It comes down to relative level of effort (and even more importantly cost). How much effort and cost is it for a judge to see if someone swims a stroke per established rules? True you have to GET the judge to the meet but hopefully you know what I mean. Now, how much effort and cost is it to gather samples from each swimmer, collate, store and handle these samples properly, transport, test, verify and report back. A lot. And this effort is something that absolutely positively needs to be done in national and international swimming. Where doping can give advantages that can have huge payoffs. But, for Masters? Where's the payoff? There might be some payoff available but in a very secondary way and orders of magnitude lower than at the Olympic level. Does this mean we should encourage doping in Masters? No but economics does play a part here. It is currently way too expensive to even consider a testing program in Masters. And even the advent of much cheaper tests will still not help with the other financial areas of impact such as logistics and personnel.
I agree with most of this, which is why I originally said the tests SHOULD be done but the logistics is too difficult.
But if there were a rapid, easy and cheap method to test for the most likely PEDs then most of the logistic difficulties disappear. Think about something like the advent of home pregnancy tests (spawn of one of my favorite ads of any kind: "the most advanced technology you'll eve pee on") compared to 30 years ago when you had to go to a clinic to be tested.
It comes down to relative level of effort (and even more importantly cost). How much effort and cost is it for a judge to see if someone swims a stroke per established rules? True you have to GET the judge to the meet but hopefully you know what I mean. Now, how much effort and cost is it to gather samples from each swimmer, collate, store and handle these samples properly, transport, test, verify and report back. A lot. And this effort is something that absolutely positively needs to be done in national and international swimming. Where doping can give advantages that can have huge payoffs. But, for Masters? Where's the payoff? There might be some payoff available but in a very secondary way and orders of magnitude lower than at the Olympic level. Does this mean we should encourage doping in Masters? No but economics does play a part here. It is currently way too expensive to even consider a testing program in Masters. And even the advent of much cheaper tests will still not help with the other financial areas of impact such as logistics and personnel.
I agree with most of this, which is why I originally said the tests SHOULD be done but the logistics is too difficult.
But if there were a rapid, easy and cheap method to test for the most likely PEDs then most of the logistic difficulties disappear. Think about something like the advent of home pregnancy tests (spawn of one of my favorite ads of any kind: "the most advanced technology you'll eve pee on") compared to 30 years ago when you had to go to a clinic to be tested.
