60 yr old doper nailed

I love seeing 60 year olds get nailed

Running is an unusual sport in that aging amateurs want (and in some cases even feel entitled) to be able to compete against same-age peers in a well-regulated and "official" event. In almost every other sport, athletes and fans accept that this type of competition is the domain of youngsters and professionals. If you do want to keep training and racing as an old-timer, you can, and that's pretty great.

But I don't know why there has to be a fuss made about making sure it's a "totally fair" competition. There's nothing on the line but fun, fitness, and a little bit of pride-and if you are a 50+ amateur who is staking his self-worth on an age group placing at the turkey trot, that's on you and nobody else.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

casual obsever wrote:

A non-story, or the story of a doper who "has received a four-year suspension".

It's a bit like putting Martha Stewart in prison while murders are free to roam the streets. You can tell the guy is getting old as he didn’t give us a creative excuse, he should have said something like "I confused it for viagra."

Martha Stewart essentially stole many millions of dollars. Why shouldn't she have gone to jail?

Also, nobody said murderers should be allowed to "roam the streets."

60 yr old, and then some. wrote:

Also, I've got a hot 38 year old wife who tells me I perform like a 25 year old, so less of the fücking "pop".

Damn...Viagra at work here? 🤔

Sdfsdfsdfsdfsdfsdf wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

It's a bit like putting Martha Stewart in prison while murders are free to roam the streets. You can tell the guy is getting old as he didn’t give us a creative excuse, he should have said something like "I confused it for viagra."

Martha Stewart essentially stole many millions of dollars. Why shouldn't she have gone to jail?

Also, nobody said murderers should be allowed to "roam the streets."

Tongue in cheek, but for the record (and I think Martha Stewart has lost her marbles hanging out with Snoop Dawg) she went to prison for lying to Federal investigators. Her stock broker was the insider trader, he told his clients that the drug company was not going to get FDA approval and would likely drop, so his clients sold their stock, Stewart owned $200k in stock and save herself $45k. The company lost some millions in market cap because its drug was a dud and didn't get FDA approval. She should have been punished but fining her massively was a better use of resources.

I want to be like those guys wrote:

60 yr old, and then some. wrote:

Also, I've got a hot 38 year old wife who tells me I perform like a 25 year old, so less of the fücking "pop".

Damn...Viagra at work here? 🤔

She means he pays the bills like a 25 year old.

60 yr old, and then some. wrote:

Captain Kangaroo wrote:

Hey pop , back off the weed , proofread and leave the millennial acronyms to the millenials .

Hey fückwit, here's another, GFY. And here's a little grammatical punctuation tip for you, don't put a space before a comma or period, YFI.

Also, I've got a hot 38 year old wife who tells me I perform like a 25 year old, so less of the fücking "pop".

If you are performing, why is your wife still "judging the performance" of 25 year olds?

What prescription drugs are performance enhancing & banned either IC or OCC that many middle-agers & Seniors are using? Aren't some of the more popular one's statins, ACE inhibitors, bronchodilators, pain meds...none of which have performance-enhancing properties. Corticosteroids are prescribed a lot for chronic inflammation and according to some research, "may" have some enhancing properties. TRT can can used for clinically low-T under a doctor's care - same as HGH. The significant performance booster for aerobic capicity would be EPO, and the only time it might be prescribed is for clinically diagnosed severe anemia as treatment for an underlying disease (e.g., renal failure, sickle-cell anemia). So, if people have a legitimate medical need for some of these drugs, then what's the big deal if they compete while using these, especially with a TUE?

I think the only way is to create two categories of competition. How can it be controlled otherwise? If it's important for these fast cats to race against drug-free competition for titles, trophies, bragging rights, accolades in Runner's World, etc. then two categories assure a better chance for the drug-free competitors (I race in the 55-59 group of a monthly club race where the top 3 get a cheap ribbon & maybe a handshake from the race director, so it's not a big deal for us 😄).

You say your some of your USATF fees go to drug testing? Is all the testing funded by the fees or does USADA chip in? Because if USADA is chipping in, they along with WADA, are complaining of lack of funding...who could have imagined. If that's the case why are they wasting money on GM/Senior athletes when they have a huge problem right now with the elites? (ever read the WADA report on the major deficiencies of testing at Rio?). And does the testing just cover IC or is there some OOC testing? If it's just IC, then the PED users could just follow the blueprint for anti-doping countermeasures used by the pros and show-up not glowing where IC testing hasn't accomplished much.

But all is not lost, as you should sleep very well knowing that your fees for drug testing bagged a 60 yr racewalker, who apparently was the only competitor in his age-group, and supposedly used a banned cream for arthritis. Now that's a nefarious case of a doper. 😅

I agree that it sounds absurd in a vacuum, but consider the context of the comment.

SoCal Pete was laying out factors that would be important to him in evaluating for himself, not for public accusation, whether someone might not be on the up-and-up. It is a cumulative test, not a single, bright line test.

So when a guy who I know who was a mid 14:40s guy in college, who trained with guys who ran 14:20s and sub 30:00, who trained under the same coach as those guys, who disappeared from the running scene for a while and then came back from out of nowhere, runs 15:30-15:35 through the 5k on the way to a 4 mile race (a time that would age grade out to about 14:10 or so - a :30 PR, of sorts) at age 45 and is coached by someone who is widely believed to be a doper - yeah, that association becomes an important one.

Dr. Laylock J wrote:

This is just a symptom of all the male Boomers out there who think they should never get old or die. It is ridiculously simple to get prescriptions for testosterone or HGH for what are actually just normal signs of aging.

This from a 57-year-old who takes fish oil as his magic pill.

What's wrong with middle-aged dudes getting buffed for the ladies?💪 Look at all the anti-aging stuff going on with middle-aged women, e.g., face lifts, lipo suction, boob jobs, etc. And now you got 55 yr old gals looking like 35 yr olds and dating guys at that age. So, how can some of us compete for these women if we are sad middle-aged saps? "Normal signs of aging" isn't going to get you much in this century unless you're a wealthy Aristocrat.

Look, I am all for feeling good and looking good, but there are a few issues. First off, what price are you willing to pay for that? Go on TRT and you are likely on it for life. EPO will destroy your organs. HGH will do who knows what to you.

I hear all of the "yeah, but I want to enjoy my life, not hold on to meaningless years at the end" and wonder what makes people so certain that those years will be meaningless? Generally, we are much more active and vital than the average population, and then is likely for us to live longer lives with high quality-of-life years later in life than the general American population. So the logic seems flawed to me.

On top of that, it is easy to discount a hastened death when that death still seems far off, but do any of us really want to live 10 or 20 years less than we could have?

Finally, yeah, it is just plain old cheating to compete against other athletes while being supplemented with PEDS, with a reasonable medical need or not. I am not saying that guys shouldn't race if they are taking TRT for whatever reason, but I would probably decline age group awards and similar benefits.

Eldo wrote:

Running is an unusual sport in that aging amateurs want (and in some cases even feel entitled) to be able to compete against same-age peers in a well-regulated and "official" event. In almost every other sport, athletes and fans accept that this type of competition is the domain of youngsters and professionals. If you do want to keep training and racing as an old-timer, you can, and that's pretty great.

But I don't know why there has to be a fuss made about making sure it's a "totally fair" competition. There's nothing on the line but fun, fitness, and a little bit of pride-and if you are a 50+ amateur who is staking his self-worth on an age group placing at the turkey trot, that's on you and nobody else.

I agree for the most part with this attitude. Being a 56 year old age-grouper I just still get an enormous amount of satisfaction from training hard, getting out on the roads or trails, competing with others and getting the best out of my abilities on that particular day.

It's really a non-issue to me if someone in my AG beats me because in addition to training hard he's also on LowT meds. Now, I'm not SoCalPete or Sean or Brian able to win with national/world caliber times so I may not understand where someone like that is coming from regards to doping at our age.

Smoove wrote:

EPO will destroy your organs.

This is utter nonsense. There is no evidence for that. As long as hematocrit is not driven higher than 55, EPO is benign for otherwise healthy people.

age grouper wrote:

Smoove wrote:

EPO will destroy your organs.

This is utter nonsense. There is no evidence for that. As long as hematocrit is not driven higher than 55, EPO is benign for otherwise healthy people.

Yes, BS like that will be spewed.

Doctors, together with their patients can decide what is best for the patient (I don't think that IAAF (or you) should have an "opinion" in that matter). You can have your own convictions and that your prerogative

Again, people over 60 (or 55) should be entitled to opt out of IAAF rules (they will not compete at Olympics) and be able to compete. Ok, they won't get a ribbon, fine... people who don't take meds could also compete against them if they wish.

Plenty of information out there suggesting that EPO increases the viscosity of your blood, resulting in increased likelihood of stroke, heart attack and blood clots. Also plenty of information out there about other side effects (I do enjoy the irony of me citing livestrong.com).

Formation of blood clots in various locations has been reported in those taking EPO, which, if displaced, can lead to a stroke and possibly death. EPO can also raise your blood pressure. Headaches, dizziness and seizures are neurological symptoms known to be caused by EPO. Leukopenia, or decrease in white blood cells, can compromise your immune system. Acquired pure red cell aplasia, or PRCA, has been reported to be caused by EPO in some patients. PRCA is a serious bone marrow disorder that decreases the production of red blood cells.

Cancer patients taking EPO may be at additional risk. A November 2006 review in "Critical Reviews in Oncology Hematology" notes a possible link between EPO and increased cancer growth. Lung, breast and ovarian cancer were all found to have receptor sites for EPO on tumor cells, meaning that EPO could stimulate tumor growth. Your doctor will determine the best treatment plan for you based on your risk for metastasis, or spread of cancer, and hemoglobin levels.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/206029-side-effects-of-procrit-shots/

Eldo wrote:

Running is an unusual sport in that aging amateurs want (and in some cases even feel entitled) to be able to compete against same-age peers in a well-regulated and "official" event. In almost every other sport, athletes and fans accept that this type of competition is the domain of youngsters and professionals. If you do want to keep training and racing as an old-timer, you can, and that's pretty great.

But I don't know why there has to be a fuss made about making sure it's a "totally fair" competition. There's nothing on the line but fun, fitness, and a little bit of pride-and if you are a 50+ amateur who is staking his self-worth on an age group placing at the turkey trot, that's on you and nobody else.

Eldo, I completely understand your opinion. I just don't understand why you frame your opinion as if it were a fact. The reality is that there's nothing on the line at almost any level of racing--unless you're parlaying high school talent into a college scholarship, or are a pro who makes his living through the sport. The fact that you think older age groups have "nothing on the line" while younger runners do isn't grounded in reality--it's grounded in your personal bias.

You further illustrate this bias by claiming that running is "unusual" for including this age group competition, when in fact numerous sports do the same. Visit

to see how many sports are included in the annual Senior Games alone. You only know about masters running because you're involved in the sport of running--I guarantee you that people outside the sport don't know any more about our sport's age group competition than you do about the same for other sports. For them, it's all Usain Bolt and runners with funny names from foreign countries winning all the marathons.

I also think you're being completely disingenuous about "fun, fitness, and a little bit of pride" being all that counts. I can't imagine anyone who'd be willing to play a game of pick-up basketball on the local courts with someone who always lied about the score, claiming enough extra baskets to win no matter what the actual score was. Or who'd play cards with someone who always hid an ace up his or her sleeve. Or would bet on a baseball or football game with someone who always denied they'd made a losing bet. Kids don't want to play with other kids who always cheat. Young adults don't want to get beaten by cheaters. And older runners just want the same--because it's not a "race" unless everyone's running, you know, the same race. That's not "staking ... self-worth on an age group placing at the turkey trot"--that's just fair play, or what you, for some reason, define as "totally fair" (as if it's unreasonable not to want to compete against cheaters).

Honestly, does the name Mike Rossi ring a bell? Runners - don't - like - cheaters. It isn't an age thing.

In any case, runners age 40+ account for 50% of the millions of road race finishers each year. Since they also account for a huge percentage of top finishers in those races, maybe it's the younger runners who should only be in it for fun, fitness, and a little bit of pride (and a little bit of shame) when they edge those oldsters.

Cavorty wrote:

At a tangent, it seems that genetics and maybe consistency of training can allow outperforming age grades. Even though I trained very seriously through my 20s and 30s, I've steadily got faster in age graded terms. I'm not really sure why, but suspect if you maintain intensity and consistency it can be done.

I've seen my age grade percentage creep up as I age even though I get slower and slower. I think it must be because of the constantly shrinking pool of runners in the game as we age leaving me at 85% of those still competing? i've avoided T supplementstion to help with bone density (in back, legs are fine) by trying to improve my diet. I would feel like I'm cheating if I eventually have to go that route.

My point was really that I don't think it is at all worthwhile to put in the resources required to meaningfully "clean up" masters running, because nobody is being cheated out of anything of significant monetary value. I was not trying to belittle the value of masters sport.

Smoove wrote:

Plenty of information out there suggesting that EPO increases the viscosity of your blood, resulting in increased likelihood of stroke, heart attack and blood clots. Also plenty of information out there about other side effects (I do enjoy the irony of me citing livestrong.com).

More nonsense.

The EPO side-effects you are describing do not apply to healthy people. The only long-term studies on EPO side-effects were done on people with kidney disease, HIV and cancer. There is no question these types people do benefit from having thinner blood, but that benefit does not apply to healthy people.

To date, there have been no studies done on the side-effects of EPO on healthy people.