No, those were just the 3 famous examples off the top of my head. The total # is much higher. Those were the guys everyone knew was likely doping and they were laughing at everyone else while winning (masters/age group) World Championships. You can look up Moats on this forum. Everyone knew he was likely doping for years, before he got caught. And WTC/USADA went out and got him. Similarly with LeDuc and Meeker in cycling forums. Though if it were just those three it'd be worth well over $5 to me! Triathlon and cycling are a shit-ton better off without those guys. And it didn't take millions of dollars. It just took the bare minimum of an attempt at enforcement, at very little cost.




Absolutely. The first $1 spent is the most effective dollar spent. *Any* enforcement will catch an infinite % greater # of people than zero enforcement, and be an infinitely better deterrent to doping than zero enforcement.





I consider it quite good. There's good evidence that doping in the pro peloton is nothing like it used to be. It's not perfect. There are likely lots of dopers still. But, as I pointed out, they're pushed into more expensive and riskier behaviors. I spend $5. The doper has to spend an extra $1000 (or whatever) to periodically and surrepitiously test himself to ensure he's going to evade a possible test. He's going to have to consult experts with inside knowledge of what levels he has to test at to pass the tests. All those things are risks and make life more stressful for dopers. I'm all for it.

The catastrophization of imperfect anti-doping measures is the biggest ally of the modern doper.

I guarantee you that Peter Reid would never talk down about KQ being a massive deal for someone even though getting a top 5 for him in Kona was generally a cakewalk.

As usual Dev, you've missed my point completely. I'm not talking down to anyone.

I'm just confused and disappointed that someone would be so obsessed, and driven to be an AG qualifier to Ironman Hawaii (or sub in whatever recreational sports achievement you like), that they would resort to illegal use of PEDs to get there! That's all.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

yes and yes

So what alternative are you suggesting? Throw up our hands and live with dopers because the testing program isn't perfect?

If you're got a solution then share it. Otherwise I'll take an imperfect attempt at clean sports as opposed to doing nothing.

I'm stepping out of the discussion at this point. I've done over 100+ races over the past 30 years. I'm fine with whatever. I just don't think making everything so hardcore, hardline, helps the long term viability of the sport.

Something HAS changed. I can almost assure you with 100% guarantee if you went back an athletic generation - say 25 years ago, that, in that generation of recreational athletes ( of which I was a part of), that the numbers of athletes doping in running, cycling and triathlon was close to zero! It did not happen. What changed?

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

i think a large part of what changed is your perspective. when you started it probably never crossed your mind that any of the faster folks were getting assistance. as you go along , you see and hear things. perspective changes. you start to doubt some as rumors pop up, etc, or you have a teammate, like I did, that popped amphetamines near the end of races. you start to doubt his circle of friends, etc. now we are all just jaded and trying to determine what percentage of our peers are juicing, with newer folks still thinking it is not happening and the older folks, well, you know what we think

Agreed.

It's funny...I didn't race this year, so I never renewed my USAC license. I'm not sure if I'm going to race next year either, but I'm most likely going to renew JUST so I can pay the surcharge and do my part to help this along, however small...

---

http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/

Jeff,

Good point. I agree.

Here's something that I think has changed. For the last 20+ years, the drum-beat in marketing messages that has increased in volume is the "Anything is Possible" message. Also we also now live in an age of entitlement, where, despite the reality of a situation people feel entitled to something. Put those two together and you have that guy, I was talking to at the party a few years ago, telling me in no uncertain terms and with serious intent that he will qualify for Kona and, nothing will stand in his way! Ditto for the dude, who wants to be the Masters Crit or TT Champ, or win some Granfondo!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Steve, did the guy tell you he would dope to KQ. If he did not, you are confusing his hunger and desire to KQ with the willingness to dope. You did also "talk down" his value set saying KQ was no big deal to you. That's fine if it is not, but no need to talk down someone else who has different values and maybe a different starting point in life. While your comment was not intended to be taken a certain way, by talking about how KQ was no big deal to you, your comment managed to push some of us the wrong way. In my case it took me 15 years to KQ (some years less work and really no chance, some years a lot of work and near miss), so just by virtue of how hard it was for me, it was probably a bigger deal for me personally to pull it off.

In any case, you will often do this type of thing often on the forum and talk down others who have different values from you. Just let them have their values....don't judge them for it. They have their reasons.

Steve, again you are talking down younger people. How is this age any more "age of entitlement" than the 80's? Sheeesh that age was all about entitlement. How are these statements any different from the crap spewing from our peers in the 80's, 90's etc. It's just too easy for you to talk down current atheletes because you don't compete today, but trust me, there were as many pompous entitled athletes when we were in our 20's as there are now. No generation has a monopoly on being more virtuous then the ones afterwards. You're starting to sound like the generation of our parents talking about us. We weren't that bad relative to them and the people behind us are just as good as us, probably better in many ways.

In any case, you will often do this type of thing often on the forum and talk down others who have different values from you. Just let them have their values....don't judge them for it. They have their reasons.

You've missed my higher point, again!

To really spell it out for you - You better believe I am judging them and even talking down to them, if they are so possessed, obsessed, and ruthless as to resort to PED's to qualify for Kona - or insert any other lofty recreational sports goal.

Note, it's OK to have those goals and that drive, it's another, to illegally, achieve them!

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

Steve, again you are talking down younger people. How is this age any more "age of entitlement" than the 80's? Sheeesh that age was all about entitlement. How are these statements any different from the crap spewing from our peers in the 80's, 90's etc. It's just too easy for you to talk down current atheletes because you don't compete today, but trust me, there were as many pompous entitled athletes when we were in our 20's as there are now. No generation has a monopoly on being more virtuous then the ones afterwards. You're starting to sound like the generation of our parents talking about us. We weren't that bad relative to them and the people behind us are just as good as us, probably better in many ways.

Dev,

It's amazing to me that you can't see the difference. A generation ago, there may have been as you say, pompous entitled folk among the recreational endurance sports ranks (agreed). The difference, is that - there was a built in governor, in their/our behavior, that we would NOT cross over a line. Now, clearly so many are crossing over that line, in cycling and triathlon, that the authorities feel it's time to step in - with testing. That's BIG difference! That's a BIG change.

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

right on target

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

A lot has changed but one thing that sticks out is the effectiveness and access of more powerful PEDs. Look at professional cycling. It was a whole new ballgame post epo.

---

Formerly DrD

Yep

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

yep

---

Dave Campbell | Facebook | @DaveECampbell | h2ofun@h2ofun.net

Boom Nutrition code 19F4Y3 $5 off 24 pack box | Bionic Runner | PowerCranks | Velotron | Spruzzamist

Lions don't lose sleep worrying about the sheep

The solution I'm afraid is likely not going to happen because it'll require at least 2 orders of magnitude more resources than currently exists and also needs global political will (most nations are currently seeking to cut anti-doping resources) and for anti-doping administration to be truly independent and corruption free. When you look at the mess in athletics, anti-doping bodies and sport admin bodies are complicit in the whole nonsense.

My concern with such tiny effort as this is that it's mostly about PR, and not about putting in place effective anti-doping activity. One only has to do he numbers to see that and I think it sends the wrong signal (i.e. we are not really all that serious about it).

Since real solutions are unlikely to eventuate, then perhaps consider at least generating some $ that might enable some more effective activity.

e.g. rather that the woefully inadequate resource generated by a once per year surcharge, how about applying those same surcharge amounts to every race entry and the funds not be delivered to USAC but to an independent anti-doping body? Then you can have some staff able to do some investigative and intelligence gathering work that will properly direct some of the testing resources. Imagine one season doing a blitz on a hotspot region including some OOC testing?

In any case, it's all pretty moot. People can still dope pretty easily and get away with it. Thinking otherwise is naive.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

+1
It sucks finding out your masters team mate is doping. And riders on the team of a client you coach are doping.
and yes we did something about it but amazingly 99% of the others in the know would not. I wonder why?

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

The level of outrageous performance impact doping has had on pro cycling performance has been reduced, I agree. Doping is however still significantly prevalent.

Keep in mind pros are on the biopassport.

What are you going to do with the 99.999% of racers who are not?
It's ~$10k to join the biopassport program in year one.

The testing they need do is not that hard (they don't need the massive overhead of a collection protocol, chain of custody, storage, paperwork etc etc that anti-doping requires).

That's the fault of woefully inadequate anti-doping measures, not of those who point it out.

Seriously, how many elite track and field athletes have managed to evade detection over the past 10-20 years, and still are evading detection. It ridiculous.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

Ah, so you have a solution but unfortunately it's too costly to implement. Very helpful. Of course people can still dope and get away with it. That's stating the obvious. But doing nothing or proposing solutions based on budgets that don't exist are folly.

Meeker, Leduk, Brant-Sorensen, Cannel. Those are four off the top of my head who were masters champs and popped. There has also been some targeting and we have an independent organization to test. Many more have likely gotten away with it but at least fairness prevailed for a few guys who had to race against these asshats.

Again, don't shoot the messenger. The entire anti-doping effort is ridiculously weak. That's not a shot at the poorly resourced people that do good work in many AD organisations, just a statement of reality. Even USADA, the world largest national AD body said as much themselves.

Can you propose something that will actually work to significantly make a dent in the rate of doping given the current level of resources?

If so, then why are those strategies not in place now?

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

and now Manolo Saiz is back running a cycling team.

That's a measure of how seriously anti-doping efforts are taken.

---

http://www.cyclecoach.com
http://www.aerocoach.com.au

Steve, I'll reply to both topics discussed above in a single post:

1. You swept with a broad brush calling today "the age of entitlement". We have no stats to support or refute which age had more entitled athletes or density of entitled athletes. But in calling today the age of entitlement, you colored all of today's athletes with your broad brush and conveniently decoupled yourself since by some magic your era was "better". Since I raced in your era and race today, I strongly disagree that athletes today are any more entitled. Probably best to refer only to very specific instances with examples rather than sweep everyone with your brush
2. On the first topic, you could have just stuck to giving an example of meeting an athlete who you felt would do anything including doping to get to Kona. Leave out your ease of KQing and doing it. It is not pertinent to the topic at hand, but in talking about how it was not big deal for you, you are judging this guy and at the same time, having no proof whether he would dope or not.

If you want to talk about the need for doping tests, better draft zone enforcement, out of competition testing etc etc....I'm all for it. Athletes and people in the 80's did just as much drafting, insider trading, course cutting, cheating on spouses, cheating on taxes etc etc. Humans have been doing this shit since the beginning of time, and its not like every generation does it more and more than the one before cause if humans deteriorated per generation, this species would pretty well implode (which has not quite happened yet).