Should age-groupers be tested for banned substances?

A comfortable place for anyone and everyone to talk about running

User avatar
La
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 47990
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:11 pm
Location: Lesleyville!

Should age-groupers be tested for banned substances?

Postby La » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:04 pm

There's an article about doping in triathlon in the latest issue of Inside Triathlon. One of the headings in the article says, "Should Age Groupers Be Tested?" I haven't read the entire article yet, but it got me thinking... And the reason I posted here is because it generally applied to running as much as to triathlon.

Currently, only pros/elites are tested. But what about the age grouper? What about the guy who gets the Kona slot? Shouldn't he be tested, too? But then that raises the question of resources to test anyone who qualifies for Boston! Who is to say that someone's BQ time wasn't "assisted" by some banned substance?

As recreational athletes we tend to think that drug testing is only the domain of elites, but what if we all had to be tested? What if my most recent PB wasn't due to my strategic use of GU w/ caffeine, but some other performing enhacing substance? :wink: :lol:

Thoughts?
"Maybe I will be my own inspiration." - UltraMonk (Laura)
"Everywhere is walking distance if you have enough time." - Steven Wright

User avatar
Madame Bourette
Jerome Drayton
Posts: 5253
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 4:42 pm

Postby Madame Bourette » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:25 pm

Nothing wrong with testing the Kona/Clearwater/NY/Boston qualified but it would be a waste of time to test the average Joe who finished a 5h00 Marathon. We don't care and it doesn't change anything if he cheated and should have been around 5h30.
"Ok, j'vais l'faire le maudit Ironman!" North of Hélène, Dec 15, 2008.

Running Mania moderator-in-training

User avatar
Jwolf
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 37476
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:02 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby Jwolf » Mon Mar 31, 2008 6:54 pm

Am I the only one who hates the term "age-groupers"?

Anyway, besides that, I think that for medals, prizes, etc. in big races it's reasonable to do drug testing. I just don't see the practicality for things like Boston qualfiers, New York qualifiers, etc. Where do you draw the line?

There are thousands and thousands of people that would qualify for Boston or New York at so many marathons and half-marathons internationally. Would you have to volunteer yourself for testing if you wanted your result to stand? There's also considerable cost involved-- would it be passed on to the entry fees or would the individual pay?
Support me in my fundraising for the Boston Marathon, Boston Public Library team:
https://www.crowdrise.com/o/en/campaign ... iferwolf11

User avatar
ChrisL
Jerome Drayton
Posts: 7860
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Postby ChrisL » Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:12 pm

Between impractical and useless.

Impractical because these tests are very expensive, in the hundreds of dollars per test. Even if you could take care of the logistics such as the taking urine/blood samples after each races, you would still have to deal with the legal aspects with regard to consents, tampering and security, and the technical aspects with regard to sample transfer, identification, etc.

Useless because while taking some banned substances would help someone finishing ahead of someone else during a specific race, it does not necessarily help to meet a certain standard, i.e. BQ. For example, which would have more influence on someone performance, taking a banned substance or running a particular race in perfect weather condition.

For testing banned substance to be effective, you have to remove factors of greater importance to one's performance; flatness of the course, ambient temperature, wind condition. In a one race where everyone are under the same environmental condition, banned substances can change the result of the race, otherwise, it is useless.
Faster, stronger, meaner....Arrgh, matey!

If you are not first, you're last - Reese Bobby

User avatar
ChrisL
Jerome Drayton
Posts: 7860
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Postby ChrisL » Mon Mar 31, 2008 7:13 pm

Double post.
Faster, stronger, meaner....Arrgh, matey!



If you are not first, you're last - Reese Bobby

User avatar
Jwolf
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 37476
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:02 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby Jwolf » Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:03 pm

cL wrote:For testing banned substance to be effective, you have to remove factors of greater importance to one's performance; flatness of the course, ambient temperature, wind condition. In a one race where everyone are under the same environmental condition, banned substances can change the result of the race, otherwise, it is useless.


I disagree. If drug testing were practical, I would think that races requiring qualifying would do it (requiring those that wanted to qualify to voluntarily do the drug test, thus largely elimnating the legal and ethical factors). Everyone has a choice of where and when to race, and many races are deemed better qualifiers than others. These factors in no way compare to the effects of doping.

It's also quite impractical because to be completely effective and fair, drug-testing would also have to happen during training.
Support me in my fundraising for the Boston Marathon, Boston Public Library team:
https://www.crowdrise.com/o/en/campaign ... iferwolf11

User avatar
Doonst
Abby Hoffman
Posts: 10598
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:17 pm
Location: the corner of Sixth and Where Do I Go?
Contact:

Postby Doonst » Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:13 pm

Where do I pee? (my one splash in the pan)
Image
next up:


This broken wing will fly again
One fine day
This blackbird's mute gonna sing again
One fine day

So all you sinners come out
And all you drunkards crawl out
Come into the light of one fine day

User avatar
ultraslacker
Site Admin
Posts: 46890
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:33 pm
Location: paradise
Contact:

Postby ultraslacker » Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:25 pm

well, if they were going to broaden it out I think it would only make sense to do it for things like Kona where you are competing against *other* people for a spot. With Boston, it doesn't matter to anyone else whether you make it in or not. In my opinion the point of testing is that the drugs give athletes an unfair advantage against their competition. And in local races where age-group winners aren't winning purses, I don't think it would be worth the trouble.
"You're an ultrarunner, normal rules don't apply to you." (Doonst)


First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do. ~Epictetus

User avatar
ChrisL
Jerome Drayton
Posts: 7860
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 8:40 pm
Location: Ottawa, Ontario

Postby ChrisL » Mon Mar 31, 2008 8:54 pm

Jwolf wrote:
cL wrote:For testing banned substance to be effective, you have to remove factors of greater importance to one's performance; flatness of the course, ambient temperature, wind condition. In a one race where everyone are under the same environmental condition, banned substances can change the result of the race, otherwise, it is useless.


I disagree. If drug testing were practical, I would think that races requiring qualifying would do it (requiring those that wanted to qualify to voluntarily do the drug test, thus largely elimnating the legal and ethical factors). Everyone has a choice of where and when to race, and many races are deemed better qualifiers than others. These factors in no way compare to the effects of doping.

It's also quite impractical because to be completely effective and fair, drug-testing would also have to happen during training.


Maybe we'll agree to disagree.

There are two type of doping; one to increase strength and one to increase stamina. The first one use substance like steroids, the other tend to increase the amount of oxygen carried in the blood, i.e. epo. Of course, combination are used along with stimulants like amphetamines. It is unlikely that someone by him/herself would be able to gain access to epo. Steroids are easier to get but would not have as great an effect. This leave amphetamines which could have some effect. Would this make a 5hr marathoner become a 3hr20m marathoner; I very much doubt it. Would this make a 3hr30m marathoner, a 3hr10m marathoner; not quite sure. However, could a 3hr30m marathoner in Mexico at 30C become a 3hr10m in Ottawa at 10C, I am sure it could.

The advantage that drugs gives are in direct competition where seconds or less are the difference between first place and last. It is not going to mean much to middle-of-the-pack where better training would have greater influence than drugs.
Faster, stronger, meaner....Arrgh, matey!



If you are not first, you're last - Reese Bobby

User avatar
Jwolf
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 37476
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:02 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby Jwolf » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:08 pm

cL wrote:There are two type of doping; one to increase strength and one to increase stamina. The first one use substance like steroids, the other tend to increase the amount of oxygen carried in the blood, i.e. epo.


Drug use also allows athletes to recover faster and train harder. This is an obvious advantage but again one that would be hard to test for, making race-day testing less valid. Also, the use of caffeine during a race is known to aid performance; it's not too much of a leap to think that other stimulants could help. It might only be 5-10 minutes or less over a marathon, but that's significant for someone on the cusp of qualifiying.

I just don't see how you can put even this advantage, however small, in the same category as the "fairness" of different courses, weather conditions, etc, even if these factors made more of a difference.
Support me in my fundraising for the Boston Marathon, Boston Public Library team:
https://www.crowdrise.com/o/en/campaign ... iferwolf11

User avatar
Crystal
Johnny Miles
Posts: 117
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 3:45 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

Postby Crystal » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:19 pm

I'm not sure how it works right now but heres my general two cents:

I personally believe anyone who places in an accomplished race should be put under scrutiny, regardless of age.

As for testing all qualifiers for events like the Boston in order to minimize doping.. well why not random drug testing? I think that that is a logical way to approach such large numbers. Obviously it doesn't eliminate all of the people who should have been doping but it gives people that worry factor. If that isn't there people WILL take advantage of limited policing and doping will become a bigger issue.
You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. - Wayne Gretzky
Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there! - Will Rogers

rundmc
Bruce Kidd
Posts: 839
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: location, location!
Contact:

Postby rundmc » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:47 pm

I'm pretty sure that only a triathlete would go out and buy EPO to marginally improve performance in a meaningless way. No one would risk their lives to go from 2:50 to 2:30. It makes no sense in any way, especially the way in which it has to make sense: economics. It costs thousands of dollars a year to use drugs. Tyler Hamilton spent $43,000 in 2003, to give one example.

Testing for these drugs also doesn't make sense for the same reason: one test costs roughly as much as the entry to most races.

Drugs are very effective, however. Irish runner Cathal Lombard is probably the best example of what happens when you take a so-so runner and put him on drugs. He went from 14:30/30:00 to 13:18/27:30 within 18 months, or from being a guy who would sometimes win a little bit of money at road races to qualifying for the Olympics.
"He could eat a candy bar and run 63 seconds."

- commentator on Hicham El Guerrouj

User avatar
Jwolf
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 37476
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:02 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby Jwolf » Mon Mar 31, 2008 9:54 pm

rundmc wrote:I'm pretty sure that only a triathlete would go out and buy EPO to marginally improve performance in a meaningless way. No one would risk their lives to go from 2:50 to 2:30.
They don't see it as risking their lives, though. Long term health problems are probably more likely than death. And with the tens of thousands of runners trying to qualify for Boston or New York, I'm sure there are some using drugs. There have to be.
Support me in my fundraising for the Boston Marathon, Boston Public Library team:
https://www.crowdrise.com/o/en/campaign ... iferwolf11

rundmc
Bruce Kidd
Posts: 839
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: location, location!
Contact:

Postby rundmc » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:04 pm

Jwolf wrote:And with the tens of thousands of runners trying to qualify for Boston or New York, I'm sure there are some using drugs. There have to be.
No one that slow is that hardcore or takes the sport that seriously. If you were really that serious, you'd train harder before you'd go and spend $10,000 and risk your life. The risk-reward ratio is ridiculously favoured towards risk.
"He could eat a candy bar and run 63 seconds."



- commentator on Hicham El Guerrouj

User avatar
Jwolf
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 37476
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:02 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby Jwolf » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:10 pm

Adeel, you talk in such absolutes, but I have to doubt the supreme purity of everyone trying to get to Boston or New York by qualifying. Just because they are "that slow" doesn't mean that some of them won't be looking for an easier way. I'm not necessarily talking about expensive drugs, but perhaps easy-to-obtain banned stimulants or steroids.
Support me in my fundraising for the Boston Marathon, Boston Public Library team:
https://www.crowdrise.com/o/en/campaign ... iferwolf11

User avatar
ultraslacker
Site Admin
Posts: 46890
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:33 pm
Location: paradise
Contact:

Postby ultraslacker » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:14 pm

it's definitely the nature of nature to seek out the path of least resistance. A person wouldn't have to spend $43k to do it, either--there are your everyday, over-the-counter steroids too. I'll bet there are LOTS of people who do it, regardless of whether Adeel may deem them "serious" or not. ;)
"You're an ultrarunner, normal rules don't apply to you." (Doonst)


First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do. ~Epictetus

User avatar
ultraslacker
Site Admin
Posts: 46890
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 5:33 pm
Location: paradise
Contact:

Postby ultraslacker » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:15 pm

Jwolf wrote:Adeel, you talk in such absolutes


he's young still. ;)
"You're an ultrarunner, normal rules don't apply to you." (Doonst)


First say to yourself what you would be; and then do what you have to do. ~Epictetus

User avatar
Jwolf
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 37476
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:02 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby Jwolf » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:16 pm

klewlis wrote:I'll bet there are LOTS of people who do it, regardless of whether Adeel may deem them "serious" or not. ;)
Exactly!
Support me in my fundraising for the Boston Marathon, Boston Public Library team:
https://www.crowdrise.com/o/en/campaign ... iferwolf11

User avatar
turd ferguson
Ben Johnson
Posts: 28512
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 12:11 am
Location: It's a funny name
Contact:

Postby turd ferguson » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:16 pm

rundmc wrote:
Jwolf wrote:And with the tens of thousands of runners trying to qualify for Boston or New York, I'm sure there are some using drugs. There have to be.
No one that slow is that hardcore or takes the sport that seriously. If you were really that serious, you'd train harder before you'd go and spend $10,000 and risk your life. The risk-reward ratio is ridiculously favoured towards risk.


If that were true, why are drugs so prevalent in just about every weightlifting gym? Maybe runners think about things differently, but I doubt it.

Lots of people would take a shortcut if it were available and if the risk were sufficiently uncertain or far into the future.

I don't think there should be drug testing of non-elites, for the practicality and cost reasons given above, but I don't doubt that there are lots of people with money to burn and lots of motivation to take shortcuts.
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." - Douglas Adams

User avatar
Jwolf
Kevin Sullivan
Posts: 37476
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:02 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby Jwolf » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:17 pm

klewlis wrote:
Jwolf wrote:Adeel, you talk in such absolutes


he's young still. ;)


yeah, but i have the idea that he`ll always talk like that! ;)
Support me in my fundraising for the Boston Marathon, Boston Public Library team:
https://www.crowdrise.com/o/en/campaign ... iferwolf11

rundmc
Bruce Kidd
Posts: 839
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: location, location!
Contact:

Postby rundmc » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:32 pm

klewlis wrote:A person wouldn't have to spend $43k to do it, either--there are your everyday, over-the-counter steroids too.
I'll grant that there might be steroid use, which isn't really that useful for distance-running, but even steroid use has signs. Have you ever seen a runner with an enlarged head? Someone in their 40s who developed acne? Suddenly went bald?

Has anyone reading this ever heard of a single case of, say, a 3:30 marathoner turning to drugs to get down to 3:15? I've never heard of a single case or so much as a rumour. If this happened, people would talk about it, which is how you know that high school football players do steroids. I've met thousands of runners at all levels, and I've never heard of this idea until today. Yes, it's possible that there might be a dozen Type A guys at Boston who took drugs to get there, but there is absolutely no evidence to suggest it, and logic would dictate otherwise.
"He could eat a candy bar and run 63 seconds."



- commentator on Hicham El Guerrouj

User avatar
SuperboB
Bill Crothers
Posts: 1624
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 11:27 am
Location: Victoria
Contact:

Postby SuperboB » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:59 pm

I also hate the age grouper term.

I'd be insulted if I was forced to be tested for banned substances. Sure I may look slow but do you really have to rub it in?
Up next...
More running!

User avatar
Corpus Cani
Tom Longboat
Posts: 458
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:33 pm
Location: A Flawed Utopia

Postby Corpus Cani » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:55 pm

I have a confession to make.
10 or 20 years ago suffering with a head cold, I dosed up with two Sudafed tablets (contains small amounts of pseudoephedrine) prior to running the State 12km.XC.
Did it improve my performance, or our teams performance in 'B' grade?

Not one little bit!!

But thanks to my drug taking I did manage to get around and our team remained in contention for season premiership
(I think we finished 8th. that year)


Jwolf wrote:Am I the only one who hates the term "age-groupers"?


No "jwolf", I do too. There's only one competition - Open Competition.
Not the quarry but the chase,
not the trophy but the race.

User avatar
Sir Crashalot
Abby Hoffman
Posts: 10531
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 12:33 pm
Location: Montreal, QC

Postby Sir Crashalot » Tue Apr 01, 2008 6:05 am

Testing everyone is impractical & expensive... so test the top 5 of every age groupers & if they get caught, ban them from the current & following season, not only from the big races like Kona & Boston but at the national, provincial, & local associations. Further, take away any age group ranking that they had in the past as well. Make the penalty so harsh that it will basically ruin all their hard work since the beginning of their days.
As for the "age grouper" thing, some people need that award/ranking thing, take out the age group award & you might lose a chunk of folks who attend these things. Call it bragging rights for the above dull normals :lol: :lol: :lol: If your goal is to be 499th/9063 total, all the power to you! Or, you could be 2nd in your age group.... not too shabby sounding now... I won't have that problem for a very very long time... unless they start handing out awards for the bottom dwellers :lol: :lol: :lol:
Image Fortes Fortuna Juvat!
In support of injured Canadian Forces soldiers, please donate to Soldier On! http://www.cfpsa.com/Splashpages/SoldierOn/
Never really ready but always ready!

User avatar
scrumhalfgirl
Lynn Williams
Posts: 19368
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 11:50 am
Location: Ottawa

Postby scrumhalfgirl » Tue Apr 01, 2008 7:58 am

Interesting discussion.

I played varsity rugby, and as such was subjected to the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport drug testing program. In fact, I was actually randomly tested following a playoff game in my second year – at 5’2” and all of 110 lbs – a prime suspect for doping.

It was an extremely stressful process, and took a fair amount of time. They only tested 4 of us, and it took over an hour. Can you imagine the logistics of testing all the BQ-ers or age-group winners at a tri or road race, in addition to pros? More importantly, I think, is that the restrictions placed on us where very stringent and it was a challenge to avoid accidentally taking banned substances – say good bye to your inhaler if you got bronchitis, or any sort of cough and cold medication. A trip to the drug store was like walking through a mine field!

Yes – there are likely those out there taking banned substances for the purposes of improved performance (I think Mike’s comparison to the juice-monkeys down at your local weight room is a good one), but I think the demands placed on the average competitor would be so extreme, that it wouldn’t be realistic.
Jesse's 2017 Plans
April - Boston Marathon
May - Sporting Life Ottawa 10K
May - Ottawa Half Marathon


Return to “General Running Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 77 guests