I certainly realize this. Presuming technique is already good and stays constant. I've always wondered how much faster we're talking about. I'd imagine it has more to do with better stamina than with some miracle strength burst pill or something.
Yes, its much more about Stamina than brute power. I have pretty decent technique on the first 100 of a 400 free race. It's pretty ragged by the last 100.
I think that anyone who is an extraordinary outlier will always raise suspicion. So if you're the cream of the cream, you're probably accustomed to that sort of scrutiny. There is probably a small percentage of top performers who use stuff, but I believe that by and large, most masters are honest. Of course, this comes from someone who will never set a USMS record of any sort, unless I happen to live to the age of 120. I'd like to believe that that we are pretty honest in our endeavors. I honestly have to believe that when I lose, it's because other folks just swim faster than I do. Full disclosure: I'm older than dirt, so perhaps the suspicious stuff occurs among younger swimmers.
probabaly not much if any since swimming fast has so much to do with the technique one uses
I certainly realize this. Presuming technique is already good and stays constant. I've always wondered how much faster we're talking about. I'd imagine it has more to do with better stamina than with some miracle strength burst pill or something. Might be worth a shot if one could get a handful of tenths per hundred. lol
I think that anyone who is an extraordinary outlier will always raise suspicion. So if you're the cream of the cream, you're probably accustomed to that sort of scrutiny. There is probably a small percentage of top performers who use stuff, but I believe that by and large, most masters are honest. Of course, this comes from someone who will never set a USMS record of any sort, unless I happen to live to the age of 120. I'd like to believe that that we are pretty honest in our endeavors. I honestly have to believe that when I lose, it's because other folks just swim faster than I do. Full disclosure: I'm older than dirt, so perhaps the suspicious stuff occurs among younger swimmers.
I've talked to a couple of the people who were "outliers" in my age group. Turns out, they were "outliers" in college, in high school, and as age groupers, too. When I compare what their times are now to when they were in their primes, the difference (by percentage) is pretty damn close to the difference in my current times to when I was in my prime. They were faster then, they are faster now, and PED's almost certainly have never had anything to do with it.
From the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, published in Circulation in December of 2015:
"As a matter of general policy, the use of performance-enhancing drugs and supplements should be prohibited by schools, universities, and other sponsoring/participating organizations as a condition for continued participation in athletic activities."
At the end of the day, the real question in my mind is why the leadership of USMS is unwilling to champion a position statement prohibiting the use of these drugs unless they have been prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a legitimate medical condition. What is the compelling argument against doing so?
But why don't you, sir, as a Vice President within USMS, hold this issue near and dear as well? How do you justify not supporting a position statement?
So that's two questions. The answer to the first, about why doping is not an issue "near and dear" to me is that I think it is an unimportant issue in masters swimming. That's my own personal opinion.
As for "justifying not supporting a position statement," there is nothing to justify, since I have never in fact been asked to support such a statement. I have no problem with "Given that USMS cares about the health and safety of its members, the use of performance enhancing drugs and supplements as defined by WADA, unless prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a medical condition, is strictly prohibited" or some reasonable variation.
From the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, published in Circulation in December of 2015:
"As a matter of general policy, the use of performance-enhancing drugs and supplements should be prohibited by schools, universities, and other sponsoring/participating organizations as a condition for continued participation in athletic activities."
At the end of the day, the real question in my mind is why the leadership of USMS is unwilling to champion a position statement prohibiting the use of these drugs unless they have been prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a legitimate medical condition. What is the compelling argument against doing so?
"Unwilling to champion" is overstating things. To my knowledge, such a position statement has never been proposed or submitted to the board or HOD to consider. It just hasn't come up. Maybe it has in the past when I wasn't on the board. (You said something about it coming up at convention but I don't recall it, and anyway I'm not talking about actual drug testing but a position statement.)
Complaining about it on the forums is just water-cooler whining. If this is near and dear to you, draft a position statement and a justification for adopting it, and submit it to Patty, who controls the board's agenda. It should take you less time then you've spent writing about it on this forum.
If she is unwilling to devote time to the matter (it isn't as if we lack for things to do) then find a delegate from your LMSC willing to propose it from the floor of an HOD meeting at convention. Which is this week.
Try this. Given that USMS cares about the health and safety of its members, the use of performance enhancing drugs and supplements as defined by WADA, unless prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a medical condition, is strictly prohibited.
I think this would be an excellent position for USMS to adopt. :applaud:
