep, and a lot of other things. It's usually not one thing, but rather an overall picture that emerges based on a myriad of factors. You cannot simplistically look at performances and know who doped and who doesn't. Performances are just one of many factors that paint picture.

    PRINCIPLE #6: Logic means nothing , and everything.
    This is the part that most people can't get past. They apply logic to PEDs ("it doesn't make sense that they would use PEDs because . . .") PED use doesn't conform to our logic. A lot of human behavior defies logic. If logic governed human behavior, all we'd have to do is point out to an alcoholic that drinking that much is ruining their life and they'd stop. I know this sounds nuts, but logic and what makes "sense" or "adds up" will get you nowhere in understanding the world of PEDs. It ain't about logic. It's a special kind of warped behavior with its own rules and sick rationalizations.

    But on the other hand, logic is everything. To the athletes and the enablers with which they are surrounded, it is only logical to use if "everyone's doing it", it helps them make more money, there is very little chance of detection, etc.

    In the world of PEDs, you can believe very little of what you see. It's a world that operates on its own sick rationalizations that are foreign to the vast majority of people on the outside looking in at that world. There's always a wizard or two behind the curtain creating an illusion for those looking in so they don't see the reality. In the world of PEDs, what you see is often nothing but a carefully crafted mirage.
  • excellent point
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 9:09am CST
    re: wtfunny
    Forum Index
    OP has an excellent point. Yes there are surely some athletes that dope but there are going to be plenty that do not, and when they do anything on that list, someone is going to say they dope. Imagine how that clean athlete feels and also think how great it is for the sport as a whole when everyone is being called a doper.
  • Zat0pek
    registered
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 9:19am CST
    re: Zat0pek
    Forum Index
    Here are the examples I referenced in my previous post:

    Here are a few examples:

    Example #1: The college freshman.
    When I transferred to an NCAA DI school, there was another transfer student who was a sophomore. He was transferring from another, smaller, NCAA DI school.He was an excellent runner and the state cross country champion in a large, competitive state with only one division. During his freshman year at his previous school, he contracted mono near the end of indoor season and missed a large block of training during the late winter and early spring. His previous coach thought the team was in the running to win a conference title, so he put my teammates on steroids to help get them back in time for the conference meet. They worked, of course, and he won the conference title despite missing a large block of training at a crucial time. He described the effect of the steroids with almost hushed reverence about how sudden and dramatic the impact was. He went off to steroids after the conference meet, never used them again and transferred.

    The moral of this parable is that a college coach in a non-revenue sport was motivated to put a college freshman with mono on steroids to get him to perform at the conference meet. If the motivation is sufficient to cheat for a college freshmen in a nonrevenue sport to win the conference title in a mid-major conference, one can only imagine how great the motivation to cheat is for athlete on the verge of making a national team, moving from the minor leagues to the major leagues, setting a record, getting a contract, getting a medal or winning a real championship.

    Example #2: The highest placing non-American
    In 1987, a good friend of mine, himself a former national-class runner who raced "B" meets in Europe, was coaching at a JUCO. Also at this JUCO was a coach from the former Soviet Union. My friend called me one night in 1987 to tell me that the Soviet coach told him that there had been a rampant rumor in Europe before he left that, due to public perceptions about drug use in sport, an edict had been sent out by a governing body that the "highest-placing non-American in the 100 meters" was to fail his drug test at the upcoming Olympics in Seoul to send a signal.

    We laughed about it at the time and said, "well, we'll find out in about a year if it's true."

    At the 1988 Olympics, Ben Johnson, "the highest-placing non-American in the 100 meters" failed his drug test.

    The moral of this parable is an illustration of the amount of complicity which exists with coaches, governing bodies, sponsors and the like. The US is a major part of the television market for the Olympics so throwing an American under the bus would be bad publicity and bad for business. However, growing public suspicion over the use of drugs in sports demanded that a major figure be thrown under the bus to create the false impression that testing actually "works" thereby restoring some public confidence and keeping them watching, which in turn keeps the advertising rates up.

    Example #3: The drug test results reveal, uh, an "injury", yeah, that's it, an injury!
    In the 1990s, a popular and well-known US athlete just missed making a national team by one place. The winner of that selection race was tearing up the track and setting records all over the place. The individual who missed making the team by one place went to Europe, ran a few PR's then returned home during the break in competition while the international championship was conducted.

    Only a couple of days before the international championship was to begin, the athlete who just missed making the team by one place got an urgent call from our governing body.

    "We need you on a plane to [name of city were championship is being conducted] immediately. [Name of winner of the selection race] isn't going to be able to compete and we need you to take their place." Surprised and delighted at being able to compete, the athletes who missed making the team by one place finally asked why the winner wasn't going to be able to compete. The response by the governing body official was as direct and blunt as can be: "He/she can't compete because they tested positive for [name of a major PED] at the selection race and we don't want to take a chance on them testing positive during the [name of international championships]. We just got the B sample back confirming it."

    Of course, this positive test result never saw the light of day.

    The moral of this parable is that even when athletes do test positive, governing bodies are not above covering up those results in order to protect the image of the sport and its stars.

    The second moral of this parable is that when athletes suddenly perform poorly or withdraw from major championships, the reasons given may, or may not, be true. The increased frequency and sophistication of testing at events like the WCs and Olympics just as often result in withdraws or poor performances (because the athlete is off the substance earlier to avoid detection) as do injuries or inability to handle the pressure on such a large stage.
  • sleeeper
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 9:25am CST
    re: Zat0pek
    Forum Index
    Thank you for that post, Zat0pek. While the implications of what you write are a little sad, they align perfectly with what I've witnessed as a T&F fan. Thank you for taking the time to write this all out.
  • Ben L Wrong
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 9:25am CST
    re: Zat0pek
    Forum Index
    Example 3: The former elite athlete, self confessed prozac user, now coach of a running-team says "without drugs it's almost impossible to make the top 3". Years Later, his athletes made 1-2 at OG's and several AR's.
  • not impressed
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 9:27am CST
    re: Zat0pek
    Forum Index
    There often isn't any one telltale sign of cheating, although there can be (like Lagat's recent braces, acquired in his late 30s despite previously having previously flawless teeth; a prominent sign of HGH use).

    The only "telltale sign" you could find was that Lagat got braces to close a gap in his lower jaw which he had had since childhood. You're not credible.
  • Zat0pek
    registered
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 9:34am CST
    re: not impressed
    Forum Index
    not impressed wrote:

    The only "telltale sign" you could find was that Lagat got braces to close a gap in his lower jaw which he had had since childhood. You're not credible.

    You mean this gap? Oh, wait... www.tracktalk.net/drugged-gills-p225907.html?
  • bigtool05
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 10:07am CST
    re: wtfunny
    Forum Index
    Totally agree with the OP. Many posters here believe that all world class athletes are doping and so any little thing that they do is taken to be a sign that they are doping.

    I'll give an example: take Zat0pek's posts on this thread where he mentions athletes faking an injury to cover up a drug test positive. I have no doubt that this happens, but now whenever someone gets hurt or gets sick and has to pull out of a big race they're accused of trying to cover up a positive test or being afraid of increased testing. Of course getting hurt or sick is a common occurrence in the world of athletics for clean and dirty athletes alike. There've been several times where I was on a roll but then had to pull out of a big race due to a sudden injury or illness. It happens to everyone who takes training and competing seriously, especially elite athletes who push their body to the brink on a regular basis. But some people act like this is a doping tell. The thing is, if your tell also applies to a lot of clean athletes it's not a very effective tell.

    That's just one example, but there are a lot of them. The braces thing is another. The vast majority of posters here, even most of the supposed "insiders", have no idea who's dirty and who isn't. I recognize that I have no idea what I'm talking about so I refrain from engaging in this bullshit game of "Webb used to be really fast and now he's not! He probably used to dope but then decided to stop!" Or "So and so pulled out of the world champs! He probably did it because he knew they were going to be testing for such and such drug!" A lot of these guys are dirty. I don't know which ones and neither do any of you. Speculate all you want but stop acting like you know anything.
  • markeroon
    registered
    6 years ago 02/07/2014 10:08am CST
    re: Zat0pek
    Forum Index
    I didn't realize this. Do you have a picture of him with a gap in his teeth in later years?