I guess my point was, this article is highlighting just how successful of a career he's had as a "doper". It's more or less superficial wounds that dopers have to deal with when they come back. So beyond the ban length, which to WADA's credit, 4 years atleast is a good chunk of most athlete's life time, dopers are pretty much treated with kids gloves in their comebacks.

So with how poorly doping controls are in endurance sports (testing is really expensive and the tri pro ranks is certainly very vast between IM / ITU athletes) there really isn't that big of a deterrent for someone to then go down the doping rabbit hole if they can reason it in their head. Which basically means the only real solution is lifetime ban but that'll never be implemented for various legit reasons.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

we get there when the anti-doper is criticizing other anti-dopers for not being as anti-doping as he is.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Dark Prediction: How about a future where there is a WOKE Movement for Ex-Dopers, and we need to feel sorry for them, and LA gets his wish to be Pres of the USA ??

I can see it happen ...

I guess that the athletes not doing it. And the people that think they are not doing it.

there's a third way and it unfortunately doesn't happen much, in this arena, or medicine, education, science, politics and other endeavors important to us: you work to change a process (when needed) while (in the main) trusting the process and honoring those in charge of executing the mission.

the process in this case calls for dopers to serve bans. once the ban is over they can race. it is not the job of race directors or federation officials or the editor of this site to create his or her own process to satisfy the mighty justice that beats in the chest of the more pure and righteous anti-doper.

the great irony is that the ultra-ardent anti-dopers - in my experience - are only ultra-ardent toward the dopers they don't know. anti-doping ardency tracks with proximity. the closer you are to someone caught in an anti-doping snare the more likely you are to take the side of the doper (because you're certain your doper friend can't possibly be a doper, because you know him and he'd never do that). instead, maybe we - again - just trust the process. but for the point of this thread, i don't mind vigilantism. what i mind is castigating those who choose not to engage in your vigilantism. your expression (whomever "you" are) of anti-doping is not the required expression that we all should be forced to take.

---

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman

Amen

You do realise that female HRT is Eostrogen or progesterone or both. Not testosterone so not banned. Infact it would be something similar given to the athletes like Caster to lower her T.

Nicely put and well said: I'm of the same mind.
But let's also keep in mind ad infinitum the lasting albeit incremental damage that athlete caused to their sport by their choices/actions.

Agree. But I wrote HRT not Female HRT and do know the difference.

I never did research on him. Just jumped in the boat with all the haters. Reading the article, it says he was never positive, just accepted the ban because he couldn't afford the additional two year battle and losing another 100k...ish. Idk, seems like a tough decision but can't blame him.

---

http://www.sfuelsgolonger.com

I'd like to think that's true for most of the people on this thread, because - frankly - I'm appalled that anyone thinks the standard of evidence in the Weiss case is in any way compatible with the punishment so many would like to see applied. It's just kind of bananas.

---

Tech writer/support on this here site. FIST school instructor and certified bike fitter. Formerly at Diamondback Bikes, LeMond Fitness, FSA, TiCycles, etc.
Coaching and bike fit - http://source-e.net/ Cyclocross blog - https://crosssports.net/ BJJ instruction - https://ballardbjj.com/

Dan, thanks for being consistently thoughtful, humane, and reasoned.

---

Aaron Bales
Lansing Triathlon Team