Run-Down Forums

[Dan]

This was just posted to the t-and-f list:

http://www.gladwell.com/2001/2001_08_10_a_drug.htm

It's like reading Speed Trap all over again! The article is fairly long, but you owe it to yourself to make it through the conclusion, which poses some very powerful questions.

An interesting line from the article:

"dopers responded by taking extra doses of epitestosterone with their testosterone, so their T/E would remain in balance."

I've asked that question several times about the murky T/E test, but this is the first time I've seen the issue of boosting epitestosterone addressed. As many will recall, the T/E test is the one Mary Slaney has been fighting...

And a line that is a bit off topic to running, but reminds me of something I have noticed -- elite female athletes (track, swimming, etc.) have a surprising tendency to be married to male throwers -- it's all about associations...

"This is why Lance Armstrong faced so many hostile questions about EPO from the European press--and why eyebrows were raised at his five-year relationship with an Italian doctor who was thought to be an expert on performance-enhancing drugs."

Also, a disturbing quote from USATF CEO Craig Masback:

"As it was, we spent more on our anti-doping program than on our athlete development program over a period of several years."

This is exactly what we were talking about in a recent thread regarding the futility of drug testing and whether the money spent on it would be better suited for directing elsewhere. It's hard to see how the current money allotment is benefitting anyone other than the people in suits and the labs...

Dan

[ This Message was edited by: Dan on 2001-11-02 15:02 ]

[Conway]

Was a very good article ... Not only does it point out the futility of the drug testing system, it also raises the question (in my mind) of why we are making such a big deal about it in the first place !!!!

Not that I am pro drugs mind you ... However, what are we trying to stop ??? What are we trying to prove ??? The goals are ill defined ... The "war" seems to have no true enemy but lots of victims ...

And the irony of ironies is that the US seems to have been at the initial eye of the storm ... (and I would suspect has never left) ...

[Micah Ward]

OK this is a topic that puts me on the soapbox. Why bother with testing? Because people are cheating...plain and simple. If you are doing more than training and good nutrition then you are cheating. I know that is a simple approach but I happen to be somewhat idealistic I guess. I also don't buy this idea that we are creating victims by trying to catch cheaters. The only victims are the back of the pack runners that are not cheating. The people who test positive and get punished are not victims...they are cheaters who got their just desserts.

If I seem hard hearted on this issue it probably comes from my beliefs in fair play and individual responsiblity. Follow the rules; and don't complain and whine if you are caught violating those rules.

[Dan]

[Conway]

I've asked this question before in another group (and never got an answer) so I'm going to ask it here ... What consitutes cheating ??? What is the definition of cheating in sport ???

Everyone is soooo concerned about cathing the "cheaters", yet I don't see where anyone has defined wht cheating is !!! I raise that issue because what is cheating seems to be aritrary ... And typically related to what one does not have access to (as in one country vs anohter or one group vs another) ie, if I have access to the technology it is not cheating ... If, however, I do not have acces the I consider it to be cheating ... Or better yet, if you can beat me you must be cheating (the Carl Lewis and Gaby Szabo phenomenon) ...

For the record I am NOT an advocate of drug use ... But mostly becasue of the damage that it can do to the individual .. Having said that, the only thing that apparently drugs are able to do for anyone is allow them to do what their bodies are most certianly cable of, but allow them to do it easier - as in less hard work .. I know Dan that that may not seem right as what most drugs do is allow you to work harder ... But you could work harder on your own ... You would just have to work HARDER ...

The drugs are a shortcut to achieve what you have inside you to achieve ... UNLESS (as is the case with women on various steroids) you fill your body wiht something that is UNATURAL ...

Bottom line is there is no drug that can make you faster than you are cable of being ... At least not yet ... And for all of the benefits of drug use there are many many serious potential side effects - depending on what one uses ... So I see it much the same way I see horror movies, or sky diving, or mud wrestling or almost anything else ... Not my cup of tea, but if you want ot do it more power to you ...

And if everyone is so worrid about drug use becasue of the potential damage to the athlete, then why not LEGALIZE drug use and REGULATE IT .. EAsier to regulate than to try to eradicate ... And no one has told me yet why we are testing in the first place ... ie what are we trying to prevent and what is the definition of cheating ???

(getting down off my soap box now)

[Micah Ward]

What is cheating? Violating the accepted rules. Don't like the rules, then mount a campaign to change them, but in the mean time don't violate them.

Why isn't training and good nutrition cheating? Because that is the natural way to reach your potential. Taking a pill or an injection of artificial substances violates my (I admit, MY) sense of fair play. If you can't do it in a pure and natural way then I am not impressed with you.

Should we give up testing simply because it is difficult to do it? No. You do what is right, not what is easy.

I readily admit to being very simplistic, unyielding and old fashioned on the subject.

[Conway]

I'll buy that cheating is violating the accepted rules ... Next question would be what are the accepted rules ??? And more importantly what are they based on ???

As for what is natural ... Most of the things that are ingested are "natural" and occur naturally in the body ... The question becomes one of amounts or levels ... Again what defines acceptable letters ...

I'm not supporting drug taking as I said before ... I'm just looking at the holes in and the fallacy of the "system" ... Blieve it or not Micah I agree with you in that I am not impressed with individuals that have to use enhancements to achieve what they could with some serious hard work ... And now that the sport is professionalized individuals have more time than they need to do the work they need to achieve the levels of success they want ... I'd train 6 hours a day if I were getting paid big bucks for doing so ...

Having said all that why should it be considered cheating if someone takes a short cut to get there ??? As long as that short cut is available to all ..

You see I don't think there is, ever has been, or ever will be the "level playing field" that everyone seems to want to achieve ... As long as someone has more money, better facilities, or even better training partners, there will never be a level playing field ...

For example, I would say that just raining with HSI would be more advantageous than being a walking phamacy ... That kind of daily competition will do wonders for your sprint times ... As would having someone plan out a perfect diet for you to ensure that you got just the right balance of vitamins and minerals to optimize your performance in your given event ... Or how about going to the Olympics and NOT having to stay in the athletes village because you can afford your own facilities .. Or how about having a better agent who can negotiate betgter appearance fees for you and ensure that potential rivals do NOT get into your premier race ??? All of those things are very inequitable ... Far more so than a few pills could ever be ... Yet NONE of those things are complained about .. And none are NATURAL ... .... Of course diverting drug money to try to close the gap on those inequities is never given consideration ... AND regulating drugs in teh sport could ensure that harmful levels of drug use are not attained AND create a revenue stream for a sport that clearly needs it ...

(getting back off soap box)

[Dan]

I'm in agreement with Conway on everything except one point -- I think drugs do allow people to accomplish what they wouldn't be able to "naturally." The two best examples would be Human Growth Hormone (HGH) and EPO. HGH promotes bone and structural growth without the common bulking up of steroid use. No amount of hard work can produce significantly stronger bones (there is some strengthening effect through repetitive stresses, but that's pretty minimal), unlike steroids which allow you to speed up the process of adding muscle. Similarly, EPO, is an estimated 3-10% boost in aerobic capacity, pretty much regardless of how well trained the athlete already is.

Even with steroids, many people achieve results with them that I don't believe would be attainable without. The body can only handle so much hard work without breaking down, and steroids and the like greatly extend that limit by aiding recovery. The work itself could possibly be done naturally, but not as much of it, and that's what training is all about.

Regarding rules, I've never been a believer that things should be done simply because the rules say so. Questioning everything is how I live my life, and as Conway has pointed out in several examples above, there are far too may logical holes in the drug rules to not question them.

Dan

[Justin]

I have in the past posted some pretty provocative thoughts on drug testing, to which I have never received proper answers. I'll reprise my thoughts here - apologies if I repeat what has been said before on the thread.

It is very useful to go back to basics and ask why performance-enhancing drugs are banned. Once an answer to this is established, the thorny issue of what should and should not be banned becomes easier.

There are several typical repsonses to the question "why ban drugs":

First, that it is cheating. This is highly suspect. For sure, breaking the rules is cheating, but that is a circular argument as we are discussing why have the rules in the first place. Cheating is gaining an unfair advantage. Which immediately raises the issue - is it cheating to do what everyone else is doing? If an athlete genuinely believes that others are using drugs, using them himself is levelling the playing field, not gaining an advantage. And in any case the idea of a pre-drugs level playing field between, for example, HSI (with their hi-tech medical backup in a rich country) and a Nigerian sprinter (in a poor, oppressed and medically backward country) is a laughable myth. There is an argument that for a 3rd world athlete to take drugs is simply to try to address the already yawning gap in opportunity between them and their rich western rivals. I do not believe that the simple statement that drug taking is "cheating", is supportable, except in the irrelevant technical sense that since the rules are there, they should be obeyed (an argument which is in itself suspect since the disobeying of weak and unenforceable laws has a long and distiguished history).

Second, there is the argument that drugs damage health. I believe this is an argument IN FAVOUR of full legalisation since by far the best way to protect athletes is to ensure that they have full information and access to untainted drugs. Forcing them onto the black market, where they have no accurate information on the pros and cons of a drug and no idea what they are buying, is an assinine way to try to protect someone. Also, who the hell is the IAAF to tell me what to take or not? I'm a grown-up adult who can choose to smoke, drink and live on cheeseburgers if I please. I am, frankly, free to take whatever liberties I choose with my own body.(Incidentally, I would also apply these arguments to all drugs, including recreational ones). It is the very illegality of drugs which causes much of the damage; damage which is then, perversely, used to justify continuing prohibition.

Thirdly, there is the argument that to allow drugs is virtually to make their use compulsory. I have no sympathy with this view. It could be argued that taking performance enhancing drugs under medical supervision is simply one of the sacrifices which must be made to succeed as an athlete, along with giving up beer and burgers. Every one of us makes daily sacrifices, some very severe, to our health and welfare in order to get on in our chosen fields. When corporations make people work so hard that their staff suffer physical and emotional breakdown, I have little sympathy for an athlete who has to inject a bit of HGH in order to get on. Furthermore, the hottest of all hotbeds of steroid use are US high schools - the 'protect the kids' horse has long since bolted. Finally, 'clean' athletes can always take their consciences to a different circuit, although I think that most of the public would, after a bit of huffing and puffing, prefer to see a 9.70 100m won by an openly drug taking athlete than a 10.10 100m run by Mr SuperClean.

Fourthly, there is the catch-all that drug-taking is not 'natural'. This is just complete crap. The human body naturally produces steroids, HGH, testosterone and so on. How are artificially produced versions of these compunds unnatural? What if an athletes own HGH is taken out and re-injected later (like blood doping) - how is that 'unnatural'? Why is is OK to take large amounts of artificially mass-produced vitamin C (something the body doesn't make)and yet not OK to re-inject your own HGH? There is no logical dividing line between 'natural' and 'unnatural' here.

There may be other, compelling arguments for continuing with the current farce. But, just like the 'war on [recreational] drugs', the rhetoric and entrenched positions overwhelm common sense, to the extent that the maintenance of the status quo becomes the over-riding aim of policy, refusing to allow sensible debate.

Justin

[Justin]

Didn't mean to post that anonymously - don't know why that happened. Anyway, as Jim Carey says in Liar Liar - "IT WAS ME!"

Justin

[Conway]

Well Justin and Dan, looks like we three agree ... Now the question is what can be done to convince the powers that be that they are totally off base ???

[Micah Ward]

I guess I will be the odd man out here. I am just old fashioned enough to believe in concepts such as honor and doing right simply because it is right.
Justin, I am a police officer who commands a drug task force; and this is not the forum to debate legalization of "recreational" drugs but if you want to contact me via e-mail I would be happy to discuss the issue with you. No hard feelings...just the cold hard facts as I see them every day.
Micah

[Dan]

[Micah Ward]

Is it right to tell someone what to do with their body? We do it all the time. We pass seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, underage drinking laws, etc.

As to the guys in the other seven lanes...if they are on drugs and you are not, is it right to lower yourself to their standards? If they are competing in stolen track shoes would it justify you stealing a pair too?

Drug testing policies and procedures are imperfect. But that is not a reason to just give up and say everybody just take anything they want.

I am sure that I look at this issue differently than you guys and it may very well be because of my profession and my experiences there. But we will just have to agree to disagree. And if we ever get the chance we can discuss it over a cold beer, (legal and all natural) my treat.
Micah...drug free and slow

[Conway]

First off this is a great forum ... And those that participate do so being able to freely express their opinions without problems from anyone and thta is great ... So kudos to Dan ...

And this is one of those topics that requires that kind of attitude to discuss .. And while Micah seems to be the odd man out, I don't thihnk we are that far off from him .. I think part of it is because of profession .. I know lots of people in the law enforcement .. And understand the thoughts behind drug use et al ..

I see this as a little different, however, in that we are not talking about recreational use, but rather almost an institutional/business use of what I am going to define as supplements .. I am not even sure why we use the term "drugs" ... As we are talking about things that are more in line with vitamins than drugs ... AS such most of what we are talking about is NOT illegal in the same way that marijuana or cocaine or meth is illegal - as in the law says these things are illegal ... The supplements we are referring to are illegal because sporting bodies have determined their use to be unfair/illegal ... And THAT is a totally different animal .. And I think it is the definition of that, that Justin Dan and I argue against ... The how's and why's of that determination ... As well as the methodology used to determine "wrong doing" as well as that used to "punish" violators ...

As such, I would like to see the use of supplements brought "in house" where it can be better controlled to the benefit of the athletes ... Ensuring untainted product .. Better monitoring of useage and dosages .. Almost like (another touchy subject) abortions .. Taking it out of dark back alley use and bringing it into the light, moreso for the protection of those using !!!

Then we can better define natural vs un natural - what is and should lbe in your body vs what shouldn't ... And then truly create a level playing field for everyone ...

As for Dan's comments I agree totally ... The more you talk about all the testing you're doing would just illustrate to me that you HAVE a problem that is greater than everyone else ... And just continues to bring it to the fore front ... The general public could care less about "drug" use in track and field ... Except thatthe media keeps talking about it ... And so do the people at the top of the sport ...

Keep yelling fire long enough and everyone will soon believe that there is one !!!