60 yr old doper nailed

hhgg wrote:

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

Yes it is expensive...about 10 times the cost. And the old T/E ratio test is obsolete to the CIR test which can distinguish between naturally produced testosterone and synthetic versions. It sounds like this was an expensive test to use on a 60 yr old racewalker who was the only competitor in both his events, and where no World or National record was set.

Sounds like you guys are faster than I am, so the only logical conclusion that I can reach is that you must be doped to the gills.

Fact Check? wrote:

Subway Surfers Addiction wrote:

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.

😂

I live on the east coast wrote:

The running joke in my community is where are the 55+ year olds who aren't doping. The top runners in that age group are running the same, if not better than they were at 45. 20 years ago this phenomenon did not exist. It's pretty obvious what's going on.

I sure would like to know what's going on? It's downright crazy in the Grand Master running scene where I live. I've been running for 30 yrs now and have never seen anything like it.

Guys in their mid to late 50's going sub-19 & sub-38 come a dime a dozen now. Middle-age dudes not just smoking their age-group, but many times winning the overall at some of these local 5k/10k gigs. And it's not just the little, lightweight guys running these kind of times, but I'm seeing more bigger & muscular guys run very fast in their middle-age. With my pedestrian 21 & change recent PR, I'm a middle-aged Chump compared to these guys!

What's going on here? Better nutrition? New training methodolgy for older runners? Dietary supplements? Structured weight training? I've ask a few of these middle-aged speedsters from time to time after a race what's their secret. And most invariably credit a better diet, less running & more cross training/strength training & supplements. Someone needs to do a story on what seems to be the "50's is the new 30's" in competitive running.

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[/quote]

Not a very good reply. Remember, these points that you say have no merit (Eddy Rules) are Pete Magill's own rules/standards that he believes proves a doped masters runner.

Rule 1. He runs 14:34 at age 46. I wonder how long it was since he ran that fast? Remember, HIS rule states that an improvement is made over "recent years". I don't recall any such preposterous time coming from him in his early 40's. Hence: violation of rule 1.

Rule 2. I wonder what his 3k split time was in this 14:34 at age 46. I would suggest it was faster than any 3k he had run in years. Violation of rule 2.

Rule 3. I would say that 14:34 to 14:45 qualifies as consistent and with very little decline from age 46 to 49. And the fact that he seems to avoid the events where he might be tested, puts him afoul of this rule.

Rule 4. Years of drug use, excessive drinking, etc.... Strike 4.

Rule 5. Wouldn't expect a team mate of his to be able to look at all this objectively, but plenty of masters runners are jaded enough, at this point, to come to their conclusions as to what is possible. I think he got a bit too greedy with these marks and they are not believable. Lots of people suspect PED's: just not you?

"Rule 6". Your argument turned into a treatise on yourself, personally. No one is talking about you. So you and Pete skipped the World Masters Championships (In California) and a chance to be a World Champion because you claim the competition isn't up to snuff and it would be a hollow victory if you won? And that, furthermore, you would rather run the LaBrea 5k or some such event, instead, because there was the chance some 25 year old might kick your butt? Remember, you guys are Masters athletes and this was the World Masters Championships. Don't buy your argument at all. He fails on all six.

Weight/nutrition are key, as is consistency/staying healthy and keeping at it. Everybody slows from 35 to 45 and 45 to 55 etc. but the trick is to minimize it. Nearly a life long runner here. When healthy ran mid-high 33s to low 34 for 10K from age 35-42. 35s in late 40s, and still in 35s-36s past 55. Put in good miles but I less hard training (speed work and long reps at 5K to 8K or 10K race pace).

rule 1: you focused on "recent years," but he opens this "rule" with "after years of competition." that is the focus of this "eddy rule"--that eddy had years of competition that make it easier to benchmark his abilities. pete did not have "years of competition" (relative to eddy's, such as competing heavily in his 20s and/or 30s)--maybe you didn't know that, so i'll give you a pass here.

rule 2: he ran an american record 8:36 in the 3k at 46--and yes, this is a slow mark relative to his 5k, where you'd have to guess he came through around 8:45. a year later we tried to lower his record in this event since he knew it was soft, but came up short (when pete was 47), running 8:47 together (i guess we were both on the wrong drugs at this point). but you're talking about an event that is rarely run, and that's why the age group records in this event don't measure up to 5k records (lagat's 40-44 record is "only" 8:00, nowhere near his 5k at the same age). however, coming through a 10k near your PR on your way to a 15k would yield different information...

rule 3: you got me here. i am still amazed by his 14:45 at age 49. except you're not really arguing against pete's point here, where he discusses racing week after week with no decline, something pete has never really been able to do. however, to your irrelevant point: maybe he is on drugs--but i still don't see this as a totally unreasonable decline from 46-49, at least not so much that can't be accounted for with a little luck in terms of fitness, health and race conditions. also irrelevant to pete's original point here, but not to your yours: pretty much every national championship meet allows that you may be tested, so every road and club x-c nationals that pete has won or competed in meant he could have been tested (but wasn't). and when we competed in sacramento for national champs in track, we could have been tested (but weren't). i honestly don't know the likelihood of testing at worlds vs. nationals--anyone else have experience with that on these boards?

rule 4: this is a rule i disagree with personally--humans have an amazing ability to compartmentalize their lives--and "morality" can be in the eye of the beholder. but i agree with you: by pete's own rules, he could easily fail this one depending on the beholder...

rule 5: i suspect i am a little more in touch with the masters community and what pete's peers think of him, but i can't tell since you're anonymous. but i could be wrong here, i suppose--it's possible they all think he's on drugs but would never say so, or even imply it, to his face or his teammates. but i doubt it--and a lot of them bought his book...

so, maybe pete has one to one and a half strikes by his own measurements? however, the reason he has a number of rules is because most, if not all, national class masters runners will fail at least one of these rules--pete, who carefully qualifies these as just for his own entertainment (and ours, now, i suppose), and not necessarily grounds for direct accusation. if you want to apply his rules, then ultimately it comes down to an accumulation of the limited parameters he's spelled out, not just 1 or 2 "strikes"...

rule 6 (not part of pete's "eddy rules"): i won't defend my modesty because i don't have much. but i guess my point got lost in my patting myself on my back for how fast i am, mixed in with a little of your misconstruing certain points: pete and i didn't travel to worlds because we despised the prospect of running a 5k in sacramento, and pete and i value track titles (where not everyone shows up and prize money is non-existent) significantly less than x-c titles (where the best more likely show up and prize money is solid and the team element actually makes it fun) and various road titles (where sometimes we do it for fun, for travel, for money, or for team points on the grand prix schedule). i hope that clears that up for you. if not, i have no problem letting this devolve again into a treatise on myself and remind you that when in doubt on a letsrun message board, trust the sub-4 miler (i call this the "cush rule"). did i tell you i'm a sub-4 miler?

here is just some of the glory that is me:

you're clearly into wasting your time as much as i am, so enjoy the reading...

cush

I am all for looking good and feeling good and have absolutely no problem master's athletes taking supplements and/or drugs for medical -or anti aging reasons. And, I have no problems if these enhanced individuals workout and even run races, but don't accept prizes, when you know you are chemically enhanced. When you know for a fact that if got off the pill, you would get slower. How fair is that to the guys out there doing it naturally. Master's athletes like to kid themselves into thinking that it's ok to dope (yes dope) because there are not Olympics or World Championships on the line, but doping is doping and events and age have nothing to do with it.

TrackCoach wrote:

I am all for looking good and feeling good and have absolutely no problem master's athletes taking supplements and/or drugs for medical -or anti aging reasons. And, I have no problems if these enhanced individuals workout and even run races, but don't accept prizes, when you know you are chemically enhanced. When you know for a fact that if got off the pill, you would get slower. How fair is that to the guys out there doing it naturally. Master's athletes like to kid themselves into thinking that it's ok to dope (yes dope) because there are not Olympics or World Championships on the line, but doping is doping and events and age have nothing to do with it.

All good points...and if an aging runner is using anti-aging substances (e.g., T, HGH, DHEA) or PEDs, but doesn't compete, or competes in events that don't give prizes (e.g., club sponsored events), then who cares. Maybe their objective is better recovery, decreasing injuries (who wants to be injured all the time even if you're just a fitness runner), or just feel better with their recreational running...then more power to them.

But the other problem is with "serious racer types" it's gotten very competitive in upper-age divisions. Many are looking for the edge just like the younger elites. Trophies/medals, bragging rights, recognition in running publications, impressing the younger gals, etc., can mean a lot to many of the Master's & Senior's who have made competitive running a major factor in their lives, particulary if they're retired or semi-retired.

I can see the intensity with some of the serious competitors at the local master's running club I belong to. Unlike the pedestrian slow poke that I am who doesn't race much because of chronic injuries, I see the faster guys & gals in the club really take it very seriously. You can cut the atmosphere with the intensity that these competitors demonstrate during their warm-ups. And after some races, I've seen some of the aggressive, impetuous attitudes where one runner will confront another competitor in his age group saying; "Okay so & so...you got me this time, but you watch out - I'm going own you at next month's race!). Intensity to the max!

So, in the Grand scheme of things, it's no different than with the elites, many serious Master & Senior competitors are looking for an edge...no surprises there.

I am personally convinced that I have met and competed against masters dopers who later died an early death due to their meddling with nature. I am just glad to greet the roads and trails each day with a healthy body free of pharmaceutical poisoning.

ReaIist wrote:

I am personally convinced that I have met and competed against masters dopers who later died an early death due to their meddling with nature. I am just glad to greet the roads and trails each day with a healthy body free of pharmaceutical poisoning.

Funny that (well it's not really), but I came on here to say the same thing.

I'm sixty five and have been a competitive runner when younger and in to my fifties. I can't really be bothered now, same as you I've seen too many fall off the perch due to taking it too seriously and becoming so intense it's killed them or left them as an invalid.

Over indulging on PEDs or medication of some sort to be able to keep running and/or improve their running. Running when they're sick or had a virus, one of the biggest no no's, especially for older runners, and they've keeled over and died or had a stroke/partial heart attack and have been partly paralyzed down one side and/or done permanent heart damage etc.

Good luck to them if that's what they want, but it's not going to make them any healthier than someone like me who's a recreational runner, isn't on any medication and goes to the doc once a year for a check up.

If you are thinking of taking testosterone, HGH or EPO, you need to imbibe some beer or cannabis until the urge goes away. Or maybe go dancing with your much younger girlfriend. Or just hike up a quiet mountain trail. Do all of the above and you will live a much better life indeed.

Noted, thanks. The much younger girlfriend's a problem though, but then again who wants one if you're only going to go dancing with her, would be a bit of a waste.

By "girlfriend", I mean person of the opposite sex (if you are male) with whom you are having sex.

Each to their own. wrote:

Noted, thanks. The much younger girlfriend's a problem though, but then again who wants one if you're only going to go dancing with her, would be a bit of a waste.

Pretty sure I made some valid points, so I don't believe I was wasting my time. Readers can decide how many of his own rules he meets. BTW, I have some pretty good credentials, too.

Its curious how Magill waded into this thread, initially, in an obvious attempt to control the discussion, thereby; directing it away from himself.

I am closer to 100 than I am to 0, and this story has convinced me to now "dope."

Because, like many of you I presume, I feel like crap all the time, thanks to this way I've decided to live. Certainly I'm better off than if sedentary, but still I hurt. If 'supplements' wind back the clock a bit, then I'm all in. I don't compete much any more, but welcome the test. I, too, often am the only one in my age group.

I just ordered something or other on ebay. $50 to feel younger, cool!

Cush I'm going to correct you on one point. You said that you and Pete competed at Nationals in Sacto where you could have been drug tested. Not true. The Sacto national meet was in 2010. Testing at masters national meets didn't start until summer 2011. The world masters championships have drug tested for years and there was drug testing at Sacto in 2011 but it was at the world meet, not the national meet the prior year.

Just an olde guy wrote:

I am closer to 100 than I am to 0, and this story has convinced me to now "dope."

Because, like many of you I presume, I feel like crap all the time, thanks to this way I've decided to live. Certainly I'm better off than if sedentary, but still I hurt. If 'supplements' wind back the clock a bit, then I'm all in. I don't compete much any more, but welcome the test. I, too, often am the only one in my age group.

I'd be very careful if you're often the only one in your age group...you could be a target for testing!

If a doc said I needed T, HGH, DHEA, EPO or anything else, I would take it. In fact, I would take it if it would just make me feel better and cut down of my injuries. But, if all of a sudden my 5K time at 50 is faster than it was at 40, I am not going to kid myself and take medals away from guys who aren't taking the same sups/meds. For many years I could not figure how certain guys were all of sudden beating me, until a family friend who is a doc said that 1 in 3 of his male and female patients were on some sort of hormone therapy. Btw, this doc works in an affluent area and I'm sure the numbers are not that high in other areas especially since health insurance dose not pay for some of the treatments. - The point I am making is simply don't let your competitive juices overcome your sense of fairness.