I didn't start it now.
I have acknowledged the doping problem goes all the way to the top.
Yet here's a quote from athletes that doping is "most rampant" with, "not elite", but "professional grade". Who am I to argue with what "athletes say"? Who are you to argue with that?
Unfortunately "Alex" and "Tony" shed no light on the performance benefit of top-tier athletes, so this is not a topic on the table.
Regarding testing of lower tier athletes, I already had an idea as Renato has told us something similar several times.
My thoughts on lack of testing:
- I think increased OOC testing will catch a few more athletes for the next few years, but it will likely change very little with respect to performance results "at the top".
- I've always understood that arguments based on a "lack of testing" as "arguments of ignorance" (*). So from an intellectual point of view, such arguments do very little to convince to change my complex opinions about effect.
- Nevertheless, I am in favor of more testing, but my question is who should rightly pay for it? Since the beneficiary of increased testing is "everyone else", the IAAF/WADA should find a scheme, like insurance, where everyone pays, and treatment goes where it is needed.
(*) An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false.