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
I think we keep flipping back and forth between testing for "drugs" in elite athletes, and testing for "drugs" in Masters swimmers. Just to clarify:
(1) I believe we need to prohibit the of use of certain substances, and effective enforcement, for elite athletics. The fact that many of these substances are hazardous to the health of the athlete, even if only in large dosages or taken long term, is relevant. Because we are talking "elite" competition, there is big time fame and fortune at stake in winning the event. If you let them, there are some people who will take the drugs at dangerous levels, and force the rest of the field to endanger their health as well to stay competitive. To those who argue that at some lower level these substances are safe, my response is that if you think it is difficult to test for any amount of a substance, imagine how hard it would be to test for a substance above a certain prescribed level. Anabolic steroids, HGH, high dose stimulants before competition are dangerous, and don't use them if you want to swim in the Olympics.
(2) I believe we do NOT need drug testing in USMS. First, the stakes are so small the cost of any meaningful testing program would exceed the value of the entire competition. As many posters have said, if someone is so keen to medal at USMS Nationals that they want to mess around with steroids, or some of the even crazier stuff from the "nutrition" industry, they are welcome to move ahead of me in the standings. Second, we would exclude people who have a legitimate need to take certain medications for a health issue. Although I do not think it's asking too much for an Olympic participant to forgoe using certain meds, I DO think it is asking too much to ask a USMS participant to forgoe the most effective treatment regime for a debilitating disease, just because his meds are on a banned list for elite athletes. We're all grown-ups looking for an excuse to stay in shape (or at least, I am). The honor system/self-enforcement makes sense. (On this score, I agree with Aquageek.)
Matt
I think we keep flipping back and forth between testing for "drugs" in elite athletes, and testing for "drugs" in Masters swimmers. Just to clarify:
(1) I believe we need to prohibit the of use of certain substances, and effective enforcement, for elite athletics. The fact that many of these substances are hazardous to the health of the athlete, even if only in large dosages or taken long term, is relevant. Because we are talking "elite" competition, there is big time fame and fortune at stake in winning the event. If you let them, there are some people who will take the drugs at dangerous levels, and force the rest of the field to endanger their health as well to stay competitive. To those who argue that at some lower level these substances are safe, my response is that if you think it is difficult to test for any amount of a substance, imagine how hard it would be to test for a substance above a certain prescribed level. Anabolic steroids, HGH, high dose stimulants before competition are dangerous, and don't use them if you want to swim in the Olympics.
(2) I believe we do NOT need drug testing in USMS. First, the stakes are so small the cost of any meaningful testing program would exceed the value of the entire competition. As many posters have said, if someone is so keen to medal at USMS Nationals that they want to mess around with steroids, or some of the even crazier stuff from the "nutrition" industry, they are welcome to move ahead of me in the standings. Second, we would exclude people who have a legitimate need to take certain medications for a health issue. Although I do not think it's asking too much for an Olympic participant to forgoe using certain meds, I DO think it is asking too much to ask a USMS participant to forgoe the most effective treatment regime for a debilitating disease, just because his meds are on a banned list for elite athletes. We're all grown-ups looking for an excuse to stay in shape (or at least, I am). The honor system/self-enforcement makes sense. (On this score, I agree with Aquageek.)
Matt
