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

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.

.

The fact that there arent more whistleblowers makes me wonder too. Like surely there are college kids going pro, only to realize everyone is doping, and take a moral stance against it. Doesnt seem that has ever happened. Like i personally dont like the negative health implications of doping. And everyone else is cool with it? Most these people have other options in life.

Omertà, plain and simple. The track world is too small to throw yourself under the bus and whistle blow. Many involved in the sport don’t want career opportunities closed off by bucking the system. Look at the examples of those who have: Steve Magness was crucified. The Stepanovas basically self-exiled for their own safety.

How do those outcomes make it worthwhile to speak when the entire system is set up to enable—tacitly or explicitly—rampant doping. Shoe companies, agents, meet directors, coaches, USADA, and on down the line.
Cheating is always there, and sometimes people get caught. Those unlucky few will never be enough to turn the tide.

What does people making out have to do with reducing the incidence of doping? Are they too busy playing tonsil hockey to pay attention to drug enhanced performance?

Man, kudos on the positive outlook, but two things to consider:

1. The legal and financial penalties historically hurled at whistleblowers and/or involved persons is intentionally done or encouraged by those that seek to benefit financially from scandals not coming out, as a deterrent.

2. Issam Asinga. dude's got two professional track athlete parents straight outta the dark ages of doping and his defense attorney and witnesses have the balls to go on record saying the doping contamination would be too advanced for a young adolescent athlete to accomplish.

Just like the network of agents in kenya, globally there is a network of behind the scenes actors with money to make off of propping up their horses.

On the other hand, I can totally see high achieving families, especially if parent(s) played a sport in college, giving access to drugs to get them to the top of HS, let alone college or even near the top of the world. Running 44.2 is absurd and is by far the best real HS time we've seen since Ryun (I'm not counting Asinga for obvious reasons) which shows the sky-high talent is there even IF he's on drugs.

But it's for the less good times that still get people admitted, especially to specific types of schools (Stanford et al) where the reward for doping is greater. EPO legitimately can take away about 10 seconds per mile and this isn't even adding SARMs or actual steroids to it - imagine a real 9:00 guy going to 8:40 and getting in anywhere. Or going from 4:09 to 3:59. If you don't think any parent would help facilitate that, especially as it'll likely be higher income parents who want their kids to go to top schools, you're sorely mistaken. Just look at the amount of anti-aging clinics there are and, by word of mouth, find a few that focus on athletic performance.

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).

Dude, watch the Butch Reynolds 30 for 30, see all the crap he got for bucking the system in any way, including getting beat by other athlete's using and you have to see why NOBODY will come forward. P.S. Victor Conte has some videos out to explain a ton of stuff like this including ways federations help protect their own users.

Also love that the 10 ten mens 100 are all users except BOLT, it makes me laugh, cause I know he also used.....

Whoa whoa whoa. I will not abide this blatant, highfalutin disrespect for punctuation. Too many periods, an errant comma. Parentheses being thrown around like confetti? No. I’m not having it. I won’t have it.

Such arguments can be used to prove Santa Claus exists.

I was a decent sprinter in HS. I gave up on T&F when I saw the lack of integrity that exists. What shocked me was the lengths coaches were willing to go, just to win. I was lucky as my academic record was good, so I focused on that. Anyone who is or has been involved in track and field knows how dirty it is.

It is as prevalent as people think.

There will always be doping, and it is EVERYWHERE.

No. He's spot on.
In the absence of direct evidence of widespread systemic doping (outside of a small number of countries) or lack thereof, those two arguments are extremely robust. The tired old LRC "ëverybody's juiced" trope just doesn't fit the profile of the sporadic drug busts that occur and absence of any major expose in the last decade or so. The closest was NOP - but that program was pretty miuch just dabbling with illegality (amongst other improprieties) and the NOP episode shows just how hard it is for that sort of behaviour to remain under wraps.

At least in the US, a lot of doping occurs "legally," in the sense that compliant doctors, often paid by a team, prescribe performance-enhancing drugs as "medically necessary."

For one famous example, google: nike runners thyroid medication

It can easily be evolution in technology and training. But you know nothing about that.

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…

Do you mean whistleblowers like Jamaican whistleblower Renee Anne Shirley?

Given the improvements in shoes, tracks, and so on, the age of the women’s sprint and lower middle distance world records probably tells you that at least certain types and certain dosages are not quite as prevalent as they were. But I think that’s about the kindest, most positive thing I can say about it. It’s still rampant and maybe in terms of bespoke solutions for long distance ahead of where it was.