Middle aged men doping... Colorado issue or everywhere?

gdm wrote:

HereComesDaJudge wrote:

Not that good wrote:

You don't need to dope to run a 1:20 half or even a 2:34 marathon at age 40. Those times are better than average but pretty commonplace for 40 years olds. Maybe you can get suspicious if they're doing that at age 50 or 60.

Agree 100% on this. I wouldn't even question a 40 year old running 1:20 or 2:34, it's pretty much par for the course for a better than average 40 year old runner who is well-trained. 1:20 at 50 isn't even much of an outlier.

You're missing the point. OP is not accusing these guys without evidence -- they told him that they dope. Moreover, while there maybe plenty of guys who can run 1:20 at that age, there are also plenty who cannot and wish they could. Anti-aging AKA performance-enhancing drugs are becoming like the new Centrum silver.

Yes! I am glad you mentioned this, gdm.

And 2:34 "commonplace" among 40 year-olds? What universe are you living in? 2:34 is not even "commonplace" among open competitors. Certainly, 2:34 is not the fastest out there, but races have been won in the 2:30s, and if you are running this in your forties, you are an excelent runner and in the top .1 (or .01?) percent of runners. Read some results sheets, and not just NYC, Boston, and such, and join us in the real world.

I think it is the exception. OP, were this guys in a running club, informal or not? Word gets around. 1:20 isn't great either. The good local masters could or can do under 1:15 easy. Some good local masters have hidden talent too, and just never trained properly or skipped college running.

OP's sample size is too small to draw conclusions, and to accuse all masters runners. It doesn't excuse what they are doing, which is terrible, but just because an older runner has breakthroughs doesn't mean they are doing something clearly wrong. People improve a ton by dropping weight and staying uninjured, consistent training.

1:20 is clearly nothing special. We underestimate what 40-50 can do clean. 40-50 is near prime of life. It isn't old at all, like people want you to believe. 1:10 to 1:20 shouldn't be on the radar for suspicion of ANYTHING. 40-50 can be near prime running years for someone not beat up by a lifetime of mileage.

I may be biased, but IMO there are more triathletes that are on something than runners. Triathletes seem more into supplements, etc... and gaining any edge for age-group performances.

Really?--a local master can go under 1:15 "easy." Where does this exist? Do they all live in Running Shangri-La?

OK, local in a local big running focused city. I assume most runners on this forum are in places with lots of good local runners. Haven't you noticed more PNW runners here than elsewhere? If you love running, you don't stay in places that are -30C most of the winter or 110F in the summer.

small fish, big pond. wrote:

OK, local in a local big running focused city. I assume most runners on this forum are in places with lots of good local runners. Haven't you noticed more PNW runners here than elsewhere? If you love running, you don't stay in places that are -30C most of the winter or 110F in the summer.

A good, and necessary, clarification here.

Well, some of us cannot simply get up and move anywhere. Sure, Portland or Seattle would be nice, but we slow, useless masters who cannot break 1:15 (or 1:20) have lives and families, and could only dream about ideal running weather.

I love running, too...perhaps more than the guy who runs sub-1:15.

Yeah a team like Calcost will have a shitload of guys in their 40s And 50s capable of sub 1:20 with the top guys kicking the dirt and lamenting why why why when they only break the American record by 15 seconds when they feel it should be 1:50. But they and a few other pockets are the exception.

And of course you called USADA to report him, right?

No, I didn't report them to USADA because i'm not trying to get them in trouble . I was just shocked it seemed as common as they were making it. In Colorado Springs trail running is a big thing and most of those races do not drug test...

Also, to people saying 2:34 is common place. The Colfax Marathon here in Colorado had something like 17,000 people only 1 person ran sub 2:34 there, the winner. That is fast at altitude especially for a 40+ year old dude.

I didn't say that it's common place. I said that it's nothing. So keep running your 60 mile weeks and talking about 1:20.

says a guy who could never run 2:34 at altitude. Lol...

Anyone who says a 2:34 is nothing doesn't realize only .025% of the population can do that.

Interesting, I know for 100% certain there are several triathletes and cyclists in their 40+ years who live in Scottsdale and visit the anti aging doc and get shots or gels on a regular basis strictly for the performance boost. Some win age groups and even outright.

I haven't spent a lot of time in the Scottsdale area, but the anti-aging "clinics" seem out of control there. A middle-aged, nonathletic, female friend of mine in that area gets supplemental testosterone from a physician who thinks that her serum testosterone should be at about 500 ng/dL, which just sounds insane to me. I'll admit that I don't a lot about long-term effects of testosterone supplemtation at that level in women, but I suspect that's probably because studies of women with such testosterone supplemantation levels would be considered highly dangerous and unethical. (If anyone here has any real knowledge about this, I'd love to hear it or, better yet, see some respectable source materials.)

NoHomoBro wrote:

says a guy who could never run 2:34 at altitude. Lol...

Anyone who says a 2:34 is nothing doesn't realize only .025% of the population can do that.

Yes, sheer lunacy to say that 2:34 is nothing, espcially if we are talking about a runner in his forties.

Yeah, we should all just hang it up and do something else. Running is just for the top .01%. Everyone else sucks, and deserbes to be jeered, booed, and called "nothing."

(I know that I'm making a bunch of typos, but I haven't mastered little keyboards and tiny screens.)

yyy wrote:

isn't T supplement the same as asthma medication if you suffer from EIA?

It levels the playing field.

Isn't EPO the same. It just levels the playing field..

Avocado's Number wrote:

(I know that I'm making a bunch of typos, but I haven't mastered little keyboards and tiny screens.)

Neither have I.

good guy wrote:

anyone here experiment at all with this kind of stuff? is it fun?

Of course it is fun. Who doesn't want to recover faster and not brake down? There are downsides like you are probably on it for life and we don't have a good feeling for what the end results of say 30 years of supplimenting will be.

The antiaging docs are right at the edge of science and quackery. It might turn out that low dosage (i.e. we are not talking about body builder levels where you use 10x the recommend dose) Test replacement is a huge quality of life improver. Or it might 10x your chance of some cancer. Nobody really knows.

Obviously competing when doped up is beyond unethical. And no it isn't leveling the playing field.

Avocado's Number wrote:

I haven't spent a lot of time in the Scottsdale area, but the anti-aging "clinics" seem out of control there. A middle-aged, nonathletic, female friend of mine in that area gets supplemental testosterone from a physician who thinks that her serum testosterone should be at about 500 ng/dL, which just sounds insane to me. I'll admit that I don't a lot about long-term effects of testosterone supplemtation at that level in women, but I suspect that's probably because studies of women with such testosterone supplemantation levels would be considered highly dangerous and unethical. (If anyone here has any real knowledge about this, I'd love to hear it or, better yet, see some respectable source materials.)

Sounds pretty insane to me too. My wife is in her mid-60s, obviously post-menopausal. She is on HRT, and her OB/GYN also has told her to take non-prescription 50mg DHEA to get her free testosterone up above 20 ng/dL. He said 20-80ng/dL is a normal range for women. 500ng/dL is mid-range for normal young males. If not dangerous, 500ng/dL certainly sounds like it would be masculinizing on a woman at that level.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but won't these guys have to take this stuff possibly the rest of their lives now? Hardly seems worth messing with hormones that much for "bragging rights".