Doping In Athletics

Page 103 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
I can't recall which former East German rider was asked what was the biggest difference in turning pro (I think he was on an American team, but not sure)? I remember his response: "you won't be forced to take drugs".
The state run program probably ruined a thousand lives doping junior athletes that didn't respond as well and then discarded them. We have some seriously smart people on these forums and I'd wonder if any had statistical data on incidence of cancer and other defects from those generations? It's doubtful it would be something the East German government would be proud of but their meticulous doping documents suggest they could have tracked the consequences as well.
 
I can't recall which former East German rider was asked what was the biggest difference in turning pro (I think he was on an American team, but not sure)? I remember his response: "you won't be forced to take drugs".
The state run program probably ruined a thousand lives doping junior athletes that didn't respond as well and then discarded them. We have some seriously smart people on these forums and I'd wonder if any had statistical data on incidence of cancer and other defects from those generations? It's doubtful it would be something the East German government would be proud of but their meticulous doping documents suggest they could have tracked the consequences as well.
Well, there is research of course, but I think a huge part of the controversies around the doping victims of that era is that there are not many reliable numbers. And the research is still happening. The effects are in many cases only really seen now (for instance a life expectancy of 10-12 years less), some like deformations of the victim's children are discussed, but not fully accepted, yet. And of course there is protection of data privacy, so unless the former athletes themselves have come to claim compensation (was possible until the end of the last year) or come forward in another way, we don't have any right to ask them about their health.

EDIT: regarding the GDR tracking the side effects I don't know, but I doubt they really kept track, I think they were not interested in that side of the matter.
 
It would only be more useless if the Russian Federation banned him in an attempt to restore their credibility.
 
Not sure if I’m reading this correctly—she had 3 positive tests for steroids in the month before the Asian Games, where she also tested positive. How did she think she wouldn’t get caught if she wasn’t managing her glow times while being tested frequently?
 
USADA don't practice what they preach - They are all 'show' when it comes to big cases and therefore grab public kudos - They find reasons to let athletes off offences or in some cases give light penalties.
USADA (and formerly Tygart) loves to give the Americans a slap on the wrist and a 2nd or even 3rd chance and then they cry foul whenever something happens in a country like Russia (of course I'm not saying that the Russians are innocent).
 
Reactions: yaco
USADA (and formerly Tygart) loves to give the Americans a slap on the wrist and a 2nd or even 3rd chance and then they cry foul whenever something happens in a country like Russia (of course I'm not saying that the Russians are innocent).
USADA does manage an uneven enforcement profile but they don't have a limitless budget, either. As for complaining about Russia; they're a voice in the chorus. When the Russian state goes to the extremes they practiced to manage positives in testing it's pretty much a flawed criminal enterprise.
I can't imagine how much outfall there'd be if they tested pro tennis, basketball and all other big money sports for EPO rigorously. Financially some of the leagues are bigger than the governing bodies.
 
Oct 7, 2019
79
25
230
"A sub 2:06:00 time for a marathon (male), may not be possible without the use of performance-enhancing drugs. I recall, reading an article on the internet, which I can no longer source, in which a high-level European male marathoner, with a personal best time in the 2:07's, was under no illusion, although he couldn't prove it, that this is the case. There is no one better qualified, to provide opinions, expressed as facts, than those athletes who are participating at the highest level."
 
"A sub 2:06:00 time for a marathon (male), may not be possible without the use of performance-enhancing drugs. I recall, reading an article on the internet, which I can no longer source, in which a high-level European male marathoner, with a personal best time in the 2:07's, was under no illusion, although he couldn't prove it, that this is the case. There is no one better qualified, to provide opinions, expressed as facts, than those athletes who are participating at the highest level."

I would venture to say that even a sub 2:10 for a marathon is already in the grey area. The first person to run a sub 2:10 was Derek Clayton of Australia, all the way back in December 1967. He broke the record by almost 3 minutes, which was set just two years prior.

A 2:01:39 (official) marathon is ridiculous. The last 5-10 years has seen a lot of top Kenyan runners and coaches busted for doping. While Kipchoge is very talented, I don't see him running clean for that WR.
 
I would venture to say that even a sub 2:10 for a marathon is already in the grey area. The first person to run a sub 2:10 was Derek Clayton of Australia, all the way back in December 1967. He broke the record by almost 3 minutes, which was set just two years prior.

A 2:01:39 (official) marathon is ridiculous. The last 5-10 years has seen a lot of top Kenyan runners and coaches busted for doping. While Kipchoge is very talented, I don't see him running clean for that WR.
I would venture to say that Derek Clayton breaking 2:10 in 1967 suggests that the best possible time for a marathon clean is significantly faster. I am not saying that is 2:01:39, but come on; one only needs to look at the style and lifestyle of past greats like Clayton and Decastella, and see that it is possible for talented east africans, combining new age professionalism, to run the marathon a great deal faster.
 
One interesting item is that whereas track times improved significantly in the 1990s after the introduction of rHuEPO and were very fast from the mid-1990s until c:a 2005 allegedly slowing only after the introduction of new blood doping tests, there is no similar trend in marathon. In fact, there is no noticeable fast progression in the 1990s, and the improvement seems almost linear without blood doping availability / anti-doping testing having next-to-no effect on the results.

Of course there are many explanatory factors such as that the marathon runners of the 1980s (de Castella, Lopes et al) could've been also the most talented runners of the era whereas marathon wasn't "trendy" in the 1990s and I can't even name that many marathon runners of the decade because the talent was elsewhere.
 
Reactions: Invicituz
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
masking_agent The Clinic 12
B The Clinic 2
D The Clinic 9
Invicituz The Clinic 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts