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
Regarding performane enhancing drugs in Masters, if there is no testing there will be some people who will do it. The problem for masters is that testing costs money. For example, assuming full participation in all age groups at LC Nats, if we were to test the top 3 finishers of each age group in each event would involve administering
17(events)*3(places)*12(age group estimate see below)*2(genders) tests which adds up to around 1224. There are 2 national championships a year so that would be around 2470 tests all together. (Add in 24 100 IMS for SCY). If the cost is around $100/pop, (which sounds low to me), the cost would be roughly 250K/year. Where would this money come from? Would most USMS members, (who do not compete), feel good about a good chunk of their fee going after what could amount to only 4-5 users?
These are just some numbers to consider, I don't propose drug testing, and don't want to turn this thread into a debate about whether we should test or not. I just want to point out that if USMS were to get serious about cracking down on Performance Enhancing Drugs, it would not be cheap, and the non-racers may have doubts as to whether it is worth it.
(There are more than 12 age groups but some age groups have some holes, so I am assuming that any holes will be accomodated by simply assuming that the 19-24-->75-79 age groups were the only ones participating and that they all had 1-3 positions filled up, this might lead to a slight over-estimation but the final tabulation should be within 10% of the tests required).
Regarding performane enhancing drugs in Masters, if there is no testing there will be some people who will do it. The problem for masters is that testing costs money. For example, assuming full participation in all age groups at LC Nats, if we were to test the top 3 finishers of each age group in each event would involve administering
17(events)*3(places)*12(age group estimate see below)*2(genders) tests which adds up to around 1224. There are 2 national championships a year so that would be around 2470 tests all together. (Add in 24 100 IMS for SCY). If the cost is around $100/pop, (which sounds low to me), the cost would be roughly 250K/year. Where would this money come from? Would most USMS members, (who do not compete), feel good about a good chunk of their fee going after what could amount to only 4-5 users?
These are just some numbers to consider, I don't propose drug testing, and don't want to turn this thread into a debate about whether we should test or not. I just want to point out that if USMS were to get serious about cracking down on Performance Enhancing Drugs, it would not be cheap, and the non-racers may have doubts as to whether it is worth it.
(There are more than 12 age groups but some age groups have some holes, so I am assuming that any holes will be accomodated by simply assuming that the 19-24-->75-79 age groups were the only ones participating and that they all had 1-3 positions filled up, this might lead to a slight over-estimation but the final tabulation should be within 10% of the tests required).
