Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

[Hunter]

I think that drugs are an issue in all pro sports. Track seems to have the worst reputation.
But isnt this because track has a reliable and well structured drug testing program?

Track looks bad compared to other sports because other sports either dont test (baseball, hockey) or the athletes are so wealthy (football)that they can afford the doctors/drugs/technology to beat the tests. Track is probably one of the cleanest sports there is.
Hunter

[RussJD]

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

I thnk you are right--the same thing is true of cycling. Another factor is the general media ignorance of track, preventing reporters from writing intelligent stories just about the sport itself--and the fact that all mainstream media nowadays, not just sports media, are dependent on producing sensational stories that sell papers or advertising time, rather than knowledgable well-researched coverage.

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

You may be right. But I'm still not convinced that the leadership of the sport wants drug use to go away, and I'm not the only one.

[gh]

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

>You may be right. But I'm still not convinced
>that the leadership of the sport wants drug use
>to go away, and I'm not the only one.>>

You have got to be kidding!

Please name somebody in "leadership" (either national or international) who through either action or inaction who has demonstrated this. And while you're at it, please come up with a possible motive. This kind of Ludlumesque conspiracy-theorizing on message boards certainly does nothing to improve the sport.

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

GH - I think j squire may be expressing the frustration of so many of us that 2 year bans remain the norm, excuses rather than harsh penalties seem commonplace, and it seems politically incorrect to suggest lifetime bans. I for one am frustrated that the likes of Grimes, White, Lagat, etc. are seemingly not clean - it seems you have to wait 2 weeks after a major competition to see who the "real" winners were - post drug test.

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

>>You may be right. But I'm still not
>convinced
>that the leadership of the sport
>wants drug use
>to go away, and I'm not the only
>one.>>

You have got to be kidding!

Please
>name somebody in "leadership" (either national
>or international) who through either action or
>inaction who has demonstrated this.

I just did today. Craig Masback has come to Kelli White's defense instead of sitting back and waiting for a decision to be made by someone else. He protects American athletes, whether they are right or wrong. He obviously wants her exonerated. BBC Sport also has reservations about allowing suspended athletes to qualify to the Worlds after the closing date ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athleti ... 163653.stm ) and many in the British press finds it odd that UK Athletics is helping Myerscough fight the lifetime ban imposed by the BOA. All of these things plus many more lead fans such as myself to question the sincerety of our sport's leadership.

And I don't think I do grave damage to the sport by writing posts here; I'll point out that I never write about this on Runner's World's boards or for Trackshark.com, where the casual fans are.

[6 5.5hjsteve]

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

my last ( well, maybe) word on this:

either: 1) makes drugs in track "not illegal", subject only to regular state or federal statutes( it is not against the law to take steroids)

or 2) anyone caught taking performance enhancing drugs, as proscribed by IAF and/or USATF, is lined up against a wall and shot, or lacking that,then end of career/lifetime ban.

[MJD]

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

>Craig Masback has
>come to Kelli White's defense instead of sitting
>back and waiting for a decision to be made by
>someone else.

''It's seven days after the results of her test and the people at the international federation still don't know whether what she was taking was performance-enhancing,'' USA Track & Field chief Craig Masback said Tuesday. ''So how was she supposed to know?''

http://www.boston.com/dailynews/246/spo ... _ri:.shtml

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

Who decides what is a supplement vs a drug? Is creatine a drug? It helps folks in training/preparation etc..

Until a certain substance shows up on the banned list, folks will take it as a supplement.

For athletes to be totally clean, are we saying that they should only have natural foods with no other supplements?

Just curious...

[miler manque]

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

The problem with drugs and track and field is that there is such a direct perceived correlation between the drug and the performance. In baseball and football (or other team or skill sports where drugs or performance enhancers are being used), the game itself involves so many activities and contingencies, the outcome isn't so dependent on one person's drug use (though admittedly, when it comes down to individual statistics like home-run hitting, it's more direct). But in track, it's so direct: a person running to the limit of their physical capacity is what it's about -- and if that capacity is artificially enhanced, the outcome is completely altered. So it is very discouraging indeed to believe it's commonplace; it becomes more of a fantasy diversion, still interesting perhaps to see who wins, but no longer regarded as real contests between athletes on an even footing.

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

I very much agree with you miler manque. It also is extremely disheartening to those athletes who do choose to abide by a higher moral and ethical standard by staying clean.

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

>> But in track, it's
>so direct: a person running to the limit of their
>physical capacity is what it's about -- and if
>that capacity is artificially enhanced, the
>outcome is completely altered. So it is very
>discouraging indeed to believe it's commonplace;
>it becomes more of a fantasy diversion, still
>interesting perhaps to see who wins, but no
>longer regarded as real contests between athletes
>on an even footing.>>

But if they're all "artificially enhanced" (training doesn't fit that rubric?), then it is a contest between athletes on an even footing. They're just competing at a higher level.

[miler manque]

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

All is the key word; not all would be enhanced, unless the rules allow all to be enhanced. Plus some might be on better drugs than others. But yes, I probably should have seen something like "clean" footing.

[tafnut]

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

Two 1-cent opinions for my alloted space:
1. Why WOULDN'T USATF stick up for Kelli? Until she is PROVEN guilty, I would certainly hope that her own national federation would stick up for her. If and when she is declared guilty (proof notwithstanding) USATF will ensure her consequence is fairly meted out.
2. What the hell constitutes illegal aid? As we saw in Nelson's regimen, there are all sorts of supplements that athletes take, from proteins, to amino acids, to HGH 'stimulators', to vitamins, etc. That unlevels the playing field doesn't it? We're not even talking non-perscription drugs either, because there ARE perscription drugs that they take legally. Then there's creatine and its ilk. Who is drawing the line between the micron sized grains of sand? I am certainly against any drug that puts an athlete at risk (because many, many, would literally kill themselves to win), but some of these bans are just silly. Gatlin's was one and I really believe that White's is another case.

[6 5.5hjsteve]

Re: Drugs, Drugs, Drugs

realist, that's what I am saying/thinking too. This drug battle just cannot be won. It cannot be won for two reasons:1. universal testing that "catches everyone" is impossible, and 2. the scientists are always going to stay ahead of the testers, so even universal "catch everyone" testing, if possible, would not wourk anyway. So I repeat an earlier thread, if an individual human being wants to ingest substances into his or her body that are not illegal in the eyes of the law, let them do it, then run a race, go to a basketball game, take nap, pet their dog, or whatever.

They are hurting their own possible physical health, no one else.

How many NFL interior lineman do you think are on steroids ? Probably over 90 %. Has the world been harmed as a result ? No. And I have seen nothing that indicates that performance-enhancing drugs cause any degree of behavioral problems, so I repeat, they are only possibly harming themselves, no one else. And every athlete that has used performance-enhancing drugs does not necessarily have problems later. And if they do, that's their problem. Just like smoking. If they are stupid enough to smoke, their possible problem later.

I completely understand the impassioned feelings of so many on this subject. They are "right", but they are also wrong, because it is an impossible fight.

There are several good arguments against everything I have said here, I know that and respect those arguments.