What perfect or the top end marathoners in the US are doping..? 20%. .30% .. 50%..?
What perfect or the top end marathoners in the US are doping..? 20%. .30% .. 50%..?
**percent
10% would be my guess.
If they were doping, wouldn't they be going faster?
48%
If we count TUEs 100% of the USA women Olympians and 66% of the male Olympians in 2016.
Free_the_thigh wrote:
48%
My bad, I meant 48 out of the 50. 96%.
Probably almost all of them, unfortunately.
Not the right question. We should be asking “which ones are doping”? Which is far more illustrative than”what percentage “?
TUE= Totally Unacceptable Euphemism
Honest opinion wrote:
What perfect or the top end marathoners in the US are doping..? 20%. .30% .. 50%..?
100% dopers, just like their sprinter
Less than 10%. There isn’t enough monetary incentive here to take that risk. Look at who is the most successful, typically those hailing from very poor countries. That’s not a coincidence.
Used to be 4%. Now it's next %.
Ms. TUE wrote:
If we count TUEs 100% of the USA women Olympians and 66% of the male Olympians in 2016.
Can you elaborate?
Male: 18%
Female: 0% (women don't cheat)
Does Lance Armstrong have any marathon plans?
95% - 100%. If you believe otherwise you are a complete moron!
IMO, It could be very high if you consider the low level PED use (i.e. microdosing). For example, athletes could being using a small amount of T for recovery where you wouldn't test positive nor trip your ABP. Athletes could also be using a small amount of blood tranfusions before key competitions - just enough to raise Hct somewhat but yet not create too much suspicion on the ABP. There could also be TUEs for asthma medication and IC corticosteroid use.
For those athletes subjected to the ABP, there is no more industrial-strength doping. Far too risky and dangerous, so those days are gone. But I don't think that would stop the athletes from using smaller amounts of substances particularly during the pre-competition heavy training phases.
That's why I think the percentage could be very high. There's too much money at stake and lot of pressure to win. Sponsors want results and athletes that get these big sponsorship contracts are under the microscope to perform very well or else the sponsors will find someone else to get the job done.
Answers R Us wrote:
Male: 18%
Female: 0% (women don't cheat)
Very ironic considering women seem to be busted considerably more then men lol. The first and second place in the Olympics were busted for EPO, the winner of the Pan Am marathon prior to the 2016 Olympics got canned too. It seems like if anything every single top end female is doping if the winners are all dirty as hell.
I can't believe most of the answers here are honest. I'd be shocked if the # was upwards of five people/10%. The reason isn't that runners are necessarily some sort of upstanding group but that the marathon at least on the men's side is so weak. 50th place via IAAF right now is over 2:19. There's very little point in someone doping to go from 2:22 to 2:19 or even 2:19 to 2:15. Those time are extraordinary, but you also are getting more personal satisfaction from the achievement than cash or recognition. And if you doped the personal satisfaction is gone.
Or to think about it another way, the top 50 US 400m runners are probably closing in on being world class. They have a lot of incentive. The first 40 of the top 50 US marathoners are never going to be world class so what's the point?