Koop has been the only one talking about this and he’s repeatedly done thoughtful podcasts on it. Major ultra organizers (WS, UTMB, all golden ticket races) need to get on board with testing and now. It’s not cost effective to it for small races but the competitive ones where money is involved - testing should be mandatory as they do in every other sport.
If there was anything I learned from reading that book it’s that testing on race day was a waste of time. If you are using PED’s then you know the glow time of these drugs. I think if someone gets caught in a race it’s probably contamination because you’d have to be stupid.
Thanks! I think it's still totally worth having testing on race day even if it's just to discourage the use of PEDs in competition, but I agree it seems like most people using them would be well-informed enough to not get caught by a test at the finish line. I'm also not convinced that people testing positive post-race is usually because of contamination, I wouldn't be surprised if people get the timing or dosing wrong sometimes and get caught more often than it being contamination.
Very good post! I agree with almost everything you said except where you said that you think ultra running is clean.
I know first hand a lot of amateur and semi-pro athletes in sports like cycling, soccer and triathlon who get away with doping and you are trying to tell me that pro ultra runners are all clean? No chance. There are videos on YouTube which show how easy it is to buy your own EPO, administor it yourself and still evade getting caught, and we are still thinking that ultra runners don't dope?
I remember Jason Koop already talking about this around 5 years ago, with him offering even some money to get this started. We still haven't heard anything from any ultra organisation around some centrally managed anti-doping effort with out or competition testing. I understand the challenges, but the lack of movement is telling to us fans.
The truth is that at the moment, investing in anti-doping does not help anyone. Not many people are questioning the legitimacy of the efforts, but if athletes get caught then the sport will suffer. It is clear that the situation will just result in losses all round, which is why nobody is doing anything about it. A great shame if I may say so myself.
I'm curious what you think about where the moral line is drawn. We ban using naturally occurring substances, like EPO (produced in the kidneys) and blood transfusions (which use your own blood), yet we allow synthetic substances to be used like carbon shoes, altitude tents, chemically manipulated foods, etc. What is the difference here?
That’s a fair question, and I think there are a lot of different directions that it could be taken. In my mind it comes mostly down to risk. PEDs come with serious health consequences, while legal aids like altitude training or caffeine or supershoes don’t carry the same dangers. And while some of these legal methods shoes may feel like a “tech doping” debate, they’re at least accessible to everyone without risking their safety, whereas PEDs create an unfair advantage for those willing to cheat. I agree there’s some grey area though and don’t totally understand how the process of adding things to the banned list works.
Another great example is caffeine - a known, proven performance enhancing drug that's much more effective than many banned PEDs and nearly everyone routinely uses. Ultimately, there is an element to the rules of what's banned and what's allowed that's arbitrary and somebody could reasonably disagree with. What's not arbitrary is that once those rules have been set by whatever governing body exists (which in the case of trail running might just be the RD for that particular event) then everyone is expected to follow them or not participate, whether they like them or not.
Koop has been the only one talking about this and he’s repeatedly done thoughtful podcasts on it. Major ultra organizers (WS, UTMB, all golden ticket races) need to get on board with testing and now. It’s not cost effective to it for small races but the competitive ones where money is involved - testing should be mandatory as they do in every other sport.
far from the only one talking about it and many of us have been working behind the scenes for years
Great post.
If there was anything I learned from reading that book it’s that testing on race day was a waste of time. If you are using PED’s then you know the glow time of these drugs. I think if someone gets caught in a race it’s probably contamination because you’d have to be stupid.
Thanks! I think it's still totally worth having testing on race day even if it's just to discourage the use of PEDs in competition, but I agree it seems like most people using them would be well-informed enough to not get caught by a test at the finish line. I'm also not convinced that people testing positive post-race is usually because of contamination, I wouldn't be surprised if people get the timing or dosing wrong sometimes and get caught more often than it being contamination.
Very good post! I agree with almost everything you said except where you said that you think ultra running is clean.
I know first hand a lot of amateur and semi-pro athletes in sports like cycling, soccer and triathlon who get away with doping and you are trying to tell me that pro ultra runners are all clean? No chance. There are videos on YouTube which show how easy it is to buy your own EPO, administor it yourself and still evade getting caught, and we are still thinking that ultra runners don't dope?
I remember Jason Koop already talking about this around 5 years ago, with him offering even some money to get this started. We still haven't heard anything from any ultra organisation around some centrally managed anti-doping effort with out or competition testing. I understand the challenges, but the lack of movement is telling to us fans.
The truth is that at the moment, investing in anti-doping does not help anyone. Not many people are questioning the legitimacy of the efforts, but if athletes get caught then the sport will suffer. It is clear that the situation will just result in losses all round, which is why nobody is doing anything about it. A great shame if I may say so myself.
I'm curious what you think about where the moral line is drawn. We ban using naturally occurring substances, like EPO (produced in the kidneys) and blood transfusions (which use your own blood), yet we allow synthetic substances to be used like carbon shoes, altitude tents, chemically manipulated foods, etc. What is the difference here?
That’s a fair question, and I think there are a lot of different directions that it could be taken. In my mind it comes mostly down to risk. PEDs come with serious health consequences, while legal aids like altitude training or caffeine or supershoes don’t carry the same dangers. And while some of these legal methods shoes may feel like a “tech doping” debate, they’re at least accessible to everyone without risking their safety, whereas PEDs create an unfair advantage for those willing to cheat. I agree there’s some grey area though and don’t totally understand how the process of adding things to the banned list works.
WADA says that for a substance to be banned it has to meet two of the following three criteria
- It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance
- It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete
- It violates the spirit of sport
WADA rules are used for most sports, from cycling to esports, so I see no ready why ultra running should have its own list.
Another great example is caffeine - a known, proven performance enhancing drug that's much more effective than many banned PEDs and nearly everyone routinely uses. Ultimately, there is an element to the rules of what's banned and what's allowed that's arbitrary and somebody could reasonably disagree with. What's not arbitrary is that once those rules have been set by whatever governing body exists (which in the case of trail running might just be the RD for that particular event) then everyone is expected to follow them or not participate, whether they like them or not.