Run-Down Forums

[Dan]

We don't strongly disagree, just somewhat. I agree that drugs cannot turn a non-athlete into a world champ -- the ability has to be there in the first place -- but I do think a proper drug regimen can take an athlete to a level they would not be able to achieve without it. There is just so much the body can do naturally without breaking down. Extending that limit indefinitely can only help, obviously. Even if we don't know how far the limit can be extended, it seems apparent that it can be extended at least some, which would imply people can become better on drugs than the possibly can without.

[Conway]

Sounds like dirty chickens to me if they're hittin ...

I would agree that drugs are an aid ... And add "something" to the process ... Just feel that until we are able to alter genes - and therefore the actual physical structure of an individual - that we are not creating anything that doesn't aready exist within the structure of the person ...

Therefore I veiw drugs as an artificial "training" aid ... I think that distinction is important ... Because as currently viewed, the idea of drug use is that "it" "creates" better performances ... And I do not believe that it does ... It may provide the assistance to achieve the performance - and again how "much" assistance is debatable becasue I don't think we really know ...

While I do not support drug use, I also do not support the treatment of the athlete as an "also ran" who was only able to achieve because of the drugs !!! For example the fact that ALL of Ben's marks were "rescinded" does not bear testament to the performances themselves !!! What Ben did was wrong !!! But what Ben did was also fantastic !!! And unfortunately we do not seem to be able to differentiate between the two in this sport ... And I think that is a travesty .... Why can't the marks be kept (they were run by human being on this planet under acceptable conditions) but with a mark and rendered inelligible for record consideration ????

But then that gets us back to how the whole drug thing is being handled anyway ...

[Dan]

I agree with most all of what you are saying, except for one little thing -- the definition of "aid." Drugs are definitely an aid in the technical sense, but you seem to be defining an aid as merely a boost, not something to help achieve what you cannot do without it. Can a person hard of hearing accomplish better hearing without a hearing aid?

Dan

[Conway]

Hmmmmm ... I see a slight distinction with you hard of hearing person ... That is, this individual is limited from the start ... His/her potential is clearly defined ... In the case of sprinters we are talking about individuals that are NOT handicapped in their sprinting ... They are already fast ... Already faster than "normal" folks ... So the question then becomes how much "boost" are they truly gaining ... And how much was already there ??? And in some cases the question may even be "how much speed was just sitting there waiting to be brought out ???"

[Dan]

Well, fast is quite relative. Isn't the clean athlete's potential already pre-defined, similar to the hearing example? We may never be able to determine what that limit is, but that doesn't mean it isn't there from the beginning.

Dan

[Conway]

Predefined AND in existence ... He has a large degree of speed - compared to the general populace ... Whereas the hearing impared is exactly that - impared ... Now if we want to compare like/similar "objects", let's take the couch potato and begin an East German type program and see where we can get him ... The answer would be somewhere between the couch and the track !!!

I guess what I am saying is that the "success curve" rises greatly with the existing ability ... As such would lend more support to the fact that the growth of the "curve" is more dependent upon the existing ability than not ....

[Dan]

If two athletes are otherwise nearly identical but one has some genetic advantage (say, longer legs relative to overall height), wouldn't that make the other somewhat impaired in terms of head to head comparison?

I don't see that the couch potato is any more relevant than the hearing example. The couch potato is too far removed from the athletic profile we're talking about to have any realistic chance of making up ground on elite athletes even with a structured drug program.

Dan

[Conway]

OK .. How about Alan Webb ?? A young gifted athletic young man who has hope of turning the middle distance world on its ear .. What if he decided he'd rather run after Mo than ElG ???

We put him on Ben's old program - since Ben is the poster Boy for better performance through drugs ... Does Webb go 9.79 ??? 9.89 ?? 9.99 ??? Heck, can we get him under 10.50 ???

He's young and gifted ... Certainly no couch potato ... We have the technology ... We can rebuild him !!! (Showing age if anyone recognizes that) ... What can we make him however ???

[Dan]

I still say that example is no more relevant than my totally ridiculous hearing aid example. Again, saying that drugs can get you to a level you could not get to otherwise is not at all the same as saying anyone can be taken to that level. We're talking about hundreths of a second separating millionaires from also-rans. Once an athlete gets to that 10-flat level, those hundreths become a very precious commodity, one which many athletes are probably incapable of discovering without assistance. The thing is, we really have no way to know what we're actually talking about, because we may be comparing clean 10.00 runners to assisted 9.95 runners and not even know it...

Dan

[Justin]

There's no doubt that at the moment of birth each person has a unique and verying degree of genetic potential not just in running but in absolutely everything.

However, the idea of a level playing field (in which each person achieves according to the extent to which they succeed in unlocking that potential through hard work etc) is a complete fantasy. Is the baby born in a modern, hi-tech hospital to a well-off, healthy family or in a hut in a village? In a stable, well-off society or a drought-hit warzone? The realisation of potential is not solely in the hands of the individual's work ethic.

I make this point because the idea of the 'natural' level playing field is one of the cornerstones of PE drug policy. The idea is that by taking drugs an athlete's performances reflect something other than their the formula of "natural ability + hard work". But some athletes already have vast 'unnatural' advantages, not related at all to their natural ability but to their society, parents, wealth and opportunity.

So, trying to tell (for the sake of argument) a Kenyan farmer that taking PE drugs gives him an 'unnatural advantage' is absurd - what about the unnatural advantages that western runners have in medical science, university scholarships and not having to worry about buying food?

All of which, I believe, demonstrates the weakness of the drug rules in t&f - they do not have a clearly expressed moral foundation but are dependent on the imposition on everyone of a particular set of personal values about which sensible people can easily disagree.

For example, most people agree that anabolic steroids are pure artificial aid. But HGH? Testosterone? Perfectly natural. What if someone is born with 9.50 potential in their leg muscles but a low testosterone level? Is artificial boosting of their testosterone to a normal level cheating, or leveling the pleying field? Why isn't it illegal to take 5000mg of vitamin C a day? Why is it ok to give a crocked athlete a cortisone injection so thay can race even though without it they can't walk? Everyone draws their own personal line in a different place, it's impossible to define a coherent set of illegal substances, which is why it's all such a mess.

Justin

[Dan]

I'm with you on all the reasoning, but to clarify, are you saying (or if you aren't saying, do you think) that drugs can or cannot make an athlete what they are otherwise?

Dan

[Justin]

Your question requires us to consider two versions of an athlete, one version which has trained without drugs and one which has used drugs. Clearly, all other things being equal, the athlete who has used drugs will perform at a higher level.

Thus, drugs help an athlete achieve performances that they would not otherwise be capable of.

The same is true of living in a stable society, not having to worry about food, good healthcare, full-time training, university scholarships, a stable home life, supportive parents, a good diet and a good education. All these things kick in from birth, meaning that the idea of a pure, natural state for the 'clean' athlete and a false, 'unnatural' state for the athlete using drugs is completely absurd.

I thus see the question as somewhat esoteric, either trite (of course it's true that drugs make you quicker) or impossibly complex (why isolate just one of dozens of non talent related factors?).

As a PS, I think that Johnson's poor form on his return from his first drug ban is not good evidence for how fast he might have been without 'roids. There is a huge mental element in using drugs as well and I don't doubt that Johnson simply did not believe he could succeed without the drugs. Had he never taken them, I am still pretty sure he would have been a sub 10 runner. My main support for that contention is that no-one has run faster than Johnson managed in 1988, and I refuse to believe that none of the sprinters who tried and failed to get near that time during those 13 yrs used drugs. If Johnson was just an ordinary sprinter who got great through drugs, other ordinary sprinters would have had the same success since. I think he probably always was the best of his generation and what we saw was what happens when the best gets better.

Justin

[Dan]

I see what you're saying now (I didn't quite connect the dots the first time), and I definitely agree with it.

Dan

[Conway]

I defintely agree with Justin ... Yes I do think the drugs help ... They have to ... But we get back to Dan's silk purse and sows ear ... That just can't happen ... I also agree with Justin regarding societal advantages ... In spite of what may be the worst system in teh world for nurturing and developing athletes, the Untied STates has manintained its position as the #1 track country in the world !!! Why ??? Because we have the highest standard of living in the world ... And THAT is a natural advantage - above drugs ....

And you're right Justin ... Miss this forum for a day or two and you miss a lot ...

[Dan]

Conway, I was never saying that drugs by themselves can make up for any/all other factors or that we can isolate any one factor to see what it's overall effect is. What I was saying is that, everything else being equal, drugs can provide a boost that would not otherwise be attainable.

Not sure how we can both agree with Justin yet still disagree with each other...

Dan