This is just a hypothetical arguement. I'm not on drugs, nor is anyone I know of.
The thing is: How much do drugs actually help? We all know they give the athletes who use them an unfair advantage but it is not a massive ammount.
Take for instance Ben Johnson he ran 9.79 supposedly on drugs. In my opinion he would have to have been at least a 9.90 athlete in the first place to be able to go that quick.
The point is drugs can't improve us that much. They can't do anything that is beyond the realms of human possibility without them. So much money and time is wasted debating whether or not an athlete is clean or not and how good the testing is, is it blood or urine tests, whether every athlete should be tested.
There is only one way to create a truly level playing field!!!!
Individuals can respond differently to the same drug. Steroids are noted for this. What can greatly affect or improve the performance etc. of one athlete may not do as much for another. Individuals may have different numbers of "receptors". This is why the dosage for various drugs have to be adjusted during an individual's treatment. I would bet that the same is true for EPO and other drugs that affect the body's ability to utilize oxygen. The playing field isn't truly level. With Chepchumba having been popped, it shows that the drug users are indeed everywhere. Catching them all and leveling the playing field is a long way off, if possible at all.
>all and leveling the playing field is a long way
>off, if possible at all.
It's not necessary to catch all of them in order to level the playing field, just to greatly decrease their use. Not all criminals are successfully prosecuted, but that doesn't stop us from trying.
I'm sure that most athletes would rather not use drugs considering the terrible side effects, such as premature death. Probably the biggest reason athletes choose to use them is the fear that their competitors use them.
Two perceptions must be common for drug use to drop off. One is that if you use them, there's a reasonable chance you will be caught. The other is that your competitors aren't reasonably likely to use them. Those two perceptions were common for about one or two years in the early 1990s, but things have slid backwards since then.
Finally, we know that Ben Johnson wasn't a 9.90 sprinter when he was off the juice, because he didn't run that fast again until he got busted the second time. He came to a meet in Ohio when he was in high school, and he just wasn't that good. It came as no surprise to me when he tested positive.
<< In one captured Stasi file written by the Sports Medical Service Deputy Director Manfred Hoppner (March 3, 1977), a man to whom Dr Arbeit reported, Hoppner states: "The positive value of anabolic steroids for the development of a top performance is undoubted.
"Here are a few examples. . . Performances could be improved with the support of these drugs within four years as follows: Shot putt (men) 2.5-4 metres; Shot putt (women) 4.5-5m; Discus throw (men) 10-12m; Discus throw (women) 11-20m; Javelin throw (women) 8-15m, 400m (women) 4-5sec; 800m (women) 5-10sec, 1500m (women) 7-10 sec." Dr Arbeit was a throwing coach for the East German Federation from 1982-88.>>
That's one hell of an article. What I don't understand is why a documented drug taker like Koch is still the WR holder. The only women's WR I trust 100% is Paula's recent marathon. Actually I think they should chuck them all out and start again. And it wasn't just the FDR who were guilty, they just had the most sophisticated program. In the late 70's (or early 80's?), when testing at meets began, I heard with my own ears a leading UK official tell the team that, "...if we can't find 6 of you who are clean, we'll just test 6 buggers from the crowd!"...then he proceeded to say which races and finishing positions would be tested. Athletes withdrew immediately with so-called injuries and others deliberately slowed down to avoid finishing in certain positions.