In 1988, after Carl Lewis was awarded the gold medal in the 100M dash when Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids, (I believe it was) Lewis stated that he was not really that surprised because he just didn't think that it was humanly possible to run the 100m in 9.79 (Johnson's winning time).
In the past 3 years, 2 american’s have euqaled or surpassed that time.
In today’s Houston Chronicle there is a tiny article (which is a true disappointment considering the magnitude of the accusations) that reads as follows:
According to Terry Madden, the chief executive of the US anti-doping agency: "What we have unconverted appears to be intentional doping of the worst sort (...) this is a conspiracy involving chemists, coaches and certain athletes using what they developed to be undetectable designer steroids to defraud their fellow competitors and the American and world public"
The drug in question is known as THG and though no athletes were named, it appears that several prominent athletes are a party to this.
I also know for a FACT, that some elite swimmers know of the drug, and believe it is undetectable.
*** This is in no way intimating that any specific athlete has or is using the substance.
Parents
Former Member
Wow, am I pleased to be on that list!
Fritz, I hear you will get a chance to watch my sister this Saturday at a meet - go ahead, you can watch! (and say hello if you get a chance. She is a much better person than I am.)
I am disillusioned and pessimistic about drugs in sports. One problem, while I know I would never do it, is that the arguments against performance enhancing drugs are pretty weak. The long term damage argument doesn't fly - just look at the long term damage athletes already accept (for example, boxing and brain damage, football and near 100% chance of career ending injury, gymnastics and long term diet problems, sumo wrestling and short life caused by diet, swimming and dry, flakey skin . . .)
Similarly for drugs creating an 'unequal playing field.' Come on! the field is already unequal; some athletes have more ability than others. What is the line between iproved technology of training aids and improved technology of diet and improved technology of dietary supplements?
Some day there will be two types of competitions - the 'natural' competition and the competition between the atheletes that are the best science can make them. I'll bet that the latter will be more popular.
Wow, am I pleased to be on that list!
Fritz, I hear you will get a chance to watch my sister this Saturday at a meet - go ahead, you can watch! (and say hello if you get a chance. She is a much better person than I am.)
I am disillusioned and pessimistic about drugs in sports. One problem, while I know I would never do it, is that the arguments against performance enhancing drugs are pretty weak. The long term damage argument doesn't fly - just look at the long term damage athletes already accept (for example, boxing and brain damage, football and near 100% chance of career ending injury, gymnastics and long term diet problems, sumo wrestling and short life caused by diet, swimming and dry, flakey skin . . .)
Similarly for drugs creating an 'unequal playing field.' Come on! the field is already unequal; some athletes have more ability than others. What is the line between iproved technology of training aids and improved technology of diet and improved technology of dietary supplements?
Some day there will be two types of competitions - the 'natural' competition and the competition between the atheletes that are the best science can make them. I'll bet that the latter will be more popular.
