Admit it ... someone you know and trust offers you a drug that is completely unknown by testing authorities and can drastically improve your performance. you know for a fact somewhere someone in your event is taking some sort of prohibited substance to cheat you out of your honest hard work and effort. can you honestly tell me that none of you would take this opportunity? and if you can, you are either an extremely moral and decent person who gets taken advantage of, or you dont know what it means to want something that bad. dont get me wrong, im an advocate of drug free competition, but thats what this sport has come to. its not often the most talented, dedicated, best athlete that wins anymore. its the most desperate. and nothing that the usada or usatf can do is going to change that. i just think that thinking of these people as immoral "evil" people is completely off base. 90% of you would probably do the same.
Hell, for years I've thought it's more than 90% of the top people in certain events. I think American and most European distance runners are clean, or close to it, because they endure the threat of true spot tests without big shoe money etc. to help 'cover' them if there is a foul up. Sprinters, well look at TV coverage. Look at the US officials who knowlingly cover up for them - and have been covering for them for over two decades as it turns out. Distance running has gotten out of hand with certain individuals able to 'experiment' once they went to regions where spot tests are almost impossible (oh, so and so is in another village, they don't have phones - or - the call comes in, and the athletes disappear - sorry, they're out of town, they're in another country, etc). The result is a Frankenstein situation that is let continue or even more officials will be found to be complicit in hiding facts.
Yep, admit it. Track is dirty. But, the US did their best to cover sprinters just as dirty, or even dirtier than the E. Block athletes that 'roid filled Americans used to point their fingers at. Sure, the Africans are pristine. As long as PC - and Nike - reign.
The best sport was ruined, and has gone down the tubes at the world level. That's what everyone should admit.
When 'giving in' to the reality of drugs is the norm, I shall be judged a lunatic. Be very careful which side of this issue you wish to align yourself. Your character is in the balance. I am very comfortable in my choice.
tn - if you dont think drug usage is a "reality" in track and field I have to question how closely you are tied to the sport. and for you to refer as theses posts as "stupid" just reflect on the reason this message board is even here. There is and never will be any end to this. there will always be cheaters because there will always be temptation for those who want to be on top and bear the risk of getting caught. it is a FACT. im sorry i dont share your out-of-touch, utopian ideals about the sport, i wish i had the ability to be that naïve. my post was not "irresponsible", it was a good depiction of the basic catalyst for this entire crisis.
<Of course there are drugs in track!! But I have a huge problem with rationalizing that any NORMAL PERSON would use them. The operative quote is: "90% of you would probably do the same."
90% pretty much covers EVERYONE, doesn't it? You would have to be very ABNORMAL to make it in the 10% that wouldn't use them.
If you really believe that, you live in a very dark world and I pity you.>
I dont care what you have a problem with. You are hopelessly naive. To define people as normal or abnormal in respect to their use of banned substances in track is ridiculous. there are upwards of 40 people that may be accused of some kind of drug violation in respect to this crisis. do you think that this is the extent of the drug use??? thats just for one or two substances!!
“If you really believe that, you live in a very dark world and I pity you”
"To define people as normal or abnormal in respect to their use of banned substances in track is ridiculous"
What part of that did you not understand? The statement was that 90% of 'you' i.e., ANYONE, would take drugs. And you stand by that?! and my 'dark' comment is hardly melodramatic; it is a very real reaction to one of the most cynical statemnets I have EVER read. You are saying that 90% of ALL people are basically immoral. That is indeed a VERY dark world.
There are two things I don’t understand. One, how you think that just because an athlete doesn’t get caught they are automatically innocent. And two, why you have so much faith in a sport that has proven its corrupt nature. Forget about whatever percent you or I think is dirty. Do you really think that these offenders think that doping is immoral in this sport? At first, sure i bet most of them did. But after a while of getting their asses kicked, they get realistic, and this scandal is the result.
Since I said none of these things, I wonder what your point is. On the other hand, you have not yet answered my question about your quote. In the future, please respond to what I say, not what you think I meant. That's why I have always quoted you.
Track is dirty, it will always be dirty, there is nothing that anyone or any agencies can do about it, there will always be athletes who will pay good money to beat the system, I mean come on, if someone is willing to pay 3,000,000 to build a special house for runners to train , no telling what someone would spend for ways to beat a drug test (chemical labs)
There is such a house and it is climate controlled a was designed to simulate living at high altitude conditions.
The house was built by Nike, is located in or near Eugene Oregon, and I know that Dan Browne has lived there. However, I do not know how much it cost to build and maintan. The house is mentioned in another publication's feature story on Dan Browne. The issue was published sometime during the last year.
No more warnings. Post you accusations again and I'll bounce you from the board. Haven't read the rules? Read them. Don't want to post by the rules? Then either go somewhere else or I'll ban you. Clear enough?
I have 100)'s of computers at my deposal as you can see.... you have already tried to ban me......but I can't be held down.... you would have to shut down every last computer in Fort Worth Texas to keep me from posting what I want to when I want to....
BTW... I would have to say that you do a great job Ben....
Before anyone goes jumping off the deep end claiming that track is dirty through and through, they need to answer the following questions with sound, empirically backed answers:
- Why have the women's events largely stagnated since the exit of the Eastern European programs in the late 1980s?
- Why have the men's throwing performances stagnated since both demise of the East European programs and the institution of stricter testing protocols?
- If one excludes the Chinese women performances, why have only 16 of the top 50 1500 performances occurred since 1989 for women, but 48 of the top 50 for men have occurred since then?
- Why have the men's distance WRs progressed at a rate comparable to the long-run average trend, and less than comparable jumps in the 1960s?
Once you can answer these questions with supportable evidence and/or analysis, then you can start making broad generalizations about the state of drug use in the sport. I have yet to see anyone refute any of these points. (But I'm open to valid consistent explanatoins).
"Once you can
>answer these questions with supportable evidence
>and/or analysis, then you can start making broad
>generalizations about the state of drug use in
Any analysis of athletic performances and WR progressions over the last 100 years will throw up countless numbers of statistical anomalies. You have taken just a few examples and stated that broad generalizations can be made about drug use in sport if these four points can be answered. You cannot conclude anything about drug use in sport from these points whether they are true or not.
Interesting -- and scary -- article in November "Outside" magazine: a 48-year-old serious amateur cyclist (he does 100- and 200-milers commonly) took testosterone, steroids, HGH in an experiment to see if they worked -- and boy did they ever work! Gained muscle, hammered harder with less ill efect, recovered quicker -- this stuff definitely works, which I know isn't the dispute, but it does help to see why it is so appealing to athletes desperate to gain an edge. Wish I could provide a link to the article but I'm technically challenged --
>analysis of athletic performances and WR
>progressions over the last 100 years will throw
>up countless numbers of statistical anomalies.
>You have taken just a few examples and stated
>that broad generalizations can be made about drug
>use in sport if these four points can be
>answered. You cannot conclude anything about drug
>use in sport from these points whether they are
>true or not.
My point was that if one wants to claim that a vast majority of elite athletes are using drugs, they need to answer why these other factors have occurred. As we all know, the East European programs relied heavily on drugs to improve performance. It should follow that if current athletes are using drugs as widely, they should be able to at least duplicate, if not better, those performances. The evidence is that they cannot. I have yet to read a compelling explanation of why this has situation is occurring.
BTW, there's other anamolies, such as why are only Northern and Eastern African athletes showing substantial performance improvements in the 1990s? Aren't drugs available to everyone?
Except in a few specific cases, the accusers make their statements purely on "gut feelings" with absolutely no analytic support. I'm not looking for "smoking guns" of empty syringes. I'm looking for circumstantial evidence. No one can even produce that.
I'll step up and answer the original question. I competed at a fairly high level for a while and hope to again soon and I'd never under any circumstances take a performance enhancing drug. If I took a PED (performance enhancing drug) even if I won I'd feel like a loser but if I didn't and lost than at least I can keep my head held high.
But maybe its also because I'm extermely confident / arrogant like most high level athletes and believe that at my best I can be clean and beat everyone else whether they are dirty or not. Some may call it naive but the two most arrogant/self confident people I ever met were the two of the greatest track athletes of all times, Michael Johnson and Carl Lewis.
If you don't belive you are the best you lost the race before you ever started and so you might consider a PED and if you do believe you are the best than you believe that you don't need a PED.
Sorry, I appear to have slightly missed your point on that last post. We both agree that most modern day athletes are clean but you say:
"As we all know, the East European
>programs relied heavily on drugs to improve
>performance. It should follow that if current
>athletes are using drugs as widely, they should
>be able to at least duplicate, if not better,
>those performances. The evidence is that they
>cannot. I have yet to read a compelling
>explanation of why this has situation is
I don't think that you can use the East European performances of the 70s and 80s to establish the innocence or guilt of todays athletes. It is more complicated then that. Not all athletes using drugs will produce world beating performances for example. Different training methods and social factors play a huge part in determining whether todays generation of athletes can compete on times and distances with the athletes of yesteryear.
The success of the African runners in the 90s could be due to athletics in Europe and America losing its athletes to more popular and lucrative sports. As far as I know tell (and obviously I'm no expert) Kenya and Ethiopia are only successful internationally in the sport of track and field.
>Sorry, I appear to have slightly missed your
>point on that last post. We both agree that most
>modern day athletes are clean but you
I don't think that
>you can use the East European performances of the
>70s and 80s to establish the innocence or guilt
>of todays athletes. It is more complicated then
>that. Not all athletes using drugs will produce
>world beating performances for example. Different
>training methods and social factors play a huge
>part in determining whether todays generation of
>athletes can compete on times and distances with
>the athletes of yesteryear.
You're right about not all athletes, but we can look at the "average" or how the vast number of athletes responded. It's very hard to believe that the training environment in East Europe was so superior to the rest of the world that it can explain the difference. And American throwers' performances have also declined at the same time. Certainly the training environment here has not changed significantly. When you look at the averages or trends across these arenas, and compare them to other events, where we suspect drugs have less "bang for the buck," then we see that the decline appears to coincide with increased drug testing and the demise of drug-oriented training programs. To say that drugs are widespread today requires not shooting down explanations about past trends per se, but coming up with an alternative hypothesis that explains these trends and incorporates the full story.
BTW, I have full story that backs up my suspicion that the Chinese women's performances from 1993 are not legitimate. It's circumstantial evidence, but it all hangs together. It's that type of analysis that I'm calling for.
The success of
>the African runners in the 90s could be due to
>athletics in Europe and America losing its
>athletes to more popular and lucrative sports. As
>far as I know tell (and obviously I'm no expert)
>Kenya and Ethiopia are only successful
>internationally in the sport of track and field.
One might argue that US athletes have been siphoned off into soccer, but that's not true for Europeans--futbol has always been a strong calling, and geeky distance runners don't have many other sports options. The EPO accusations always center around Africans, and sometimes European walkers come up, but why would European distance runners be excluded from that, and why don't they produce the same effects? Unless, the Africans have introduced another level of competitiveness into the sport, as the Finns did in the 1930s, and Soviets in the 1950s. Sometimes the introduction of a new competitive population lifts the sport to a new level.
<My point was that if one wants to claim that a vast majority of elite athletes are using drugs, they need to answer why these other factors have occurred. As we all know, the East European programs relied heavily on drugs to improve performance. It should follow that if current athletes are using drugs as widely, they should be able to at least duplicate, if not better, those performances. The evidence is that they cannot. I have yet to read a compelling explanation of why this has situation is occurring.>
Why should they be able to duplicate if not better performances by past athletes? There are thousands of reasons for the fluctuation of trends like that and you come out and say it definitely because athletes are cleaner now than they were then? Do you realize what athletes were on back then? It wasn’t this high profile, sacrifice potency for discretion, THG stuff, it was the stuff they go down to the cattle yard and take from the horses. They test for all of the most viable steroids now which dictates that, unless they want to take a large risk in getting caught, athletes are using drugs that don’t give as much benefit for the sake of beating the test. But I tell you what, we won’t have to have this debate once the list of offenders comes out and you can see how overwhelmingly broad the influence of drug abuse is in the sport of track and field.
"It's very hard to
>believe that the training environment in East
>Europe was so superior to the rest of the world
>that it can explain the difference."
Yes, we all know that the East Europeans had state-funded drugs programs but I do not find it hard to believe that their training environments may have been superior to todays. I see many top athletes today with obvious technical flaws and widespread misinformation from modern coaching manuals and articles.
"BTW, I have full story that backs up my
>suspicion that the Chinese women's performances
>from 1993 are not legitimate. It's
>circumstantial evidence, but it all hangs
>together. It's that type of analysis that I'm
What's the point. Circumstantial evidence is not proof. Until someone in the Chinese camp admits to some wrongdoing or until some real evidence comes to light we must accept their performances as they are and let it go.
>But I tell you what, we won’t
>have to have this debate once the list of
>offenders comes out and you can see how
>overwhelmingly broad the influence of drug abuse
>is in the sport of track and field.
I think we differ substantially on this point. Indications are that less than 2 dozen (and maybe less than half a dozen) of 450 tested samples by USATF showed positive results. That hardly seems to be "broad." But we're debating in a vacuum here until December when the first list is actually released.
Yes, we all know that the East
>Europeans had state-funded drugs programs but I
>do not find it hard to believe that their
>training environments may have been superior to
>todays. I see many top athletes today with
>obvious technical flaws and widespread
>misinformation from modern coaching manuals and
Then why are these training flaws limited to the women's events and the men's throwing events? And why have American men's throwing marks also fallen off? Did their coaching regress at exactly the same time as the East Europeans? Also, many of the East European coaches still continue to coach, albeit without certain "aids." On the other hand, the men's sprints and distances, which were not aided to the same extent by certain "aids," have continued to progress at a steady rate. The coincidence is too close to be ignored
>Circumstantial evidence is not proof. Until
>someone in the Chinese camp admits to some
>wrongdoing or until some real evidence comes to
>light we must accept their performances as they
>are and let it go.
Circumstatial evidence can be used to convict in a court, and certainly carries substantial weight in a civil case. We don't always need a smoking gun.
Realize that I am one who rails against those who just spout off accusations about drug use without any evidence whatsoever (I just quit the t-and-f list over that issue). But I'm also not blind. We're not going to get "admissions". We need to rely on the tools that we have and put 2 and 2 together, rather than trying to ignore the problem. Identify the obvious flagrant violators and pursue them with what we've got. The IAAF failed to do this in 1993 because it didn't want to offend China. It's turned out to be a major black spot for the sport.
Why should they be able to
>duplicate if not better performances by past
>athletes? There are thousands of reasons for the
>fluctuation of trends like that and you come out
>and say it definitely because athletes are
>cleaner now than they were then?
Look at how I posed the initial set of questions. I'm not claiming that today's athletes are necessarily cleaner than in the past. I'm putting the burden of proof, where it should be, on those who claim that today's athletes are dirty. The prosecutor always bears that burden. If you want to actually persuade someone rather than rant, you need to explain what those "thousands of reasons" are, especially given the documentation about drug usage among the groups that I mentioned earlier. And you need to explain why one set of events has continued to progress while another set has stagnated when that relative stagnation coincides with a specific set of events that I've identified. Until you actually refute those points, rather than simply try to dismiss them, you have no proof to stand on.
I made my point about the 1993 Chinese women performances. The only response has been that we haven't yet found a "smoking gun." That doesn't allay my or others' suspicions. Try to make your case in a similar coherent fashion.
<If you want to actually persuade someone rather than rant, you need to explain what those "thousands of reasons" are, especially given the documentation about drug usage among the groups that I mentioned earlier. --- Until you actually refute those points, rather than simply try to dismiss them, you have no proof to stand on.>
I’m not really trying to persuade anyone of anything. I’m stating an observation and seeing who is in agreement with me. If you want to play lawyer you might want to do it somewhere other than the T&FN message board. It’s a little pathetic, and don’t think anyone is impressed.
I’m not really trying to persuade anyone
>of anything. I’m stating an observation and
>seeing who is in agreement with me. If you want
>to play lawyer you might want to do it somewhere
>other than the T&FN message board. It’s a little
>pathetic, and don’t think anyone is impressed.
This discussion board, particularly on this issue, functions as a debate. For this reason, the discussion can come off like a courtroom. My point is that for a debate to move forward, the parties have to agree on some basic premises. The premise that I'm arguing from is that athletes are innocent of accusations unless someone can PROVE otherwise in some fashion. I'm not necessarily calling for "beyond a reasonable doubt" here. But I would settle for some evidence that we can sink our teeth into and really figure out if it carries sufficient weight. Simply dismissing a set of facts because it doesn't agree with one's world view is not constructive in such a discussion.
The bottom line is that I'm arguing for using some ground rules for this debate. What I find this that those who just want to claim that everyone is dirty really don't like to have such rules because then they lose the ability to simply make unsubstantiated statements or brush off countering evidence.
I apologize for my misdirected frustration. However, you cannot uphold the ideals of a courtroom when we are bound to a debate with only our knowledge of track trivia via a track and field forum. At least in a court there are accusations and interrogations, you can interview witnesses and use physical evidence. Here we cannot. Something that is common knowledge to some can be hidden from others. I don’t think that being found guilty of doping is the only criteria for actually being dirty. I think using drugs is. And it happens without the public knowing about it. Hopefully, with time, the technology for catching cheaters will somehow catch up with the technology of cheaters and this forum will no longer be necessary.