60 yr old doper nailed

Suspicious of Sr. Racewalkers wrote:

And according to another poster here, the positive was a result of using a steroid cream for his arthritis...yikes!😨 - talk about high-octane doping!

Wouldn't it be great if this site had a journalist on staff who could contact the people involved to get more details and avoid rampant speculation? It's just a dream, I guess, not reality.

Crusty Old Runner wrote:

http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2603929

This was a small study and not randomized. Pretty weak study and there was no difference in the total plaque volume increase. Even if TRT had some effect on CV disease it would be only very mild. Cholesterol levels are order of magnitude more important.

Chronically-Injured Old Runner wrote:

Not everyone can have the good genetics & and the very light BMIs of some of these incredibly fast Grand Masters...nothing new there.

Everyone can have a very light BMI. It's just a matter of willpower

Fact Check? wrote:

Suspicious of Sr. Racewalkers wrote:

And according to another poster here, the positive was a result of using a steroid cream for his arthritis...yikes!😨 - talk about high-octane doping!

Wouldn't it be great if this site had a journalist on staff who could contact the people involved to get more details and avoid rampant speculation? It's just a dream, I guess, not reality.

What!, and spoil all the fun?

Anyway, we're expert enough to know what goes on in these situations.

Fact Check? wrote:

Suspicious of Sr. Racewalkers wrote:

And according to another poster here, the positive was a result of using a steroid cream for his arthritis...yikes!😨 - talk about high-octane doping!

Wouldn't it be great if this site had a journalist on staff who could contact the people involved to get more details and avoid rampant speculation? It's just a dream, I guess, not reality.

This would require the Brojo's to clean the moths and cobwebs out of their wallets and pay someone.💱 Ain't going to happen.

I am experienced wrote:

[quote]same boat wrote:

Curious about what your dietary changes were and if you had changes in your lab results?

Lost about 7-8 lb over the year, from 150-152 (which had been my racing weight for 20 years), .

Losing weight can be a great performance enhancer regardless of what kinds of food you eat.

I had a very good year when I was 50 as I dropped 4-7 lbs lower than I had raced at in a few years(128). I was running times I hadn't seen in 5 years. I ate the same types of food I always ate, just less of it.

I always remember how easy it was to run fast when I was a junior in high school and weighed 112.

Lol, loving the stock photo of sprinters they used in an article about a 60yr old race walker. F"ck usada!!!

Ultradude wrote:

A 60 yr old race walker was nailed by USADA for steroids. How is this not on the front page? Can't wait for this guy's excuse. Tainted beef? Swapping bodily fluids? What will it be?

https://www.usada.org/scott-mcpherson-receives-doping-sanction/

hhgg wrote:

Everyone can have a very light BMI. It's just a matter of willpower

That's a bunch of BS and you know it. There's different body types, metabolisms, bone structure, etc., that are influenced by genetics...who would have thought. I'm in my late 50's at 165 lbs (5-7) which is my high-school football weight, and down from my high of 185 in college before I started running. I'm on a calorie restricted diet and practically have to starve my myself to keep this weight. The fast cats in my age-group who are around the same height go easliy 130 - 140 lbs, some as low as 120. And I've talked with these cats after races and most of them tell me they've been that thin & light all their lives and have never had to watch their diet.

Yeah...it's just a "matter of willpower" my a%# 😁

Actually, it is just a matter of willpower. Calories in, calories out. You aren't breaking any laws of physics and thermodynamics or whatever.

You certainly aren't starving yourself.

Everyone of these men had a very light BMI: :)

hhgg wrote:

AndroGel is very mild. Gym rats use shorter ester testosterone injections.

Are you talking about the young guys as opposed to the old bucks? The old dudes at the gym that I go to who are doing TRT from the Low-T centers are telling me they're going with the gels/patches. Most of these guys I talk to are not competitive runners or cyclists though, and might just do some weekend running/cycling for fun.

plus 2 wrote:

So you have some ingenious training methods that only YOU could come up with and discover---despite over a century of the sport. BTY, thanks for listing your best times at age 46 and 49 (14:34, 14:45); coming very near to the times of your 20's and 30's. You have, previously, published your own list of criteria for when you think masters runners are cheating/doping. I think you just implicated yourself.

THE EDDY RULES

1) After years of competition, the runner suddenly improves his or her performances (all-time or over recent years) as a masters runner and keeps improving as he or she continues to age.

2) The runner surpasses recent years’ PRs for shorter race distances during longer races (e.g., running a masters PR for 5K while racing 10K) even though he or she regularly competes at the shorter distance.

3) The runner races week-after-week with no performance decline, unless the race announces drug-testing, in which case the runner mysteriously drops out or has a sub-par performance.

4) The runner's integrity in non-running aspects of life is suspect (i.e.—You can’t be dishonest in one aspect of your life and suddenly be an upright citizen in something else).

5) The runner's competitive peers are 100% certain that the runner is cheating, not because of superior times, but because the runner’s training and racing cycle lies outside the experience of "clean" athletes.

Apparently, you hit on a lot of these. Including one, that is glaringly absent:

6. Runner does not compete in the USATF sanctioned events where they do drug testing. They also avoid the World Masters Championships when they are in their own state (California).[/quote]

i'm going to argue these points, but not to persuade the idiot poster with limited comprehension skills who has already made up his mind even though some of these points have been shown to have no merit, but for anyone else who, glancing at these posts, may think said idiot has some valid points. and yes, full disclosure, pete's a friend and teammate of mine, so yeah, i've made up my mind too, but at least i've done so with a little more information and experience than some anonymous poster...

1) when we're talking about improvements, we're talking specifically about athletes who trained and competed at a high level in their 20s and/or 30s, so we have a point of reference, which we don't have with pete and many other masters. it would not surprise me if pete could have been a 4-flat miler in his prime, but he was content to smoke and drink excessively while owning a bar in the tropics. with eddy, we have clear benchmarks, and he clearly defied what should be at least some--the amount is of course debatable--decline in abilities. for example, i ran significantly faster in my early 40s than all of my 30s when i was not training hard. but if i ran within a couple seconds of my lifetime prs i ran in the mile when i ran professionally in my 20s, i would subject myself to whatever testing necessary, because i would clearly have to be on something....

2) this one does not apply to pete or many masters i know, with one exception.

3) also not applicable to pete or any masters i know, with one exception.

4) pretty ambiguous "rule"--i'd disagree with pete here anyway...

5) pretty subjective "rule," but i think i'm pretty safe in saying the majority (but not all) of truly competitive masters runners think pete is clean.

so, i'm not sure which of the "eddy rules" apply to pete according to the above poster. but it's obviously pretty easy--and indeed, i suppose it's the letsrun way--to make vague and unsubstantiated accusations. oh well.

6) as for this inane "point" (which has been argued against numerous times): pete (and i, and a number of his teammates of varying abilities) DID compete at nationals in sacramento, where we could have been drug tested (but weren't) and had a grand old time in the hot humid summer weather running 12.5 laps in the late afternoon. we ALL chose not to go back the next year (when they held the world masters champs in sacramento)--pete's reason was similar to mine: as exciting and fun as "national/world masters championships" can be (and i've been to many national races at varying distances, as has pete), the track meets can have fields that are weak to the point where winning a title with a slow time can be very unsatisfying (to that point: i ran a 14:29 5k in an open/collegiate race that march, but won my race in nationals handily with a 15:40 in july--which race would mean more to you?). that is not to denigrate the competitors who win these races, because you should never take competing at our age for granted, it's just not what floats my boat. also, this is not to say that i look at certain national championship races as more "valid" than others, but we're not stupid; my most recent national title was in the 1/2 marathon, and while i treasure it because i felt i ran an effort equal to my fitness, i don't for an instant think of myself as the best 1/2 marathoner in the country at age 45-49. to be clear, national championships at the masters level are NOT like open nationals with track where pretty much everyone who has qualified and is healthy shows up. at this point, probably the only thing that would take me to a national or world masters track championships is if it were a "destination race," someplace i wanted to travel to and visit (remember, unlike other championship races, track requires a lengthier stay depending on rounds and/or if you're doubling, etc.), or if i had a bunch of teammates going, because i like traveling with them. otherwise, i'm content track-wise (roads and x-c are different) to compete here in beautiful southern california where we have great competition and great conditions, and where i can get my ass kicked and run fast versus running slow and winning some title. and i won't lie--at x-c and various road national champs, you have a chance to recoup traveling expenses by running well, and that matters to some of us more or less.

that's my story and i'm sticking to it...

cush

lmao wrote:

Actually, it is just a matter of willpower. Calories in, calories out. You aren't breaking any laws of physics and thermodynamics or whatever.

You certainly aren't starving yourself.

I think the poster is alluding to body types more suitable for distance running, which is determined by genetics. Just like you'll never see a 6-6, 300 lb lineman become an elite distance runner, you also won't see people built like little dimuinitive runners ever make it to the NFL...no surprises there.

Fact Check? wrote:

Wouldn't it be great if this site had a journalist on staff who could contact the people involved to get more details and avoid rampant speculation? It's just a dream, I guess, not reality.

I think if the CIR test can distinguish between the different substances that fall under this broad classification, USADA could determine whether or not it was exogenous T, steriods, DHEA, cortisone, etc., as opposed to the ambiguous "exogenous androgenic anabolic steriod (AAS) and/or it's metobolites."

TRT Mania wrote:

hhgg wrote:

AndroGel is very mild. Gym rats use shorter ester testosterone injections.

Are you talking about the young guys as opposed to the old bucks? The old dudes at the gym that I go to who are doing TRT from the Low-T centers are telling me they're going with the gels/patches. Most of these guys I talk to are not competitive runners or cyclists though, and might just do some weekend running/cycling for fun.

Yes, I was talking about more serious testosterone use.

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

Fact Check? wrote:

Wouldn't it be great if this site had a journalist on staff who could contact the people involved to get more details and avoid rampant speculation? It's just a dream, I guess, not reality.

This would require the Brojo's to clean the moths and cobwebs out of their wallets and pay someone.💱 Ain't going to happen.

I was imagining that there might already be someone at Letsrun who can dial a phone and ask intelligent questions. I guess not. Until some news organization follows up on an issue important enough to be on the Letsrun homepage, I'm going to assume that McPherson was caught excessively kissing a slab of tainted beef slathered with arthitis cream. And this disgusting practice appatently kept all other competitors in his age group from wanting to compete at the world championships.

Genetics R Us wrote:

lmao wrote:

Actually, it is just a matter of willpower. Calories in, calories out. You aren't breaking any laws of physics and thermodynamics or whatever.

You certainly aren't starving yourself.

I think the poster is alluding to body types more suitable for distance running, which is determined by genetics. Just like you'll never see a 6-6, 300 lb lineman become an elite distance runner, you also won't see people built like little dimuinitive runners ever make it to the NFL...no surprises there.

But this is a completely different thing than dieting down to a very low BMI and being a fast runner.

TUE Tom wrote:

I think if the CIR test can distinguish between the different substances that fall under this broad classification, USADA could determine whether or not it was exogenous T, steriods, DHEA, cortisone, etc., as opposed to the ambiguous "exogenous androgenic anabolic steriod (AAS) and/or it's metobolites."

The CIR test must be expensive because normally used tests are testosterone/epitestosterone tests which can't detect exogeneous T use directly.

"But this is a completely different thing than dieting down to a very low BMI and being a fast runner."

Define "fast". Because I see a lot of skinny people at races who I know train their butts off that can't break 17 for a 5K.

And I see other people with somewhat higher BMIs consistently under 16.