clickerquicklic wrote: » Does anyone genuinely believe that any medals won in any top athletics races are won cleanly ? I met a guy a few years ago he told he nobody is clean at the top of every sport they are all doping , the best guys have the best doctors. I didn't believe him but have read a lot about doping in sport and it saddens me to say I'd 100% agree with him now. It just seems so pointless watching athletics races either drug them all or find a better way to test , the current testing for EPO is not satisfactory.
Testosterscone wrote: » Unfortunately there are many who will make that lazy assumption. There is no doubt an awful lot of doping in the sport but there are also some genuine athletes who are open an transparent but sadly they get lumped in all the same despite putting in the work. Here is probably one of the better examples;https://www.nazelite.com/
clickerquicklic wrote: » The way it was put to me was say your a 2.05 marathoner who is clean , there are just so many 2.06-2.10 marathoners than could dope and not get caught and take your time, it is hard to argue with that assumption . I love sport and I love competition and would love nothing more to believe its a 100% clean sport I do think there is lots of mid packers running clean but at the very top its hard to see what stops one of the chasing pack taking that extra edge to get ahead.
Chivito550 wrote: » I really do hope your cynical view extends to the likes of soccer and tennis, sports with infinitely more money, and far weaker drug testing systems. Because if you think athletics is 100% dirty, then you better believe those megastar footballers are even more likely to be juiced.
clickerquicklic wrote: » Yeah 100% agree its prevalent in every sport , I do hope I'm wrong but the older I get the more I feel its true. Any top sport if your not doping someone else is and is going to get ahead.
Chivito550 wrote: » The reality is that some dope, some don’t. Some medal winners dope, some don’t. Some last placers dope, some don’t. It is perfectly possible to be clean and beat dopers. There’s only so much doping can do for you, and with the improvements in testing these days, athletes have to micro dose to prevent detection, so as a result the gains are not as big as when you could dope away in the 80s and have almost no chance of being detected. All this gives clean athletes a greater chance. Who’s this fella who gave you all the doom and gloom? A former Irish athlete, or some lad propping up a bar stool?
Testosterscone wrote: » It is also worth taking into account that there are those who are non responders. Drugs aside there is still a hell of alot work put in by these the drugs only facilitate recovery to allow people to work harder more frequently. I think this is a point that most people forget and just see x taking drugs which equates to y seconds/minutes. Plenty that are busted at lower levels because despite the drugs they are still not putting in the work.
skyblue46 wrote: » My problem is more the us and them reporting. Random Russians, Africans and Jamaicans get vilified while questionable off scores for British Demi Gods are ignored by and large.
RuMan wrote: » I'd be amazed given the financial rewards in some other sports are far higher then athletics if doping wasn't more prevalent. I've never really understood why some people dismiss all cyclists and athletes as dopers yet this doesn't happen in other sports. Generally the higher the rewards the more people cheat ( in life not just in sport).
skyblue46 wrote: » The BALCO and Puerto scandals show that it is in all sports. Tennis grand slam champions, Tour de France winners, Champions League winners, every finalist in an Olympic 100m final, baseball, American football...the list goes on. There is also the cases that compare to Michelle deBruin, namely mid career transformations...take a bow Wiggo, Froomey, Paula and Sir Mo.
RuMan wrote: » I don't doubt that it just seems to be that the focus is mostly on athletics and cycling. People seem to hold competitors in those sports to higher standards. There's very little coverage of doping in tennis and football in comparison. Maybe they're cleaner, but it would be strange given salaries of top footballers are multiples of top athletes/cyclists. All those people you mention are covered pretty extensively in comparison to Spanish footballers or indeed tennis players who had links to doctors with questionable reputations.
S.L.F. wrote: » There's big coverage of doping in Tennis. The field isn't as vast as athletics though so it seems like less coverage.
skyblue46 wrote: » It's generally accepted that some of the top players 3/6 month injury breaks are in fact behind the doors doping bans.
walshb wrote: » Who accepts this?
skyblue46 wrote: » Anyone who doesn't believe that tennis is the only sport that missed out on the benefits of doping.
average_runner wrote: » Only way to combat drugs in sport is to limit the money in it. Andy Murray has earned 60m, which is a stupid amount. How much has farah earned? Surely better investing that in facilities instead of making people silly rich. Once the money is silly then you will have drugs.
skyblue46 wrote: » I agree, and I don't! Lance Armstrong wouldn't have been exposed if it wasn't for David Walshe and Paul Kimmage. It had nothing to do with drug testing. He never failed a test...nor did Carl Lewis :rolleyes: It wasn't a Spanish club that was at the centre of the scandal it was an Italian Old Lady. I suppose the reason that cycling, athletics and swimming have bigger problems is that so much of ones ability is based on physical prowess. You need other skills for tennis, rugby, football etc but runners and cyclists need speed and endurance which can be improved by drugs.
walshb wrote: » Are you implying that Murray is a cheat?
S.L.F. wrote: » https://www.thescore.com/news/1084117
average_runner wrote: » Did I imply farah was?
