Why I think doping isn't as widespread as people.make out. ,(DISCUSS!)

Chris lewis wrote:

MattBenson wrote:

There's a lot of throwing names under the bus and broad unsupported claims that every pro athlete must be doping

I want to look at the converse - arguments that reject this idea.

1. The vast majority of athletes banned are caught by failing drug tests either by positive results or whereabout failures. Surely if doping is so wide spread we'd have at least some whistle-blowers. Either disgruntled underachieving athletes in the system, sports scientists whose naive ideologies were broken or people actually supplying the drug. It wouldn't be hard to collect evidence and there would be money and protection in coming out. Alas we get none???

2. Where does it start. Young progidties such as Phoebe Gill or Quincy Wilson are running elite olympic qualifying times at 16 and 17. Perhaps it's naive of me but how would an athlete this young with no support network living at home acquire and administrate PED's. And if they can run these times clean then why can't adults.

Cheating still exists, always will, but obviously not as widespread as it was up to 1988 olympics before drug testing got more serious with random testing out of competition.

Merely being clean for a championship was far too easy prior to 1988.

Today, cheating is much harder but there is likely to be those who know how to master microdosing.

Corruption is also more probable in some countries.

Each year the testing becomes more sophisticated and much harder to cheat, but it may always be a catch up game.

.

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But didn't you just tell all of us: 1. Doping in track is an individual activity. How do whistleblowers know what anyone else is doing? Do they know their competitors' tax liabilities as well? Do dopers tell other runners what they are doing? What is the incentive to be a whistleblower? In cycling whistleblowing came as part of a team and from cyclists who had been caught doping and were hoping for a lighter sanction. That isn't the environment in track.

I guess when push comes to shove, you don't really believe anything you say. Otherwise, how would any whistleblowers including Jamaican whistleblower Renee Anne Shirley know anything about doping in track? Did she simply dope herself individually, because that is the environment in track?

Renee Ann Shirley was an investigator, she wasn't another athlete or coach purporting to blow the whistle on their colleagues - which is what some here think is where most whistleblowers come from. Shirley spent a lot of time investigating Jamaican sport and the nature of doping in pro sport generally. It gained her death threats. But experts like her are a minority.

The point about whistleblowers in individual sports is that an athlete is likely to know no more about what their colleagues are doing than they would know about their tax liabilities. That is unless athletes are careless enough to talk about what they are doing. Suspicions aren't "whistleblowing".

justanothercuriousdude wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

1. Doping in track is an individual activity. How do whistleblowers know what anyone else is doing? Do they know their competitors' tax liabilities as well? Do dopers tell other runners what they are doing? What is the incentive to be a whistleblower? In cycling whistleblowing came as part of a team and from cyclists who had been caught doping and were hoping for a lighter sanction. That isn't the environment in track.

2. Youngsters can dope - and do. It is known to occur in schools. It may show in spectacular age performances - which we are seeing. There are massive pbs and exceptional performances occurring everywhere now, including adults. That can easily be doping.

3. Confidential athlete surveys have indicated doping is widespread at championship level and far more than the numbers caught. The incentives to dope remain and the chances of being caught are slim - except for "the dumb and the careless".

4. It is found in every sport at the top level and in all countries. Antidoping remains behind doping (Howman).

I don’t find anything to criticise in your post here. And I also think doping probably will be a factor also in the future, (maybe a huge one), despite promises of far better testing methods…

But I also think there’s a lot that can be done (better):

1. Testing to reveal micro dosing -if all athletes had to have their phones on all the time (but on silent mode when at sleep -there are functions that will allow only testers to override that mode, and break through with their calls) also between 11 pm and 6 am, athletes could be tested 24/7…

2. Upping investigation of certain athletes: Wada could make alliances with journalists that specialise in digging into well hidden material. -Must of course be done in a way that doesn’t violate athletes human rights…

3. WA and IOC could pressure shoe companies and the countries that host championships to found way more research (and testing). -It’s hilarious that you and I pretty much only has these old and very sketchy athlete surveys (with material from 2011), and some blood doping research based on champs in 2011 and 2013, (again very sketchy because of the lack of proper altitude training information / adjustments), and some more old and superficial research to discuss…

Just some spontaneous brain storming from me here…

Armstronglivs wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

But didn't you just tell all of us: 1. Doping in track is an individual activity. How do whistleblowers know what anyone else is doing? Do they know their competitors' tax liabilities as well? Do dopers tell other runners what they are doing? What is the incentive to be a whistleblower? In cycling whistleblowing came as part of a team and from cyclists who had been caught doping and were hoping for a lighter sanction. That isn't the environment in track.

I guess when push comes to shove, you don't really believe anything you say. Otherwise, how would any whistleblowers including Jamaican whistleblower Renee Anne Shirley know anything about doping in track? Did she simply dope herself individually, because that is the environment in track?

Renee Ann Shirley was an investigator, she wasn't another athlete or coach purporting to blow the whistle on their colleagues - which is what some here think is where most whistleblowers come from. Shirley spent a lot of time investigating Jamaican sport and the nature of doping in pro sport generally. It gained her death threats. But experts like her are a minority.

The point about whistleblowers in individual sports is that an athlete is likely to know no more about what their colleagues are doing than they would know about their tax liabilities. That is unless athletes are careless enough to talk about what they are doing. Suspicions aren't "whistleblowing".