RW reader wrote:
Matthew Centrowitz is #1.
Galen Rupp #4
Don't tell me it's a coincidence. USADA has its eyes on them.
Details:
http://www.runnersworld.com/performance-enhancing-drugs/these-are-the-most-drug-tested-runners-on-the-us-olympic-team
Yo. Can anyone tell me why it's OK to sleep at altitude (thus altering your blood chemistry), put certain foods into your body but not others, take supplements / vitamins, put your legs into an ice bath, get a cortisone shot, get surgery, even take some prescription drugs that are on the TUE list...
but it's not ok to take PEDs?
Here's why I ask. In the best television show ever made, Breaking Bad there is a scene that raises this question.
The scene where Walt and hank enjoy Cuban cigars. Walt openly reflects upon the irony of a DEA agent smuggling cigars and how alcohol was once illegal, to which hank replies "sometimes forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest." The legal status of pot is also discussed in this scene. Walt concludes the discussion by simply saying its arbitrary. I think this is an important theme of the show, the thin line between what's legally and socially accepted or condemned.
Heck, wouldn't wearing shoes with spikes be considered an advantage over running barefoot? Where do you draw the line?
How is taking PEDs any different than the myriad other things people do to gain an edge on their competition? How is that any different than when one runner has access to top facilities and sports medicine doctors while other runners are training in the desert with no financial support? Aren't there current advantages that current runners enjoy - that are perfectly legal - that other runners do not have because of money? When we look at it from a money perspective, isn't it already unfair?
It's just like endangered species. It is always politically correct to say "save x or y species" but in reality there are a number of species of ugly beatles people don't give a shit about and will let go extinct.
I honestly agree with you guys that PEDs "feel" wrong, but logically, I am lured more and more by Malcolm Gladwell's argument that it would be better if PEDs were legal and regulated, and the new rules would force athletes to show / post publicly what they are taking so that the fans could make their own conclusions. It might be more interesting to see Runner A who takes lots of PEDs go up against Runner B who takes none and watch Runner B win.
So my challenge to you all is: answer the following question in 1-2 sentences with a compelling answer: How is taking PEDs any different than the myriad other things people do to gain an edge on their competition?