Stephen Robbins: What about other unfairness in masters track?
Sprinter Steve
Steve continues:
I want to make two points:
First, masters athletes shouldn’t be held to the same standard as elite athletes. We age-grade performances because we know 65-year-olds can’t do what 25-year-olds can. We also know that the majority of “seniors” take prescription drugs for a variety of ills — high blood pressure, high cholesterol, arthritis, sexual dysfunction, etc. These ills are rarely of any concern to 25-year-olds!
Why should masters athletes EVER be expected to jeopardize their health (or life) by not taking a prescribed drug merely because it provides a performance advantage?
Second, I would argue that the use of drugs is just one of many “advantages” that a masters athlete might have. In fact, as I gave some thought to this, I would suggest that other advantages are far more important in influencing athletic performances than taking of drugs. Yet I know of no one who seems to be arguing for controlling these advantages. Let me touch on a few:
Training facilities. Close access to first-class outdoor and indoor facilities would allow an athlete to train all year round and miss few workouts.
Coaching. Having a knowledgeable coach to oversee training should lead to improved performances.
Training partners. Having other athletes to train with, who have comparable abilities, provides motivation and encourages more intense workouts.
Job flexibility – Athletes who can take time away from work, or who are retired, have a distinct advantage over others whose job requires long hours or extensive travel.
Financial resources – Athletes with “deep pockets” can afford to enter national and world meets, go to meets in favorable locations (i.e., high altitude), get regular massages, and undertake other beneficial activities that lead to better performances.
Elite/pro athletes tend to have more equal access to the “advantages” I noted above. They have coaches, facilities, time, training partners, and financial assistance. So the use of illegal drugs would likely provide a distinct advantage.
But among masters athletes, where there is considerable disparity in the allocation of these advantages, illegal drugs is just one of many factors that contribute to unfairness. Since we don’t control for these others, why all the concern with this one? We’re not elite athletes and we shouldn’t be expected to meet the same standards they do.
73 Responses
We should worry about drug testing because unlike other advantages it is something that we can easily control and is a way to ensure the integrity of our sport. I think that both young and old athletes face similar problems as far as some having better financial resources and access to coaching and training resources. There are many young and talented track and field athletes who can’t afford a coach or don’t have the ability to travel to Europe or other places to race. If we follow Stephens tortuous logic, then since these young elites who don’t have these other advantages then drug use should be OK for them. Most elites don’t have the resources available to them that the few super stars (Olympic and World Champions) have. Most young elites are poor and have to work regular jobs to support their own training. We don’t allow drugs for young elites who are not super stars and well resourced because it is believed that even if you don’t have all the resources of the super stars, talent and hard work will help you to move to the next level. Drugs use make hardwork and talent meaningless.
I met a wonderful Masters competitor who had his own personal trainer warmup with him and give him a race plan. I am sure this helped him and sure I would have liked to have the same resources, but I don’t so I worked with what I had which was an online coach that was not there and whom I never met in person because that is what I can afford. I have done OK with what I have, but I am OK with some people having access to better resources because I am in Masters track because I like to train and compete and I believe that ultimately talent and hard work trumps everything else. However, if we allow unrestricted drug usage then we are saying forget about talent and hard work. I have said elsewhere that we need reasonable exceptions to drug testing for Masters. TUE’s seem like the best alternative that we have now. Stephen’s logic doesn’t work for the elites and doesn’t work for the Masters.
To Terry’s well written remarks; I’d like to add the integrity of records; as well as rankings. Each is not acceptable unless run with FAT timing and proper wind readings. Drug use is just another layer to this process; to ensure everyone is compared on the same playing field.
RIGHT ON STEPHEN! VERY WELL PUT.
I think a few more years maturity/experience tends to enlighten our perspective.
This issue is really sizzling, and polarizing. Mr. Robbins comments give us even more things to ponder. All those other advantages are real. I have a great coach, who is really smart in his unique training plans. I know it gives me an edge. Also, I have a flexible job schedule and a simple lifestyle, both of which allow my training to be top notch.
Here’s another thought to consider. The real consequences of drug use exist really only at the top, the medalists, the record holders, those whose place in the rankings if changed by 1 or 2 it is a big deal…up near there. For someone like me, guessing I’d finish 8th instead of 6th in a national championship, and rank 23’rd instead of 20th in the rankings, if there is some cheating going on ahead of me. For me that part is not really that big of a deal, its annoying, not much more than that. I can still focus on and understand my own performance. Do I care if someone behind me is cheating? Even a little bit less.
And considering what is at stake for everyone, not just those at the top (assuming the checking really is random): 4th amendment rights, dignity, the extra money, things like that, is it really worth it? I’m not sure we as a group should be so willing to give up that much.
As a comparison, getting on a plane you give up your 4th amendment rights to some extent also in going through security, but the consequences of a ‘cheater’ are death and destruction.. much higher stakes.
On the other hand, for record integrity I think it is a very big deal, I really want to know what is legitimately possible, and watch how that progresses.
Finally, I know a lot of my competitors, I consider them my friends, we share the same passion. My intuition as to who would actually be intentionally cheating to get an edge comes up empty. I just don’t see it. The spirit of competition feels very pure! In other words, the actual problem might be too small compared to what is given up.
Evolving but still Conflicted
Dave
All of the “advantages” that Stephen lists are things that help us come closer to achieving what we’re 100% physically capable of accomplishing. Performance enhancing drugs take that 100% and inject it with another 10% … or 20% … or 30% … or more of potential. It has nothing to do with us, and everything to do with what drug we’re on and how much of it we’re taking.
I had a weightlifting buddy back when I was in my late teens and early 20’s who was stuck on a 315 bench max for three years. He decided to try steroids for 4 weeks for “fun.” After 3 weeks he benched 385. He liked what was happening so much that he never went off the drugs; he just increased the amount and kinds that he was on. He eventually topped out at a max of a little over 500.
Masters distance runner Eddy Hellebuyck, the first American busted for EPO, ran mid-33 minutes for a 10K in July of 2003. He got beat. Two months later, he ran 29:05 for the still-standing American record. Eddy admitted that he used EPO in the build-up to that record 10K.
I think it’s important we have the discussion about masters athletes and medications. Personally, I think the solution has to be inclusion for all – we just have to figure out how to manage that in a way that’s fair for all.
But that’s completely different from rationalizing the use of PEDs as nothing more than an advantage like a good coach or a hefty bank account.
I don’t have a coach (well, myself). I work two jobs and have zero paid vacation. I don’t have a training partner. I can’t even find a track to do workouts on (they’re all overrun with kiddie soccer, so I usually do intervals on the streets and trails). And I sure as hell don’t have a lot of money – over the past decade, I couldn’t have even attended some national championships if some of my generous peers hadn’t paid for my plane ticket out of their own pocket.
But I’ve won lots of titles and set lots of records – because I can still get out on the roads, train hard, race smart, and compete on a relatively even playing field.
That’s the beauty of sport. That’s why I compete. Because none of the things Stephen lists prevent a guy like me from striving to be the best.
But one of my close rivals could pop a few pills, rub some gel on their arms, maybe inject a little EPO, and I’d never see them after the start line.
We can’t pretend that PEDs just give a little boost. We can’t lie like NFL players that they’re really just helpful for recovering from injuries. Drugs change our ability completely. They make us super athletes. PEDs for non-health related reasons are cheating. Not an “advantage.”
Medications for health – yes.
PEDs because they’re no different than a good training partner … you’ve got to be joking.
While I totally agree that the “level playing field” is a myth, that doesn’t make equivalent every thing that further un-levels the field.
To follow the problem with Steve’s logic, imagine a new super drug that unequivocally cures, say, muscular dystrophy, and simultaneously improves VO2max by 1000%, leg strength by 2000%, and reaction time by 3000%. He surely wouldn’t argue an athlete taking this drug is on the SAME playing field, let alone a semi-level one, a non-super-drug-taking athlete.
I’m sure even Dave Albo wouldn’t want to run against this athlete, even if his/her record were asterisked.
If we’re going to discuss the various factors that un-level the playing field, the conversation will have to include genetics. Should we disqualify someone who, as a result of a genetic mutation, does not produce myostatin and, therefore, has exceptional muscle strength? (This came up in the bodybuilding world with Flex Wheeler.)
Or should I get a 2m head start in the 100m, which is strangely devoid of 5’5″ Jews like myself? (A condition which, it seems, helped me become an All-American gymnast.)
STeve,
To put drugs in the same category as the othter “advantages” you speak of is ridiculous.
As far as I know, having a coach, better training facilities, training partners, job flexibility, or financial resources will not triple your testosterone, increase your lean muscle mass, decrease your recovery time, or vastly improve a thousand other things in your body the way taking some of these banned substances can.
I think you are missing the whole point of masters athletics. To me it’s all about the natural aging process. Who can still go out there and get it done 30 or more years after the fact and do so without ANY assistance be it a TUE or PED or DR.S note or whatever. These are the athletes I respect, not the ones who have to, choose to, or try to “supplement” their bodies to overcome the effects of old age. Anyone can do that, but what would it be like if no one did it. Where would the records be then? Who would the heroes be?
Pete– I respect your examples of a weightlifting friend and Hellebuyek. But if you want to generalize from a small sample, let me provide one to support my case. In 1994, I moved to Seattle and met a guy named Dave Walter. He was 49, had been running for a few years, and had best times at 200 and 400 of low-26 and mid-57, respectively. He had no coaching, no one to train with, and worked out on the track once a week. I befriended him and we became regular workout partners. I got him lifting and seriously intensified his track sessions. Because of our flexible schedules, we were able to workout together on the track 3x a week from 3-5pm. Result: In 6 years, Dave improved to the high-23s and low-53s. In 1999, he won gold in Gateshead at both distances.
Okay, this great masters sprinter ‘wins’ gold at the Worlds (not Sac). Selected for drug testing, he screams, yells, throws fits, threatens, finally gives in, runs to the restroom, returns, drinks a few gallons of water, is ready for samples after a few hours. By that time, everybody is tired, disgusted and sick of the great world champion. ‘A’ positive, ‘B’ positive. Guilty? Not so fast. The champ requests that they re-measure the sampled volume. It comes up a few ccm (cm3) short, of course. Results stand, nobody will ever get his name, the silver medal winner will never know that he got cheated. Who is the mystery man? One of us, Dr. Robbins, one of us (not you). But still, your approach made me smile because it is self-serving, after all. It was kind of funny to watch so many of us in Berea sweating and worrying because they did not apply for a TUE. Kind of snuck up on you as well, didn’t it? No, surely not on you, good doctor. You (should) know better. Oh #%^}, is there a code of silence, I just violated? I’m so sorry.
Stephen –
Your example is of a poorly trained athlete benefiting from better training.
My examples are of highly trained athletes who reached the limit of their inherent ability – yet soared above those limits with the addition of PEDs.
And your suggestion that I’m generalizing from a small sample is both insulting and disingenuous. You’d have to have your head in the sand to ignore the numerous open-level records that have been set by PED users.
As letsrun.com just wrote at the top of their website homepage just this AM: “Check out the women’s world records and look at how many of them are suspect and came from the Eastern Europeans in the 1980s or Chinese more recently. When’s the last time anyone came close to 47.60 or 1:53.28 or 3:50.46?”
I’m a coach myself, and I’ve had many athletes improve in leaps and bounds. That’s because I help them unlock the potential they have within themselves. Drugs give you potential you never had – and which no amount of good coaching, good training partners, or a big bank account can ever match.
Some very good reactions!
The start of the topic is about comparing apples and pears. A sense of logic but in fact no logic at all.
In 2004 I had a bike accident which led to severe knee problems, I even switched to the other take-off leg. As that leg is clearly less able it should be allowed to use shoes with built in springs, not? I am quite sure my colleagues would have complained about springs and the same counts for using PED’s to reach ‘normal’ level. (I am back on my real take-off leg again.)
The sport is, I think, about working towards your personal best with your personal body and your personal circumstances. Among all those personal bests logically only one will be the world record, there does not exist a ‘level playing field’. I can have much fun in reaching that personal best in the hammer throw where I wil never come close to the national record, and I can have much pleasure in the high jump where I can jump world records. Those records are there to be broken and some have been broken already. Nice, it learns us more about the ageing body. But when I would hear that it had been done by using mechanical springs or the chemical counterpart of springs, PED’s… I do not think I wil react very polite.
I can’t believe people want to reduce testing in masters athletes! It doesn’t matter what the age or level, we have to weed out the cheats. Blood pressure medications and cholesterol lowering drugs aren’t banned. However, if older athletes start using substances to ‘restore’ muscle mass, etc, they deserve to be kicked out.
To compare this to access to training facilites, income, etc is ludicrous. If someone beats me by arranging their circumstances so as to be better prepared good luck to them. Popping a pill or injecting something is completely different.
RUBBISH. So-called master’s “athletes” should absolutely be held to the same doping standard as elites. If you are using, for whatever reason, you are ineligible–period.
Nobody is expecting anybody to “jeopardize their health” for any reason. A person who is using would be ineligible to compete, plain and simple.
If that person chooses to NOT use and therefore be eligible to compete, that is their personal decision, and is not coerced in any way by USATF or any other governing body or organization. Nobody is forcing anybody to go off their meds, or to “jeopardize their health”.
Competition in track should be considered a privilege, and not a right. If there’s enough interest, a parallel organization can run it, and play by whatever rules they want.
Who ARE you people? Why do you people on meds NEED to compete in USATF-sanctioned events? I’m top-10 in a couple of events in a middle-aged master’s bracket, and I take absolutely nothing, and there are others like me. We are NOT all on meds–part of that is genetic, and part of it is because we have taken care of ourselves while others have not.
In all honesty, if I were to take the things I know others are taking, there is a fair chance that I would be #1 or 2 in several events–how would that be fair? It is ONLY fair if those who require medications take them to the extent that it makes them physiologically equivalent to a “normally healthy” person of the same age–whatever THAT is.
So all you med-users, quit whining–if you want to play, find another field. Organize yourselves, run your own meets. Get some pharmaceutical sponsors–top-flight companies like Pfizer, or maybe generics like GSK–and you’ll really have something.
But don’t bring the rest of us down–because, unlike Val Barnwell believes, we are NOT all on something. I am living proof of that, and I know there are others.
And yes, you ARE bringing me, personally, down, if for no other reason than others associate me with you, and you need or desire pharmaceutical help for one reason or another, while I do not. I do NOT want to be associated with the sort of weakness that such need or desire evidences, be it physical, mental, or emotional weakness.
That will all change the instant I NEED meds, if that time ever comes–but it is NOT now. I am different from you for one reason or other, and I want to be treated differently based on my ability.
I am better than you are in terms of health–period. This is not a value judgment, because health conditions MAY be uncontrollable by the individual–but it is a fact. I do not experience, or even celebrate, as some of you do, any of the disease states that are currently in vogue.
I do not wish to be treated like you–to be offered some accommodation for some deficit that I exhibit. I work hard, and the results show, both in my athletic performance and in my general health. I want to play somewhere that acknowledges those facts, and where there are no excuses–just pride of performance, be it a winning one or not.
Competition without concession for weakness. I know what you’re thinking–why do I compete in age-group then? The answer is that I DON’T–I run with collegiate and just-post-collegiate runners, and even with kids at local meets. I have no problem running 11.5 to the winner’s 10.5–I don’t make excuses. The guy who runs 10.5 is faster than me, that is all–but I still try to beat him, and will try again the next time.
Fair is fair. No, I don’t win collegiate meets anymore–but I lose them FAIRLY, and there is honor in that, because we all run by the same code, and all respect the same values and tradition that bond us as competitors.
Not you guys–you do NOT run by the same code, you do NOT respect the same values and tradition, and you are NOT considered our competitors.
Get your own sandbox–we don’t want you in ours.
Of course, the retired professor and former WR holder is right that no one should ever be forced to choose between their prescribed medications and the additional health benefits of track and field competition. The emotive and illogical responses of so many, however, suggest that this may never get resolved unless we are very creative. How about two classes of competition (there are multiple classes in power lifting): those who admit to using prescribed medications, and those who compete absolutely without help. In the first group people on a variety of meds, including ibuprofen and creatine and perhaps even hormone therapy, could compete without worry. In the latter group, the ‘naturals’ who are lucky enough to have aged without any medical pharma intervention can righteously compete against one another. Keep separate records for prescribed v. natural.
Easy solution – 2 sets of records: PER and PRE
PER – performance enhanced records for all testing positive.
PRE – Prefontaine-enhanced records for those making the most of what God has given them.
I’m not sure I understand why PED use is such a huge issue… This is master’s track and field right? In reality, it’s a tiny little niche sport that pretty much is only followed by the people who participate in it. There’s no big prize money, no TV contracts… It’s all about personal satisfaction and the experiment of one.
I find it hard to believe someone is actually doing EPO to get their 17:30 5k time down… Someone really needs a sub 12 hundred meters so bad they are gonna take HGH or steroids? So they can brag to what, a hundred people nationwide that care? So they can say they are the fastest 55-59 year old on a list on a website?
I’d be quite disappointed if I got beat by a drug user… I’m also disappointed when I’m beat by a kid in jr. high. But there has to be dozens of more important things to grow and promote the sport than chasing down grandma’s medication and throwing her out of the sport…
Sadly, the “2 classes” solution doesn’t work because of the continual cat-and-mouse game between advances in non-detectable PEDs and testing.
Too bad track isn’t like bodybuilding, where the difference between “enhanced” and “natural” is so screamingly obvious that there’s no real need to test.
BTW, should athletes taking PUDs (Performance “Un-hancing” Drugs) get a handicap?
Stefan Waltermann (post # 9), Are you insinuating that a positive drug test (A&B samples) from Sacramento was thrown out on a technicality?
If you are, and if possible, please provide more info.
excuses, excuses, excuses. those of us who are competing clean are really getting tiered of those individual who compete and are aided my artificial means. can we just stop making excuses for those people who THANKFULLY fail drug tests.
It is almost comical that some posters on this website condone PED use as long as it is prescribed by a doctor. I wonder if some of these same people are running out to their family doctor or some Dr. Feelgood at an anti-aginig clinic at saying, “Doc please make my body feel, perform, and look better; like it did when I was young!” I also wonder if their doctor says, “here you go andro-gel -for males- and bio-identical HRT with 1.25gm of methyltestosterone -for females.
Finally, I wonder if the people taking these drugs for quality-of-life medical conditions ever bother to read the phamphlets that the manufacturer provides with the drugs. If they did, then they would see that they are not only chosing between taking their prescribed medications and potentially violating the rules of our sport, but they are also risking contracting additional serious medical condtions.
Some may ask, what are these condtions and where can I find more information on them? For those people who are open-minded and intelligent enough to ask, the condtions are prostate, breast and other cancers, elevated cholesterol, gynecomastia and hirtuism. PUBLISHED & RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC DATA on these conditions and the drugs -testosterone, HGH & HRT- can be found at your local library in the 2011 editions of the Physician’s Desk Reference (PDR) and the Current Medical Diagnostic & Treatment (CMDT).
Such a quandry, my doctor says I need these meds, but they are banned substances that might make me feel better in the near-term, but kill me in the the long-run…what to do, what to do! Oh well, most of us have already exceeded more than half of our years on this earth anyway!
Kelly.
You are sadly mistaken. I participate in masters cycling, no prizes to speak of and there are alot of juiced riders. The busted a dealer and it turns out most of his EPO customers were masters athletes.Just to get a medal.Disgusting.
anyway as several others have stated we all have our cross to bear.The aging process and the things that happen to us in life affect our ability to compete.
PED’s can never level the playing field instead they make the disparity worse. to try and rationalize their use is laughable.
Look if your condition is so serious that you need drugs to survive fine, however you can still enjoy the camaraderie of the sport just do not try to compete . to do otherwise is just simply dishonest.
I think that Pete Magill is on the money. The thing is that legitimate meds are for health. PED’s are dangerous and anti-health. It just seems counter to everything the sport should be about.
To me, Kelly Dodge makes a point. At mid-40’s, I race in local college meets as well as Masters events but I don’t care who finished ahead of me…and why. I race to improve (or match) my times. At the end of the day, I am going to go home, go to my calendar and log my race with a time, and see how close I was to my PR. I’m going to be 45 in December and I’m now running with a repaired achilles tendon. I’m not an elite, sponsored athlete and I’m not going to lose millions if I come in 2nd or 3rd because the guys that beat me were using PED’s. It just doesn’t matter. I say: Juice up, have fun and let me run my race. What does matter is keeping entry fees low, though…:-)
WADA has not yet caught on to the most effective performance enhancer for throwers that is out there … donuts. And some of us have better access to very delicious donut shops. Definately an unfair advantage!
THROW LONG!
I get the feeling almost all the discussion in here is specifically about one class of drugs on the list, steroids, whereas the testing, rules, and consequences include a whole bunch of other non-steroidal things. Substitute ‘beta blocker’ for ‘androgen steroid’ in your thinking and see if you have the same passionate views.
I think what Steve might be saying is that some of these other factors listed can improve performance maybe even more than drugs. If you throw out the steroids drugs, I’d argue this is true without a doubt. And even with steroids, it could be true. I trained really hard for 10 years, then found a coach who dropped my mile time by almost 30 seconds! If I’d instead gone on steroids, I’d be able to train wrong even harder, so what might that have done? I don’t know, I’ll guess not as much good.
As for what is right and wrong, that’s another story. The jury has voted in the remaining posts here. I’m just saying its an interesting idea to consider when you think of all the ways to get an ‘edge’ in your performance, and why you might place ahead or behind someone else.
I’m going to post one last time here, then I promise to find something else to do with my time – you know, like train! 😉
The problem I had with Steve’s post – and with some of those that follow – is that it wants to poison what should be a very serious discussion among us masters about TUEs and health-related medications by offering this premise: PEDs might not be any more performance-enhancing that other “advantages” like coaching, training partners, etc.
That premise isn’t true. It’s demonstrably false. There is no question about the huge impact that PEDs have on athletes. Scientific literature backs up the effects of a wide range of drugs – not just steroids. And common sense should allow those of us who don’t read scientific reports to share their conclusion; just remember professional baseball’s steroid generation (Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, etc.), just remember Balco, and the Tour de France, and the East German track team in the 70s, and Ma Junren’s Chinese runners in the 90s, setting incredible world records that have never been touched (when 1/3 of Junren’s athletes tested positive before the Sydney Olympics, he was booted as China’s coach), etc. ad nauseum.
Just this week, I interviewed one of the top sports endocrinologists in the country (he’s worked with 15 Olympic gold medalists) for an upcoming Running Times column on this very subject. He was emphatic that not only do PEDs work, but some masters athletes running on TUEs – those receiving medications for health-related reasons – would invariably get a performance boost from those medications. He’s for TUEs (as am I), but he asked a question which I believe is THE important question for us. He said, “Can masters athletes accept that?”
That’s what we should be discussing. This tripe about whether PEDs are huge performance enhancers is a waste of time. That’s a question that was answered long ago. They are. End of story.
But let me throw out a hypothetical to explain how I see this:
Let’s say my friend and I have the same ability, run the same races, have the same coach, train at the same facilities, train together, and have relatively the same social and financial situation. And let’s say we’ve been trading wins over each other for years. Now, one of the two following situations occurs:
1) My friend develops a disease or health-related condition that requires medication, the medication controls his condition but also gives him a performance boost, and he beats me in every single race thereafter.
2) My friend decides he’s tired of losing any races and of suffering the slow-down that comes with age, he goes on PEDs, and he beats me in every single race thereafter.
In situation #1, I applaud my friend for his triumph over adversity, I buy him a beer after every race and toast him, I cheer his wins (while giving him a hard – but friendly – time about his medications), and I thank my lucky stars that I’m in a sport that allows my friends and peers to continue competing no matter our age or health-related issues.
In situation #2, I tell my friend he’s a cheat, and I suggest he find a different sport – one in which the rules he apparently doesn’t like, but which the rest of us have agreed to abide by, don’t exist.
I want all us masters to continue competing as long as we are able. But the solution won’t be reached by beginning with the false premise that PEDs aren’t a big deal (more so that any of Stephen’s factors) – they are. The solution will be reached by acknowledging that we want an even playing field, but by then discussing whether we’re willing to risk a slightly uneven playing field if some (certainly not all or most or even that many) masters gain a benefit from health-related medications.
I’m willing to accept that. Are you?
Stephan’s post makes me wonder if he was a TUE/PED athlete his whole career? If so, world records and Hall of fame?…not in my book. Maybe Hall of shame.
Pete,
I agree with your point. The only thing I would add is that, currently, many doctors will say that aging itself, or simple statistical variation, is the disease that requires medication.
As I’ve said before “low testosterone” is, in all but a small number of cases, not a clinical diagnosis. Testosterone level decline with age, and there’s an extremely wide range of levels among asymptomatic individuals. Even when “low testosterone” is a symptom of an actual disease (say, related to hypopituitarism), bringing the patient’s testosterone level up to “normal” is often equivalent to raising a non-patient’s level to “high.”
So the TUE issue should never be as simple as: Get a note from your doctor. And the list of athletes performing with a TUE should not be secret.
In response to Pete on Oct 24–
With respect, your hypo and analysis misses the mark by failing to consider the situation from your friend’s point of view.
If I put myself into that situation, and I begin to consistently beat my formerly equal friend without observing any obvious diminution in his own performance, I STOP RACING.
He is my FRIEND. We discuss it. Not only do I owe a duty to all other competitors to maintain fairness, I owe my friend a special duty of disclosure, reflection, and moral consideration, for he is the yardstick against which I can judge how well I discharge my duty to fairness.
He allows me to see if I have had any performance enhancement from the drugs, and for his assistance in this, he deserves special credit. He should be made aware of the drugs WELL BEFORE any possible future PE effects manifest, and the subsequent journey should be one taken together.
It is inconceivable to me to treat a true friend in any other manner–not to mention the duty owed to all the other competitors.
I am NOT willing to accept an uneven playing field–what is the benefit to me personally? Absolutely nothing.
Barring PED-users from competing in the “open” class in no way diminishes their health–nobody is stopping them from training and running. Nobody. Like I said earlier, they can even organize and develop their own playing field.
Knowingly using PED’s and continuing to “compete” is, to me, disgusting. I’m at the point where there are some fast local 17/18 year-old’s who can beat me, but I am competitive in, for instance, a good HS race. How do you think kids would feel knowing they were competing against a juicer? They are trying to be the best they can be, all they want is a fair shake, more than anything else–after all, there is only one winner in each race, but 8 competitors.
There should be a moral connection to the other athletes–even if they are, say, 10 years old. I’m there, they are there, we are running. I beat them. They can look up to me as a model–a CLEAN model. We talk about things, we talk about my history, my performances, their goals, their excitement at getting bigger and better.
Same with collegians. They are shocked when they find out how old I am, and they measure themselves accordingly. They sometimes see their future in me–not a doped future, but a future that is the result of training and commitment, like they exhibit to the utmost.
PED-users are something else entirely–even to ME, not to mention to collegians or teenagers, tweens, or pre-teens. It’s like a foreign country, with its own language, its own codes, all of its own things that we’re not a part of.
No, not like a foreign country–more like prison. A place we can see, that we don’t like, that we don’t need, and that we don’t want to be associated with.
We are free–let us live freely and compete freely. Do not drag us into your world of servitude to a pharmaceutical master.
None of you should compete in USATF open meets, only in your own master’s meets.
And like in Pete’s hypo, the decision should be YOURS, and you should make the right one, if for no other reason than to respect the purity of the kids in the sport–especially the young ones.
In response to Mike on Oct 23–
Mike, you stated that “Of course, the retired professor and former WR holder is right that no one should ever be forced to choose between their prescribed medications and the additional health benefits of track and field competition.”
First, that is NOT what he said–what he said was “Why should masters athletes EVER be expected to jeopardize their health (or life) by not taking a prescribed drug…”
Again, NOBODY is expecting a masters athlete to jeopardize their health or life by not taking a prescribed drug. If I were presented with the choice of taking the drug and not competing, or not taking the drug and competing, my decision would be obvious, and I wouldn’t “expect” any rational person to decide any differently.
So, I would ask you, WHY should nobody be forced to choose between meds and sanctioned competition? Meds are an individual, personal issue, while competition is a group, collective issue. Your decision whether or not to take your meds affects you and you alone, whereas your decision whether to compete or not affects not only you individually, but all the other competitors in your race, as well as those against whom you might compare yourself through performances.
Because integrity is so lacking at the individual level, the individual cannot be relied-upon to protect the interests of everybody else who might be affected by their competition–therefore, a third party governing organization is established to protect those interests.
It chooses HOW to protect those interests, and one way is to force individuals to choose between drug use and competition. That is a system that is eminently FAIR to all competitors, is equally applied, and furthermore is NECESSARY to preserve the interests of the clean competitors. People SHOULD be forced to choose.
Finally, can you tell us, exactly what are the “additional health benefits of track and field competition” that you suggest exist? You are talking about USATF-sanctioned events, of course, because nobody is banned from running in unsanctioned events. So, what exactly are the “additional health benefits of T&F competition in a USATF-sanctioned event”?
The answer is that there are none, and that your argument is predicated on a false dichotomy.
“Max”, (#27) You just crossed way over the friggin’ line. Just because someone offers a different view than yours, doesn’t mean he’s a cheat; to imply so, especially anonymously, is chicken.
That’d be like me suggesting that because you’re so adamant, defensive, even secretive, that maybe you’re really just a closeted druggie yourself. (That’s just neener, neener.)
No, I’d hope that this is a discussion of conflicting viewpoints, strange ideas that we’re not gonna agree on, but where we can eventually all come to some sorta consensus, not just engage in name calling and a personal battle.
Stephen trains incredibly hard, is knowledgeable, dedicated and incredibly fast. (And fortunately for me, he still hates the 400 and frequently promises never to run it)
But he admits that he’s created a lifestyle that’s now afforded him certain time and financial advantages, which may seem “unfair” to others. Yet Stephen earns what he gets. And unless you know otherwise, I think he deserves an apology from you.
For Max Speed–If you can’t argue the facts, attack the speaker! Are you unable to have an intellectual conversation without making it personal? For the record, I’ve never requested an exemption and I’ve been drug-tested twice–at Brisbane in 2001 and Berea this year. And you? I await your apology.
Thanks, Larry. You beat me to it. I hope Max Speed doesn’t hide behind his pseudonym and has the courage to put a real name with his views.
Max, comeon man, I met Steve in 1997 in South Africa, and have had the privilege of running with him and against him, I have never considered him anything but truley gifted and a hard worker, even if you disagree, don’t attack the person. Besides that , his body doesn’t even come close to looking like a cheater ( no offense Steve ) but he sure can run, God gifted abilty + hard work !!
Anyone who’s been the target of unsubstantiated and undeserved drug accusations knows how unfair those accusations are. Max, you need to apologize. I completely disagree with Stephen’s PED premise; that’s fair game for debate. But Stephen’s competitive integrity isn’t. We can and will disagree on the issue of TUEs and competition, but we ALL should agree that accusing someone of PED use in a public forum is off the table.
Pete opines that “we ALL should agree that accusing someone of PED use in a public forum is off the table”.
I disagree strongly with this absolutist statement, as that situation would create an unnecessary prohibition on speech.
If you have evidence and arguments to support your accusation, let’s hear them–if not, admit that your allegation unsupported by evidence is mere speculation based on an irrationally-held belief.
In the first case we get to evaluate your evidence and the accusation for its worth, which fosters discussion and analysis of the strength of the argument–which is a legitimate goal of discourse and dialogue.
In the second case we get to understand how you feel about something–maybe your own inadequacies, maybe your personal fears, maybe your hopes and dreams–and that helps us to know you better and to understand who you are…which is also a legitimate goal of discourse and dialogue.
If you have no evidence or cogent argument, then you should de-personalize your accusation, unless the entire point of your comment is to attack the accused individual personally in an ad hominem–which is ALSO a legitimate goal of discourse and dialogue.
Suppression of speech is not the answer.
The abilities to better organize and articulate your thoughts, and to evaluate the expressions of others, are the answer.
With that said, Max’s post did not make any specific accusation–it merely gave an insight into how he feels in response to the original post. I, for one, do not find in Max’s post any information concerning Stephen Robbins whatsoever–but I do find in it information concerning Max himself.
Stephen, your post is incredibly weak, and you should be embarrassed for having posted it.
Your assumptions are unwarranted, your factual predicates are unsupported, your propositions are logically flawed, and your arguments are dissuasive.
It’s really a disaster in argumentation and advocacy.
Don’t quit your day job–or, if this IS your day job or is related to your day job, you may in fact want to consider quitting.
FWIW, I just re-read Max’s post, and I don’t see an accusation in there. I see a question. And a hypothetical. But I’m missing the thing that’s causing such an outrage and a demand that he tuck his tail between his legs.
Statements like this one:
“We age-grade performances…” particularly evidence the inadequacy of your post. Your entire post is a disaster, but let’s first consider the merit of this single assertion.
“WE” do NOT age-grade performances. I am a masters runner, and I personally have NEVER “age-graded” a performance. You, and others who feel as you do, age-grade performances. Your attempt to homogenize all masters athletes to marshal support for your position is unsupportable. Masters runners are NOT homogenous, notwithstanding your attempts to make us seem as though we are.
This is a non-trivial point–in trying to homogenize us, you effectively deny that we are different from you, and implicitly attribute to us the values, beliefs, and attitudes that you yourself hold that cause you to exhibit the behavior of age-grading.
Those are YOUR beliefs, NOT the beliefs of all masters athletes. I have never, and would never, “age-grade”. To me it is just another excuse designed to assuage the ego.
“We” do NOT all age-grade, as you suggested.
I find this fascinating! Personal attacks protected by anonymity. So who are you “A Master’s Runner”? Come out from behind your pseudonym and introduce yourself. Same goes for Max Speed. You may not agree with my argument but I don’t hide who I am.
Wow! For the record, I did not make any accusations or attack anyone’s character directly (like some have done to me) on this forum. I posted a hypothetical question that’s all. I did attack the content of Stephans post (see comment #7) but thats it.
Let me also say I meant no disrespect to Stephan or anyone else with my hypothetical comment but when a guy of his notariety and integrity says something so outwardly shocking it’s hard not to think in hypotheticals. How someone can compare the use of a PED to the hiring of a coach or getting a training partner is beyond me. Please tell me you don’t mean that?
Again, no disrespect to you Stephan and my apologies to any and all if my question has in any way insulted your integrity, your name or your love for this sport. That was not my intent.
Well, there you go–Max has set the record straight, for the benefit of an all-too-thinly-skinned and inarticulate Stephen.
Unlike Max, I DID intend to express disrespect for Stephen’s ability to argue and advocate, and I presented specific reasons for that disrespect.
Although Stephen is entitled to the same basic human respect as is anybody, his specific views, and the skills used to develop and express those views, are not automatically entitled to respect.
They should be evaluated for the strength of their contents, which is weak indeed.
As the view expressed is a personal one, and as it was arrived at individually by Stephen himself using his skills, any criticism of either the view, the skills, or both, is necessarily a criticism of a part of Stephen himself–importantly, NOT of Stephen as an entire person.
Deal with it, Stephen–the anonymity of my commentary in no way affects the substance of my criticism.
Normally I would be interested to hear substantive responses to the specific issues that I have raised–however, in your particular case I am, sadly, not interested, based solely upon the quality of your original post, and your responses to both Max and myself.
To A Masters Runner – It’s not about suppression of speech. It’s about common decency and respect for your peers. Accusing someone (without evidence) of PED use never leads to polite, enlightening conversation; it leads to war. As it should. Because it’s mean-spirited and taints the accused athlete; the athlete can’t prove a negative. Look up “witch hunt.” Do we really want to go there?
BTW, I’m sure you’re a great guy–I just find that you haven’t said anything particularly interesting or insightful to say about this issue.
Maybe it’s just me, but I also didn’t read Max’s comment as an accusation.
But if I were being accused of doping, and I’d never done it, I think my response would be something simple like, “I’ve never taken any PEDs or anything that could be construed to be a PED, illegally or with a TUE. I’ve been repeatedly tested and I’m willing to take a test any day at any time with no warning.”
Responding by being indignant isn’t really a response.
Pete–
Whether you like it or not, there is more to life than “polite, enlightening conversation”. While I personally believe that can form a sort of gold standard, there is room also for diatribe, invective, polemic, and other forms of expression that you seem to find unsavory.
Duties of “decency” and “respect” can be fulfilled in many ways, not least of which are the ways that I mentioned.
I agree with you about the injustice of having to “prove a negative”–but first, you must take any allegation for what it is worth.
I note again that Max never made a specific allegation, and as such, to the thinking person, did not in the first instance establish any “positive” that would necessitate support of the corollary “negative”.
If he had, it is up to each of us to evaluate the strength of that positive, based upon the evidence offered, the analysis thereof, and the credibility of the source, if the source is the basis for any of the facts.
To the extent that places any burden on somebody else to respond in favor of the “negative”, it only does so to the extent of the strength of the “positive”–and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that situation.
I know personally. I’m very fast, and very strong, and am constantly asked about PED use. I understand the basis for the questions, and am only too happy to engage in dialogue, because it is through free debate that the truth has the greatest chance to flourish.
Your approach is most certainly about the suppression of free speech. I know that there are limits on free speech–some legal, some moral, some ethical–and that each individual is responsible for conducting themselves within the bounds of the normative standards established in whatever forum they choose to communicate.
Again, an accusation with no evidence tells us about only the accuser, and not at all about the accused.
Presenting evidence, even if only circumstantial, is fair game, even if it doesn’t comport with your particular flavor of decorum. This type of forum shouldn’t be ornately adorned with baroque ornamentations of rules–that is for a black-tie affair, in polite company.
We’re all adults here. We should all be able to conduct ourselves, and our responses to the conduct of others, in a rational fashion–and if any censoring occurs, it should be self-censoring, because one is, in the end, protecting one’s OWN reputation by monitoring what one posts.
Pete– i.e. the goal of a gathering in polite company is entirely different than the goal of a comment board such as this one, and the rules should differ accordingly.
Here is the key point I was originally trying to make. I fear that it has gotten lost in the emotions surrounding the topic of drugs: There are many factors that influence athletic performance. Drugs are one of these. We make some efforts to eliminate advantage by, for instance, using FAT and wind gauges. But that still leaves numerous other variables that can give some athletes advantages over others.
Drugs may provide an X increase in performance. I am arguing that these other non-controlled variables, individually or in combination, may have a value greater than X. You can disagree with this argument but you have to admit that the other factors I mentioned can give certain athletes a significant advantage and might allow them to medal or even set records that couldn’t be accomplished without them.
We shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that if we can only control the use of performance-enhancing drugs that we will have leveled the playing field. Competitions and rankings would be fairer if we could but we can’t.
BTW, what we control for is arbitrary. We control for timing error with FAT. We control for excessive tail winds with wind gauges. We have drug testing. But we don’t control for altitude, even though it provides clear benefits to sprinters, hurdlers, and jumpers; and altitude is easy to control for. We set 2.0 m/s as the limit for wind. Why not 2000 feet for altitude? Don’t tell me that no masters’ athlete hasn’t specifically gone to Ft. Collins, St. George, or Tahoe to compete in a meet with the intention of taking advantage of the light air! Or how about indoor tracks. We allow banked 200m tracks, designed for maximum speed performance by highly-trained engineers, but disallow performances on oversize flat tracks. When elite athletes can run 44.57 or 1:42.67 on a 200m banked track, do you think a 300m flat track provides a distinct advantage? What does the research, if any, say? I expect there is no research and the decision is arbitrary.
First, I’ve got to appeal to the moderators to post my comments that they have decided to not post. Please read them carefully and I think you might change your mind.
On the other hand, I may have completely misunderstood the purpose of this board–I’ve only ever posted once before. Although opinion pieces like the original post are permitted, it appears as though this may be a forum for glad-handing and polite, non-confrontational banter. Perhaps in error, I resolved this conflict in favor of open dialogue and discourse.
Second, in his newest posts, Stephen seems to have abandoned the “first point” in his original post. That is a good start, as it was an untenable position.
Third, Stephen has reformulated his argument, which now amounts to the following: PEDs should not be distinguished from other variables affecting performance. The only positive support he offers for this position is that other variables can have a possibly greater effect than PED’s on performance, and that PED’s are therefore not relatively especially important factors.
Stephen offers no evidence of the relative benefits accruing from the relative variables, so he offers essentially NO positive support for his position, leaving it effectively no position at all.
As Stephen is the one arguing for a change from the status quo, the burden of persuasion is clearly upon him in this case–a burden that he has failed to meet. His latest posts therefore demand no response, and offer no reason whatsoever to change the status quo.
Even if he had offered some evidence, the support he offers would be inadequate to carry the day in the face of his total failure to address the difference in the essential nature of the PED variable vs the other variables he mentions.
Like it or not, the reality is that PED use is different from the other variables. There is no reasonable possibility of adverse health effects from finding training partners, getting a coach, finding a good track, etc…as a result, government has not chosen as a matter of public policy to control these things in the same manner as the controlled substances that are PED’s. That is part of the reason why their use is banned–because people will medicate without supervision, using PED’s of questionable composition and quality. Even under medical supervision, they can, and do, have sometimes serious side-effects.
They have been banned primarily to protect the health of the athletes, with the TUE implemented as a compromise. They are treated differently because they ARE essentially different in nature from the other variables that Stephen mentions.
That logic, however, presents an argument that they be allowed in the case of a TUE, and stops short of arguing that they be banned altogether. I have gone a step further in suggesting reasons other than health-related reasons that their use under any circumstances is incompatible with the spirit of a certain type of competition–a pure type of competition, among those sharing the same value system. Again, get out of our sandbox, and build your own. Leave us pure masters and kids alone.
Stephen continues in his attempt to speak for all masters athletes (“we” shouldn’t delude ourselves, “we” can’t, “we” control for this and that, etc)..
“Don’t tell me that…” is telling of his surly argumentative style. In terms of substance, all he is doing is setting up a strawman to avoid the real issue.
The real issue is that I, and others like me, DO NOT seek out altitude or banked tracks to post more impressive times—the same as we do NOT use PED’s.
It’s about personal integrity, and about understanding your duty to the segment of society, the sub-culture, that is involved in running track–not just to other masters athletes, but to elites, collegians, high schoolers, and younger kids.
I’m telling you, you drug-users out there, TUE or not, are fundamentally different from us. It’s like we have a sort of virginity–once you have lost it, there is no going back. You live in a different world than us–you rely on external things, we rely on only ourselves. We cannot even conceive of taking some sort of drug on a regular basis–what the heck is that?
THINK back to a time when you were in this state–childhood maybe. Maybe you would see older people taking these weird pills for things that you didn’t understand, because they weren’t at all a part of your life–THAT is who we are. Drug virgins.
And there is something to be said for that type of innocence. It should not only be acknowledged, but celebrated, because it is closer to a sort of utopian ideal akin to our days prior to our expulsion from the Garden of Eden, if you believe in that sort of myth. It is a standard that EXISTS, that is not mythical, and that should be protected and cherished, like an old-growth forest.
Mostly it is just kids, but there is the occasional older athlete in there as well–not just me, but others. That’s how I know it exists–BECAUSE I NEVER LEFT IT.
It is beautiful. Once you have turned the corner, you no longer know what it’s like. Like I said, it’s like a form of chastity.
As an existing example of an idealized standard for which society should aim in general, and in track specifically, there should be a competitive class reserved for those who use NOTHING.
Except for kids who are still developing, and who have a developmental deficiency that is correctable pharmacologically–THEY should be allowed to compete with a TUE, but no adults should.
That is the concession that we make for youth, who are also special. They deserve more protection and opportunity than do adults, as they lack the same ability to protect themselves and to produce opportunities for themselves.
So go away and leave us alone.
Stephen, your so-called “argument” only gets worse.
It is so bad this time that, as I said, it demands no response, as it totally fails to state a case to change the status quo.
Moderators–hey Jess, that means you–please reconsider posting my earlier posts.
If you do not I will no longer post, as I will have totally misunderstood the purpose of this forum.
not stepping on toes but haveing A trainer and good place to practice,helps put you on another level flexability is a must and if you allways keep in shape through the years makes a big diff. thats the reason most runners in the west run a litte better they run in better weather and have better tracks there.I could be wrong but it helps.
How natural is it to ingest drinks fortified with isolated amino acids? They may not be “drugs”, but in combination with appropriate exercise they could be considered “performance enhancing substances”. I have heard comments from far more casual competitors who dismiss comparisons with those of us who train specifically for competition. To them, training year-round for a few track & field events is unnatural in itself, and they disparagingly refer to us as “professionals”.
As for the baseball analogy, I read a quote from one old-timer who claimed that the likely reason ballplayers of the ’60s and earlier didn’t use steroids was that they didn’t know of them. I have little doubt that, had anabolic steroids been available and their athletic benefits widely known many decades ago, a number of our revered athletic heroes would have used them. For that reason I don’t hold up the older generation of ballplayers as paragons of virtue, simply because we don’t know what they would have done had they had the opportunity to use PEDs.
It is not my intention to condone the use of performance-enhancing drugs, but I fear that many more masters athletes who use pharmaceuticals for legitimate medical reasons will get caught up in this hysteria and will pay a price in damage to their reputations (drug cheat) and will receive verbal or written abuse of an order normally reserved for the likes of child molesters.
A note on anonymity.
I have posted here anonymously for this very specific reason: that in my circles I would be roundly and mercilessly hazed for having taken the time and energy to formulate and express opinions on something considered by my peers as unworthy of their, and by association my own, consideration.
I could defend it if I chose to, but I choose not to. It is not sufficiently important to me to devote time to both brief commentary and also to defense of that commentary among my peers.
I choose not to expose my identity here, because this issue just isn’t sufficiently important to me to impel me to bear the burden of that exposure.
Believe me, to some people who don’t participate in athletics, and who may have never participated in athletics, master’s track is a freak show full of narcissistic and/or overcompensating losers.
Addressing these perceptions is not sufficiently important to me to spend time on it at the expense of something more worthwhile.
Well, since my deleted posts have not reappeared, and a moderator rather than myself is therefore shaping my commentary, I won’t be posting here anymore.
Good luck to all.
Living in the West or South, with year-round warm weather is definitely a PE’er!! Just ran 10x200m in 30-32 secs with some high school kids, not sure if I could have done that with all the ‘roids in the world running solo! For real though, Master Runner, there is something to be said for brevity. Seriously, there is a difference between free speech and slander. Also, I am strongly against the public release of drug test results. Isn’t there a law against that in the US? Test for PEDs or not, give TUEs or not – personally I don’t really care.
i’m not one who hides behind anonimity, and i don’t care much for those who feel it’s necessary to do so. if you can’t say something as yourself for fear of being “roundly and mercilessly hazed” then you do not have my respect. cowards hide behind masks. they are rampant…most are bullies and spineless. i don’t believe for a minute that masters athletes are a “freakshow of narcissistic and/or overcompensating losers ” posters who don’t have enough guts to say what they feel without hiding behind a mask are…
Stephan,
If you take the time to read Master’s Runners posts they pretty much destroy your argument. Please read Peter Magills post which he tells how he has few of the advantages that you list but over came that by hard work and realization of his great talent.
Master’s Runner and so many other runners are correct in saying that PED’s are fundamentally different than your other listed advantages. Sure some people have advantages that others don’t, that is the name of the game. I run the 800, 400, and do the high jump because I can do it better that better than most people because I have an natural biological advantage that I have enhanced by training. I don’t run other events because others have advantages that would be harder for me to compete against, but I could if I want to I just wouldn’t do as well. The playing field is never going to be level because we all have different talents and advantages that we have by birth or circumstances. I am OK with this because track like life doesn’t distribute advantages equally. But I believe that you can have fun developing your talents to the best of your abilities and do amazing things with limited resources.
Holy #^%$, I feel like I’m in a Monty Python sketch. Brilliantly creative and, of course, totally lunatic, John Cleese bends the discussion from PED to PET (performance enhancing tracks) while popping multicolored pills from a wheelbarrow he is pushing around. The whole comedy group, watching the news, all spellbound. 109 soccer players tested positive for clenbuterol during the FIFA U-17 world championships in Mexico, nobody getting banned (true story). Next thing, our motley crew, the Pythons are swimming across the Rio Grande into Mexico while branding large knifes between their teeth. Attacking grotesquely muscled cows on the Mexican side, biting into large chunks of raw liver, blood all over, they mutter: “I’ve got iron deficiencies, man.” In the next frame, you see them at the starting line, taking large gulps from Swiss med ball size balloons, falling all over at the command ‘On your marks’. Laughing hysterically, they all take off, smoke coming out of their sprinting spikes. John Cleese starting from lane 1, finishing in lane 8 clocks a cool 9.25 sec for the H. Now they are standing in line, peeing on strips, taking a pregnancy test. A voice from the sky gives the running count, clean, clean, clean, pregnant. John Cleese, cradling his now swollen belly pleads: “I need a post-competition TUE.” To stay in the sketch, Dr. Robbins, sure, we all peed in Berea. As long as USDA is not telling, we have NOT been tested. Only Kathy and Craig have. Your statement was part of the sketch, dude. Not the time to exhale, yet.
But you are right, Dan. Personally, I don’t care. When discussing ratifications of national and world records, Peter Taylor told me once, ‘Now Stefan, you will never have to worry about this kind of injustice.” Still cracks me up.Y’all takin’ yourselves a bit too serious, brothers.
Good point Stefan, Monty Python: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79vdlEcWxvM&NR=1
For life is quite absurd
And death’s the final word
You must always face the curtain with a bow.
Forget about your sin – give the audience a grin
Enjoy it – it’s your last chance anyhow.
So always look on the bright side of death
Just before you draw your terminal breath
“Always look on the bright side of life” (Monty Python)
I never really liked Monthy Python, but to each their own. I am a software engineer and a lawyer by training and temperament, for me the training and taking what I do seriously is something that is part of my makeup. Everyone is definitely not the same in terms if what they take seriously and why. For some, Masters Track is something they do casually. For others it is something more. I know that sometimes when I do a mathematical proof, it is like poetry. I don’t expect that everyone feels that way, but I do. I think it is the same for me for track when you can get everything right and everything just flows. I am glad that some of us have something that we love to do and that gives us back so much in terms of health and friendships. I think the passion generated by PED’s is because PED’s are not a laughing matter to some of us since PED’s make a mockery of the dedication and enjoyment that some of us get from Masters Track and Field.
I have been away from this site for a while but today starting reading this lively discussion.
My observation is that in Masters Track, if you go to a meet, possibly everyone competing there may have their own UNIQUE reasons for training and competing as a master.
You have the purists of the sport who flat out believe that you train clean, you show up and you compete to see where that got you against your competition (who you also assume is clean). (I would be in this group)… You have those who are there mostly for the camaraderie, the fun trips meeting friends and competition is secondary. You have those whose literal lives and identities depend on how many medals or ribbons and records they get each time…and they feel good about that. Nobody here should care about each of our REASONS that we take the time to do masters track but accept that we may be different in this way.
You cannot legislate fairness except with rules against what you put into your body and that is why the list of banned substances was created. There must be a correlation between using those banned substances and your performance on the track so the rules say NO when it comes to using items on this list. If you don’t like what you are using being on the banned list, then lobby to change it but other than that, don’t come to meets and compete against clean athletes.
If you want to set up the most ideal situations for your training with regard to climate, training buddies, coaches and physical therapists…if it is that important to you, you will find a way to do that. And we are free to set up our lives to the extent track is important to us to accommodate better situations.
I believe that for each of us to be somewhat happy about wanting to stick with and keep participating in masters track as a sport, you need to keep our reasons for coming to meets alive.
For the purists, this means flat out, no PED’s.
For those who come to get medals and records for themselves, you need to keep providing medals, quality officiating and quality venues to compete. For those who come to meet their friends, have fun and enjoy the camaraderie of the sport, you need to keep interesting places to visit, good meet scheduling, knowledgeable and enthusiastic announcing maybe.
Whoever is reading this and runs USA Masters track and field…I think if you want people to keep coming back, you need to think about why they do it in the first place. But if we start to let things slide, look the other way or make up excuses for those who need PED’s and also need to compete in masters track, for example, then people like me will disappear. Same for all the other reasons people compete. Keep the meets fun, cool venues, nice medals…all of this. And you will see the participation grow. Which is what I think is one thing ALL OF US can agree on.
Terry, I’m mortified. You don’t like Monty Python? Whenever I walked into my software company in Ax-en-Provence, all those young engineers doing the funny walk with fingers leveled under their noses, saying ‘Don’t mention the war’ in their funny French English, just delightful.Lighten up, man. All of you. Steve got it right,keep it fun, enjoy your friends, be passionate, be good company and stay clean. Most of all, stay clean. PED’s in sports are pure poison, destructive by nature. I agree with you, Terry. But not liking Monty Python? Man, I have a serious problem with that. As for Dr. Robbins, he deserves credit for bringing a surreal and rather bizarre/comical element into the discussion. That’s where the fun is.
Perhaps we can also allow all sprinters who are white to take PEDs seeing as we are probably a bit genetically disadvantaged? After all, only trying to level the playing field.
We can add Byron Duhon to the growing list of suspended Masters track and field athletes:
http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-duhon
After reading the posts on this website, I am no longer surprised about these suspensions. It seems that the reality of drug testing has not sunk in yet.
Yes. We are all indebted to USATF Masters and USADA for getting the job done, despite all the drug-liberal opposition in masters athletics circles.
Ref. Post 53,” A note on anonymity.”
Your peers would haze you, and your students would roll their eyes, not for your interest in Masters Track but for an all to familiar debating style in which they could finish sentences such as “Let’s first consider the merit of this single accusation.” (post 39) for you. You’ve inexpertly and inappropriately tried to fit your opinions into a template of “industry” terms and techniques in order to WIN that, which may in fact not be capable of being won, or to present your contentions as some sort of “proveable” fact. The “age grade” rant was particularly bizarre however, and the “PEDS are banned primarily for athletes health” would be a howler in any circle.
Wow Steve, you’ve stirred up a hornets nest and set another world record by getting the most responses to a post in Masterstrack history, and quickly too.
I know Steve and I think he’s a little tongue and cheek about his described “advantages”. No, they’re not as powerful as taking PEDs but they can be advantages. Try being a vaulter with never anyplace to train except going to the meets. That can be a huge disadvantage.
I finished 2nd three times, 3rd once and 4th once in the world decathlon. Each of the five times the same masters athlete won. I had a friend who knew him and said that he took PED’s and had taken them when he was an open athlete. His country started stringent testing, he tested positive and was banned for life. I now know why Henry Aaron won’t shake Barry Bonds hand or even recognize him. Aaron feels cheated as do I. People do cheat.
We have the AFC half marathon here in San Diego
A 50 year old guy came out of nowhere and started running half marathons faster than everybody else. He set a new age group record. He was running in the AFC and announced before the race that he was going to try and break his world record. The USATF stationed “spies” every mile along the course to watch for his number as he went by. From about mile six through mile 11 nobody saw him pass by. All of a sudden he appeared in the race again and won by a mile, setting a new world record. He had slipped off the course and ridden in a car to about miloe ten where he entered the race again. Upon investigation people actually saw him reenter the race. He was confronted by the USATF, asked to explain his behavion. hed refused and disappeared from the racing scene. He was a well to do CEO of a major company too. This exact scenerio happened in a race here in California within the past few months. People do cheat.
When I was 40 and running 52.5 I was thinking about going to the Nationals. Along came a guy that summer who was running toe 400 2 seconds faster than me and the 200 a second faster. He was buff. He was at a meet at Irvine and I asked my wife to look at him and tell me if he looked 40. She took a quick glance at his sleep abdoman and said, “No”. He went to the Nationals and won the 200 and 400. Later a runner was talking to one of his co workers about how this guy was rewriting the record books. His buddy said, “He’s not 40. He’s 33 just like me!” His friend asked how he knew this guys age. He said, “because we have the same birthdate and used to go out for a drink on our birthdays each year.” Someone had an in with the California DMV, checked his records in Sacramento and found out he was 33, not 40. He was a cheater
Anyone who has been around the sport for a few years has heard stories about athletes or suspected athletes taking PED’s. Read the literature. They are a tremendous boost.
All sports have rules. They have evolved over the years for a reason. We have to stick to them. You don’t complain to the official after three
successive misses in the vault or high jump. Why should you refuse a drug test or complain about being banned if you test positive?
Steve? When he was a skinny eighteen year old twirp he ran 9.5 and 20.9 on a dirt track before PED’S were discovered. He has a God given gift that he has nurtured for many years.
Two things:
1) The reason Stephen’s argument is specious is that when we talk about PED use, we’re not comparing the fastest guy on the track with some guy who doesn’t have the ability or resources to train.
Do we care about someone who takes PEDs and goes from the back of the pack to the middle? Nope, we wouldn’t even notice him/her. (sure his/her friends might, but it really won’t turn any heads).
We’re talking about the people who win, who set national and world records. And the people at that level have access to (or had in the past and no longer need) the same mundane resources that Stephen equated with PEDs.
2) Why didn’t I think about lying about my age?! That’s brilliant! 😉
(Oh, have we discussed the merits and problems with having mandatory-but-random testing for, say, the top 5 finishers in major meets? “Mandatory-but-random” means that there WILL be testing on 2 or 3 of the top 5, selected at random)
Hi Troy–
While realizing that my posts here are far from being very strong, I’ll let them stand, for those with the desire and endurance to get through them.
Yours is an example of failed brevity–full of conclusory statements, lacking any supporting facts or explanation of any analysis.
I know full well that my posts could be construed as testosterone-fueled rants–and ultimately, maybe that is exactly what they are, at their core.
If that is the case, I offer to you my current natural testosterone level as the reason that the PED world, and PED users, are completely foreign to me.
If you are competing at the National or World level, you are by definition vying for a National or World Championship. Some may have no hope of winning or even being competive, but for those who are competive being able to say that you medaled or won in the National or World Championship is an awesome thing. I read Stephan’s business profile and it mentioned his track and field exploits. Being able to say that you are a champion has value and prestige because it denotes that you have attained a level of excellence that few people ever will.
I started running competively when I was 12 years old and I must say that running in the Worlds and coming in second in the 800 at the Nationals at age 47 was something that has great meaning for me. I have heard people say Oh we are just running for medals, but I remember why I ran at 12 and why I run now — I run because I like being able to move fast and to test myself against others. I won lots of medals this year, but the medals are just things. What I think I really won is a new appreciation of life and how my body works and sometimes doesn’t work and I was inspired by the other great competitors. I would have loved to have made it to the finals at the Worlds, but hey there is always another Worlds and there are many days to get ready for the next one. Maybe others don’t share my joy for training and competing, but they are competing for whatever reason that makes them happy. If someone feels the need to take PED’s to compete, I think they need to take a deep look at why they are involved in Masters track at all. I am happy that we have drug testing so that win or lose I will feel that it was an honest competition and as long as I am physically able I will have time to get ready for the next one, and the next one, and the next one…
Well said, Terry!
Agreed, well said Terry!
Thanks Weia and Dave. I feel really passionate about this subject for some reason. I think that I have said all that I can, so now off to do some living and training.
Leave a Reply