How long is the presence of drugs detectable worst case scenario?
Reason I ask is what’s to keep someone, let’s say 17-18yrs old with a solid sports background, from doing a full tilt drug cocktail for 3-4 years then laying off and going pro? I realize you would no longer have the benefits of the drugs themselves during your pro career, but having them as an aid for harder workouts and greater recovery for several years would obviously give you an advantage, no?
~Matt
The answer to all of you questions is It depends. Some steroids are suspected of suspressing your natural steroid production. Take excess steroids for 4 years, have your body forget how to make it own steroids and you aren’t likely to compete well. Its possible the same could happen with EPO, and many other drugs.
As far as how long they last, some drugs are hard to detect a day later some are fat soluble and could be detected well over a year after use.
Styrrell
Not a user, but slightly knowledgable about the subject. I think this could work. EPO would probably not be worthwhile for this canidate, too much risk and zero reward for the long term. HGH would probably not be useful either as a person that age has plenty and it hasn’t been shown that excess does anything. Steroids on the other hand would work well for long term gain if done correctly.
Some of the newer steroids are undetectable because there is no test for them. The newer designer steroids change a molecule or a molecule there and then they don’t show up on any test because they register as a different substance.
I’m not so much worried about detection as much as methodology. If an individual could handle a few percentile more load through a drug cocktail over a period of years there would be alot to be gained. Now if all that extra gain disappeared or was somehow counteracted as another poster suggested right after you got off them, it makes no sense. But if you could retain most of those gains, go clean and remain clean you’d have a jump on the field and not have to worry about being detected.
~Matt
Depends on the drug, not for years though.
Really it might not be much of an advantage. A football player for instance could get huge at an early age, and dominate in highschool, but if he then quits in college, people will catch up to his size and strength, and he probably will not have learned to play skillfully, since he relief on being huge before.
As a cyclist I don’t think it would be that helpful either.
The problem is the situation you lay it is a real possibility. However, the gains come pretty quickly and people in that age group normally do not have the discipline to do that for 3-4 years and then race, rather than wanting to race immediately and risk detection. That takes some real long-term planning. It almost doesn’t matter.
In response to the other poster, if the user is smart about it, he doesn’t face any health draw backs - at least not any that can be proven. Cycling and using proper post-cycle therapy will get his natural test/hormones back on track.
In terms of detectable life-time, you’re probably talking about a few months at most. The half-life of a lot of these substances is just a matter of a couple of weeks.
HOWEVER - I don’t think that many of these drugs really will have a long term benefit the way you suggest using them. They work well for fast-twitch activities, but not for slow-twitch ones. I think they only really work when you are ON while competing.
I think they only really work when you are ON while competing.
But doesn’t being on them allow you to recover quicker, work harder etc? Wouldn’t that additional work amount to something over time and make real word changes just like regular training? After you were off them you would not be able to advance as quickly, but you would already be at the top of your game, you’d merely have to maintain.
I guess the scenario I’m looking at is this.
Young athlete does drugs. He reaches a “Mature” level of development quicker, lets say a year or two quicker. He then enters the sport at a younger age, “Mature” and drug free. Instead of spending ages 20-24 still developing, he’s developed and spend those years working on his pro racing skills.
~Matt
Well, a few things come to mind.
I do not believe that the advances you would make in THIS sport are the same you would make in slowtwitch sports using anabolics during your training period. A lot of folks that have used them and gotten busted have been sprinters. I don’t know of any marathoners on the pro level that have gotten busted - and odds are at least one or two would have.
Second, it’s questionable to use anabolics before the age of 22-24 anyway because of maturity issues and also because the body doesn’t really need it and because you still developing and the riods could interfere with that.
Sounds like the East German program…except they kept right on doing the drugs into the competition years. But get’em started early and often…
Absolutely right.
It is proven that development of an excellent cardiovascular system and selection of talent during childhood development can not be matched later on.
One can very well imagine, that those big leaps and life-long benefits will be magnified by “supplements”.
Even if one would stop the “regimen”, that person would be leaps and bounds above any other athlete. Just alone because of the superior “hardware”.
And one does not have to look to other continents/sytems to see what happens if children get into organized sports early and eat lots of good “fortified” foods.
I know I will get blasted for this, but high school and college athletics in this country adhere to the same principles (in the good old days the western coaches were very eager to get to know those communistic “programs”—to copy them to some extend)
I hate parents who force their kids into athletics.
If I look into those kids eyes I see a lost childhood.