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
Craig, I reviewed the site and could not find a definition of 'performance enhancing.' Perhaps you could find it for me.
Otherwise, I'll define it the naive way - something that enhances the takers ability to perform, as evaluated by the sport in question. In swimming, it enhances the ability to swim faster. On those weekends that Pacific has a championship, I will often swim 11 events in two days. During the second day I am sore and stiff - I have no doubt that taking some Advil the night before and the morning of would have made me feel better, sleep better, and probably swim faster. Thus, in enhances my performance. Last time I wanted to get 600 mg pills of Ibuprofin, I needed a prescription, but I do agree it is in a different legal status.
One could, I suppose, define performance enhancing as anything on the proscribed list, which by implication is the attitude taken by the web site you pointed out to us. Such a legalistic argument ignores the ethical basis of the rule, and is what lets athletes in the current situation feel morally justified saying things like "I did not knowingly take an illegal substance" when what they took was an unknown type of steroid. We should be paying attention to the spirit of the law, not the letter.
By the way, I did find some text at that site which made it clear that 'performance enhancing' was enough to make a substance proscribed. Hazardous was not necessary. If that is true, we need to make a better distinction between the performance enhancing character of steroids, Advil, caffeine, vitamins, shoulder surgery, sleeping in altitude tents, and interval training.
Craig, I reviewed the site and could not find a definition of 'performance enhancing.' Perhaps you could find it for me.
Otherwise, I'll define it the naive way - something that enhances the takers ability to perform, as evaluated by the sport in question. In swimming, it enhances the ability to swim faster. On those weekends that Pacific has a championship, I will often swim 11 events in two days. During the second day I am sore and stiff - I have no doubt that taking some Advil the night before and the morning of would have made me feel better, sleep better, and probably swim faster. Thus, in enhances my performance. Last time I wanted to get 600 mg pills of Ibuprofin, I needed a prescription, but I do agree it is in a different legal status.
One could, I suppose, define performance enhancing as anything on the proscribed list, which by implication is the attitude taken by the web site you pointed out to us. Such a legalistic argument ignores the ethical basis of the rule, and is what lets athletes in the current situation feel morally justified saying things like "I did not knowingly take an illegal substance" when what they took was an unknown type of steroid. We should be paying attention to the spirit of the law, not the letter.
By the way, I did find some text at that site which made it clear that 'performance enhancing' was enough to make a substance proscribed. Hazardous was not necessary. If that is true, we need to make a better distinction between the performance enhancing character of steroids, Advil, caffeine, vitamins, shoulder surgery, sleeping in altitude tents, and interval training.
