UKC

6 and 5 year bans handed out and now over 60 athletes suspended for illegal drug taking…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/africa/64043612

You’re named “Purity” and you take PEDs 😀

Have to say that they have let this escalate for way too long and the action being taken is too late. I’m not going to be looking at the next world class marathon time put up with anything other than cynicism.

In reply to Wimlands:

I watched the Valencia marathon livestream and Kiptum's performance was just unreal. Did you see the splits? 30 - 35km in 14 mins flat. 35 - 40km in 14:05. Overall 15 second negative split to finish in 2:01:53, the third or fourth fastest marathon of all time? In his marathon debut. Age 23. I would love to believe it, but given what's going on with Kenyan athletes at the moment I don't think I can. Lifetime bans are the answer IMO.

In reply to Wimlands:

It's become very depressing, and has been on this trajectory for some time. 

There was a time when the rise of East African athletes was to be applauded, but now, as you say, it's very hard to take their results seriously. 

The sheer number of athletes testing positive is a major concern. It cannot be far short of the kind of state-sponsored doping we have seen in Russia, albeit with possibly less direct involvement from the sports ministry. 

Do we know what benefit is derived from triamcinolone acetonide? The article describes it as an anti-inflammatory, but not say how it helps athletes. 

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Apparently… “reduces weight and increases strength and endurance”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triamcinolone_acetonide

The faking of prescriptions and the awareness of what they are doing is all pretty depressing.

Personally I think next year they should consider making events such as the London marathon a non elite event and not pay appearance money etc

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Triamcinalone/Kenalog was what was supposedly given to Wiggins before the Dauphine in 2012. But he had a TUE so it was all gravy.

A medic friend said 'we give that to renal patients, why would they give it to someone with asthma?' I think 2007 tour leader (before getting busted) Michael Rasmussen said it makes you feel amazing. Pictures from the time show him looking like a stick man.

In reply to Nic Barber:

Kenalog was routinely (daily) used for steroid injections when I worked in a large fracture clinic a decade ago as an anti-inflammatory. I’ve no idea if it’s application in sports medicine is commonplace, though, as this was very rarely the profile of patients in clinic & those that were sports people were invariably out with injury. 

In reply to Harry Jarvis:

As per my previous post, Kenalog is routinely used in fracture clinics (or certainly was a decade ago when I worked in one) as an anti-inflammatory injection. I’m sure that some athletes have genuine reason to be administered a Kenalog injection, though it is indeed depressing to note that prescription meds are seemingly evermore routinely misused as PEDs (see also nebuliser misusage for asthma symptoms - I was given one of these for home usage on a few occasions as a child with acute asthma, at which point I couldn’t have contemplated exercise). 

In reply to Wimlands:

bit harsh on Kenya- a country with no stripped olympic medals - unlike many..

In reply to magma:

I agree. I think it’s best to avoid talking n generalities. State sponsored doping happened in East Germany &, more recently, in Russia. I am hesitant to suggest that those who dope/have doped are victims (again, this is talking in generalities) but I suspect there has been an element of strong-arming, coercion & outright abuse in some cases (see the cases of teenage girls competing in gymnastics for E Germany in the 60s & 70s). However, that is not to say that there aren’t athletes out there (past & present) with nefarious motives - there most certainly are. 

In reply to samuel_w:

always amuses me that the 'cleanest olympics' turned out to be the dirtiest (2012, London)

amazing we did so well without any PEDs.

In reply to magma:

Hmm, I always thought the men's 1988 Olympic 100 meters final was the dirtiest race in history, but looking it up it seems the women’s 1,500 meters at London 2012 puts in a decent shout in that regard.

In reply to felt:

'By the time they had finished going through all the samples, eight of the Top 14 had been disqualified and banned'

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/17/the-dirty-games-how-london-20...

reminds me - world's strongest man just starting..

In reply to magma:

The figure that 3% of the competitors at the 2012 games have failed drugs tests is pretty depressing…

In reply to Wimlands:

It is indeed depressing.
 

What’s more, I’ve become ever more cynical of some performances from some at the higher end of amateur club running, particularly from those who seemingly come out of the blue to posting outstanding times. I hope I am just being cynical and it is misplaced pessimism, though I’d heard talk of similar happening in cycling.

In reply to magma:

Ah, thanks for the reminder!

In reply to samuel_w:

I think amateur bike racing in the USA is rife with PEDs. I don’t get the same impression in the UK but there is the odd local cyclist I’m suspicious of. 

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

I'd be surprised if it wasn't rife in the UK as well. People want to be like the pros, and will aim to emulate what they see. I wonder about the longevity of many masters athletes who consistently bash out huge weeks and beast races. 

In reply to NorthernGoat:

A cousin's son is involved in drugs testing and I've heard when they turn up for an amateur cycling race a bunch of middle aged men suddenly find they have to be somewhere else.

In reply to NorthernGoat:

A few years old now, but I remember reading this article by well-respected cycling journalist William Fotheringham on the subject. Makes for a grim read & has long made me wonder how prevalent doping may be in the higher levels of amateur competition in running (amongst other sports). 
 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/mar/09/doping-cycling-uci-commission...

In reply to samuel_w:

I can see why professionals might be tempted to dope, basically better performance means more income.

But where's the attraction for amateurs? Is it merely for more kudos/status by winning more competitions or being better placed in competitions?

I could understand it more in an activity like recreational climbing, if substance whatever gave you that bit extra so that you could climb route X that had always been just out of reach, then you might accept whatever health risk the drug involved to get that extra push.

In reply to Michael Hood:

In running, at the top level of amateur competition you’re likely sub-elite or even elite (but not world class). Those at towards the front end of Blue Ribband road races, track meets, road relays & National XC competitions.  I suppose the lure of taking the next step to professionalism, more lucrative sponsorships etc may be a motivation, along with the kudos - though I am only speculating. I still think it’s likely pretty rare & the vast majority of those competing at the sharp end in the aforementioned are talented, work hard & run clean. I’d be lying though if I said that some performances hadn’t aroused suspicion.  

In reply to Michael Hood:

I think some people are just so competitive that the will to win overcomes any scruples they might have. Winning is just so important to them.

Once that starts then others look and think I used to be better than him/her. Then comes the realisation that the only way to compete with your peers is to cheat as well.

Depressing 

In reply to Michael Hood:

I’m curious why you think it would be understandable in amateur climbing but not other sports? Climbing 8a isn’t any more meaningful than running a 1:20 half marathon or whatever, and the drive to achieve the next milestone or target is the same regardless of whether you’re travelling vertically or horizontally. 

If anything I understand it less in climbing where there isn’t much focus on competitive events that happen on fixed dates. 

In reply to samuel_w:

I was sort of including those amateurs who aspire to be professionals in "professionals" - same motivations

In reply to Stuart Williams:

I was careful to say "recreational climbing", it's not competing with anyone, purely personal - you're not "depriving" anyone with your improved performance (I realise of course that there's social competition but that is, or should be, informal).

In any kind of competitive event, your improved performance through taking drugs "deprives" others by pushing them down in the results. 

If you just wanted to run 13 miles 192.5 yards by yourself in a faster time then that would be similar to my scenario.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Yeah, I assumed you meant non-competitive climbing. No confusion there. My confusion was around your reasoning.

That’s kinda the point of cheating. Someone who has decided to cheat in a competitive event isn’t going to be thinking “I’d better not, I might accidentally beat someone”  

Isn’t it a pretty much a given that a more competitive setting increases the likelihood of cheating? If you’re competing against others it’s not enough to just improve against your own previous best, you are aiming to beat an undefined future performance by another person. That makes it harder to be confident in your preparation and more likely to turn to cheating to get an extra edge. Amateur running and cycling aren’t as competitive as many sports, but the competitive element is still more salient than in climbing just because of  the nature of races. 

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Oh I agree it's more likely in a competitive setting, it's just that I can understand why professionals might cheat and why those aiming to become professionals might cheat. I could also understand somebody using drugs to improve their own personal achievements.

But people cheating simply for status/kudos or that they just can't contemplate losing strike me as rather sad individuals. I just find people like that rather difficult to get my head round.

In reply to Michael Hood:

Still not getting the double standard where it’s okay for climbers but sad for anyone else. Why do you think it would it be about status for a runner or cyclist rather than personal performance? A race result is a personal achievement as much as a climb is. My experience of amateur running and climbing is that the personal motivation to improve is exactly the same.

In reply to Stuart Williams:

I didn't say it was ok for climbers, I said I could understand it more.

The analogous running situation to my recreational climbing scenario would be me taking PEDs to reach a particular target time for one of my local (personal) runs. Doesn't affect anyone else and in some ways it could be viewed as similar to any other improvement regime, diet, weight control, etc.

But for competitive events PEDs are considered cheating and not many disagree with this because they can see that it's an attempt to ensure a level playing field.

I just can't see why anyone would take drugs so that they could be slightly less "mediocre"; e.g. 17th out of 300 rather than 27th. Not saying it doesn't happen, just that I don't understand why anyone would cheat like that unless there was going to be a significant return.

In reply to Michael Hood:

It’s here that I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding how people approach races, apart from elite professionals. For essentially everyone else it’s about achieving a time on a measured course, with a good atmosphere, and without having to wait for traffic etc. It’s about beating or setting a personal best, exactly the same motivation as the climber in your example.

I entered a half marathon recently. I had a time in mind I wanted to beat as a personal milestone but absolutely no thought was given to what position I wanted to come. I certainly wasn’t running for “status” and I couldn’t give a flying fig if the person in front of me took drugs and stopped me coming in 300th instead of 301st. Look at any amateur running website or training plan: the focus is invariably on beating a personal best time. I’ve never seen anyone mention finishing position as important (or mention it at all). 

In reply to Stuart Williams:

I think it's more not remembering rather than misunderstanding ☹

This paragraph made me think, trying to remember my motivation/thinking when I used to do the occasional half (decades ago). And I think I have to agree with you, so award yourself a ⭐ for having "won" this discussion. My target back then was sub 1:30 which I achieved a couple of times (*), and you're right, I didn't consider my finishing position at all.

(*) - the 1st time was on a course described as "undulating" - I was going to treat this as practice/training and then go for sub 1:30 on a flat course a month later. As I entered the finishing field I saw that the official clock was still on 1:29 and went for it.

In reply to Michael Hood:

The only time I went sub 90, they'd mis-measured the course (not by much) so it didn't count!

In reply to Stuart Williams: When I was training at subelite level most all of the people I did sessions with were running sub 67's, and some of us were quite a lot faster than that (including some relatively big names) .  I've been on trips to train with some of them, and didn't really suspect any ill doing... however I do know some ferociously competitive MAMIL's, and those boys I would think are a lot more likely to offend as they are amazingly competitive with others in their peer groups.

Finishing position is important if you're collecting medals - but the only ones that count are regional/national champs, especially cross country.

Somebody I knew tried cycling a bit and got offered a place representing Singapore internationally .. so she started training with the local groups in SW London.  She thought there was a lot of dodgy goings on.  Rugby is bad as well of course

In reply to Michael Hood:

Had to smile at the clock story - my own was at Nottingham half. PP was doing the full marathon but asked me what time I was looking for - I confidently declared 1:23:11. Like you, the clock was showing at the finish and I had to sprint like mad but made it exactly. PP of course had forgotten what I had said. And he did 2:46 ish fo the full race.

In reply to petemeads:

Eddie Hoole- what a tool..

https://road.cc/content/feature/zwift-racing-cleaner-pro-road-racing-298157

In reply to petemeads:

I bet PP said he'd do the full at least as fast as you'd do the half 😁 - I'm sure the Bowline were far more competitive about their running than their climbing.

Just been for a run, 20 years ago that amount of effort would have been 2 minutes/mile quicker ☹, shouldn't grumble, at least I'm still able to do all these things, even if it's at a lower level.

In reply to magma:

A thread from a tri site on doping. If nothing else the first post cites a questionnaire giving 1 in 7 admitting to doping

In reply to Wimlands:

Missing a link?  1 in 7 sounds an awful lot, who was surveyed?

In reply to wbo2:

Sorry, https://forum.slowtwitch.com/forum/Slowtwitch_Forums_C1/Triathlon_Forum_F1/...

I've not read the whole thread, I think the data is from an anonymous questionnaire completed at an Ironman in German. 

In reply to NorthernGoat: Thanks.  The thread isn't very interesting but the Youtube linked to is.  Discusses prevalence deliberate and accidental doping at Ironman Europe and some other things.

In reply to Michael Hood:

 

The links are somewhat old now but do give an interesting view of people trying PEDs out whilst amateur.

https://www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/whats-it-dope/