"Grey Area" Drug Use in Athletes

Everybody is on something.

The greater the level of performance the more likely. But, even middle of the pack-types are boosting performance.

When in college I knew of several students who took special pre-test drugs. Several said they got them from their parents, and they were only for calming their nerves. Their parents wanted them to succeed and get good, high paying, jobs.

Doctor of Meds wrote:

Everybody is on something.

The greater the level of performance the more likely. But, even middle of the pack-types are boosting performance.

When in college I knew of several students who took special pre-test drugs. Several said they got them from their parents, and they were only for calming their nerves. Their parents wanted them to succeed and get good, high paying, jobs.

wrong

everybody is not on something

many are

not everybody

that is the logic used by drug cheats to justify their behavior to themselves

someone had to do it wrote:

that is the logic used by drug cheats to justify their behavior to themselves

and that is the logic salazar used to explain why no Americans where in the top 5 back in 2001.

Uh... yes they are. The only question is whether or not what they're on is banned. It's completely arbitrary:

- Vitamins? Not banned.

- Creatine? Not banned.

- Caffeine? Used to be banned at certain doses, but not anymore. So is it doping? Depends on when you look.

- Pseudoephedrine? Same as caffeine.

- Altitude tents or Nike Oregon Project houses? Not banned.

You get the idea.

Using the definition by the "Sock Doc" in the linked article, practically everyone is "on something" because he is including ibuprofen, caffeine, Red Bull, and so on. One of his examples is Salazar using Prozac for depression when he was running, because he diagnoses Salazar as being depressed from "overtraining syndrome."

Saying anti-depressants and ibuprofen, etc. is a "grey area" is really not accurate. If WADA and USADA don't consider something a PED, then it's not in a "grey area".

Looking at the rest of the website, the "Sock Doc" is a chiropractor who goes around his office in socks or bare feet who relies on "holistic" natural remedies instead of "research". His article is promoting a particular philosophy or ideology and not addressing the PEDs that are actually hurting the sport like EPO, etc. Ibuprofen and anti-depressants aren't the problem, EPO and the rest are.

Dick Pound wrote:

Uh... yes they are. The only question is whether or not what they're on is banned. It's completely arbitrary:

- Vitamins? Not banned.

- Creatine? Not banned.

- Caffeine? Used to be banned at certain doses, but not anymore. So is it doping? Depends on when you look.

- Pseudoephedrine? Same as caffeine.

- Altitude tents or Nike Oregon Project houses? Not banned.

You get the idea.

Actually there are actually world class athletets who are on not on anything you listed above. I know of one such, who is relying solely solely on food and powerade/gatorade. No cafene (bar chocolate), no vitamins, no anti-infalmatories, no altitude, no blood tests etc... It is more than possible to be a world class athlete with a normal diet one's grandmother would reccomend. This is the truth that the kids coming through who read this must understand.

someone had to do it wrote:

wrong

everybody is not on something

many are

not everybody

that is the logic used by drug cheats to justify their behavior to themselves

your response, tells you are on something. being overly defensive is a clear sign you have something to hide.

Drug use or 'grey area' drug use is dependent on the athlete. If an athlete learns to run fast without these supplements/aids then it is not a crutch and the physical mental need loop is avoided. But if an athlete 'needs' these things and gets used to them the physical mental need loop is engaged and suddenly without these supplements performance suffers not necessarily because the supplement actually boosted performance but because the athlete thought it boosted performance and without them the athlete is helpless.

Its this feedback loop that causes some athletes to go further and further into harder and harder drugs with a greater mental feedback loop and greater needs for greater drugs. They then try to justify it to themselves, then that their competition is doing the same thing.

Why must kids understand that there's one, world-class athlete out there who has decided to not take anything, even when it's allowed and might be beneficial to their health?