Justin Gatlin, tied for the 100 meter world record, has also reported failing a drug test. His A sample and B sample showed an ‘unusually high level of testosterone’.
I really don’t understand. Possibility A: these athletes are really all incredibly stupid, dumber than shitstains in fact, to use when they will clearly get caught at it.
Scenario B: there is something seriously wrong with these tests. I lean towards Scenario B.
I don’t understand how all these elite level athletes in different sports could be so fucking stupid to use when they know how strict testing is becoming and the scrutiny they’re under.
How high does it have to be to be “unusually high?”
And high comapred to what and whom? The athletes past samples? A random survey of other athletes?
What if the athlete is a person who’s body legitimately produces much higher levels of T than the majority of most males walking the planet?
And why does the media consider anyone who has a high test guilty and damned until they prove themselves innocent and then they’re still tainted for life? The whole “we must have drug free sports” outcry and crowd is getting a bit ridichulous and has overtones of Salem, Mass, circa the 1600’s.
[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
They wouldn’t be the ones setting records if they didn’t use the drugs. If you want to be the best these days, it’s what you have to do.[/quote]
Wrong. Not if every record is going to get thrown out because of a failed drug test and the athlete banned from the sport. Which Gatlin, at least, is in serious danger of.
I really don’t understand. Possibility A: these athletes are really all incredibly stupid, dumber than shitstains in fact, to use when they will clearly get caught at it.
[/quote]
i really strongly disagree with this. do you really think think that the ones getting caught are the only ones using? In addition, this is just a risk/reward analysis question (puttin aside the ethical question of using in a drug-free sport - which really isnt even a question since you just shouldnt, period.)
Their risk is that they will get caught; if htey see a lot of guys using and not getting caught they probably assess the risk as ‘low’. THe benefit is that their performance will be increased,
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
hockechamp14 wrote:
They wouldn’t be the ones setting records if they didn’t use the drugs. If you want to be the best these days, it’s what you have to do.
Wrong. Not if every record is going to get thrown out because of a failed drug test and the athlete banned from the sport. Which Gatlin, at least, is in serious danger of. [/quote]
They wouldn’t have been able to break the records in the first place then. Face it, many of these drugs have been in use for some time. Think about it, if you were going to dedicate your life to be the best at something, would you already tell yourself, “well, lets see, I’m not going to take any drugs because I’m afraid of a positive” and deny yourself any chance whatsoever of being the best?
I really don’t understand. Possibility A: these athletes are really all incredibly stupid, dumber than shitstains in fact, to use when they will clearly get caught at it.
i really strongly disagree with this. do you really think think that the ones getting caught are the only ones using? In addition, this is just a risk/reward analysis question (puttin aside the ethical question of using in a drug-free sport - which really isnt even a question since you just shouldnt, period.)
Their risk is that they will get caught; if htey see a lot of guys using and not getting caught they probably assess the risk as ‘low’. THe benefit is that their performance will be increased,[/quote]
Or course not. But I believe things are coming to a head. I think you used to be able to get away with use but you can’t anymore. All of the top level guys are under intense scrutiny.
There WILL be a trickle down effect. Steroid use is going to end if it’s pretty damn clear that the top field will be rigorously tested and athletes records tossed and banned from their sport. Or they’ll find a way to not get caught. But that’s hard to imagine.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
It is hard to believe that they are failing on the testosterone test. Everyone even close to the doping circles know they test the epitest/test ratio. They could simply beat that test by injecting epitest also. Most people get busted on synthetics. Of course I haven’t read the story yet, so that may be the case. Test levels don’t sound right though, I agree.[/quote]
I just don’t get it. I think it’s a terrible test for all of the reason’s JB detailed on his website.
I don’t think he’s done anything wrong; he was a big advocate of the sport being clean. He’s passed over a hundred drugs tests before this, and my guess is that he’s blessed with high endogenous T production.
[quote]hockechamp14 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
hockechamp14 wrote:
They wouldn’t be the ones setting records if they didn’t use the drugs. If you want to be the best these days, it’s what you have to do.
Wrong. Not if every record is going to get thrown out because of a failed drug test and the athlete banned from the sport. Which Gatlin, at least, is in serious danger of.
They wouldn’t have been able to break the records in the first place then. Face it, many of these drugs have been in use for some time. Think about it, if you were going to dedicate your life to be the best at something, would you already tell yourself, “well, lets see, I’m not going to take any drugs because I’m afraid of a positive” and deny yourself any chance whatsoever of being the best?[/quote]
If it’s clear that the best will be so rigorously tested that they cannot get away with any illegal performance enhancement, it will have to end. That hasn’t been the case. But I think it’s headed in that direction. And I welcome it. But I do thing the current tests that compare the test-epitest ratio are poorly designed.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
hockechamp14 wrote:
They wouldn’t be the ones setting records if they didn’t use the drugs. If you want to be the best these days, it’s what you have to do.
Wrong. Not if every record is going to get thrown out because of a failed drug test and the athlete banned from the sport. Which Gatlin, at least, is in serious danger of. [/quote]
It may be that his testosterone levels were just unnaturally high, but I believe it has to do with carbon isotopes in testosterone. There is normally very little carbon-13 in our own naturally made testosterone. I remember hearing that one test examines the ratio of carbon-12:carbon-13 in testosterone of athletes.
Synthesized testosterone is made with much more carbon-13 than is in the natural testosterone, thus indicating that it is testosterone from an outside source. I am not positive about this, just remember reading something about this type of test and think that it may be what they mean by abnormal levels of test, that is the high carbon-13 containing test.
-BKerne
[quote]lawsonsamuels wrote:
How high does it have to be to be “unusually high?”
And high comapred to what and whom? The athletes past samples? A random survey of other athletes?
What if the athlete is a person who’s body legitimately produces much higher levels of T than the majority of most males walking the planet?
And why does the media consider anyone who has a high test guilty and damned until they prove themselves innocent and then they’re still tainted for life? The whole “we must have drug free sports” outcry and crowd is getting a bit ridichulous and has overtones of Salem, Mass, circa the 1600’s.[/quote]
When someone’s testosterone is unusually high it means that thier testosterone to epitestosterone ratio is above 4 to 1. A normal person is 1 to 1. Recently they moved it from 6 to 1. According to Dick Pound who established the World Anti Doping Agency the 6 to 1 ratio was rediculous and if you were naturally that high your knuckles would be dragging on the ground. But Paul Fleschler who is the Executive Director for USA Weightlifting and 1996 Olympian had a natural level of 9 to 1. He got a doctor’s exemption from the ratio test after his condition was proven. You just need some blood work done to show that your test. is high without any steriod metabolites.
I believe Gatlin is guilty. I don’t believe there is a high level sprinter who isn’t juiced.
It’s pretty telling. Much politics go into drug testing. Don’t be naive, most top level athletes probably use. The only reason I say probably and not certainly is I haven’t seen it myself. To me, it doesn’t make the things they achieve any less amazing. It just makes me lose a little faith in our governments.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
hockechamp14 wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
hockechamp14 wrote:
They wouldn’t be the ones setting records if they didn’t use the drugs. If you want to be the best these days, it’s what you have to do.
Wrong. Not if every record is going to get thrown out because of a failed drug test and the athlete banned from the sport. Which Gatlin, at least, is in serious danger of.
They wouldn’t have been able to break the records in the first place then. Face it, many of these drugs have been in use for some time. Think about it, if you were going to dedicate your life to be the best at something, would you already tell yourself, “well, lets see, I’m not going to take any drugs because I’m afraid of a positive” and deny yourself any chance whatsoever of being the best?
If it’s clear that the best will be so rigorously tested that they cannot get away with any illegal performance enhancement, it will have to end. That hasn’t been the case. But I think it’s headed in that direction. And I welcome it. But I do thing the current tests that compare the test-epitest ratio are poorly designed.[/quote]
And the government is going to win the war on drugs. Right.
If you’re not cheating, you’re not trying. These guys are dedicated enough push themselves to the limit and in many sports put their lives on the line to be the best. Think about all the wierd shit people do to get even the most minute advantage. The line between cheating and smart prepartion isn’t always so clear anyway. This is a losing battle.
[quote]bkerne wrote:
It may be that his testosterone levels were just unnaturally high, but I believe it has to do with carbon isotopes in testosterone. There is normally very little carbon-13 in our own naturally made testosterone. I remember hearing that one test examines the ratio of carbon-12:carbon-13 in testosterone of athletes.
Synthesized testosterone is made with much more carbon-13 than is in the natural testosterone, thus indicating that it is testosterone from an outside source. I am not positive about this, just remember reading something about this type of test and think that it may be what they mean by abnormal levels of test, that is the high carbon-13 containing test.
-BKerne[/quote]
This is from John Berardi’s Steroid Manifesto Part III (found on his website):
"Since there are serious problems with the T/E ratio for detecting steroid use (the current method), a new technique is being proposed for use. This technique uses IRMS (isotope ratio mass spectrometry) to distinguish exogenous Testosterone from endogenous Testosterone. Since Testosterone is made up of carbon atoms and different carbon atoms have different weights, IRMS can figure out how many of the lighter carbons (C12) and how many of the heavy carbons (C13) are around.
Endogenous Testosterone (naturally produced) is made up of 98.9% C12 and 1.1% C13. If any Testosterone shows up in the urine that doesn’t contain these percentages, it’s suspected that the person is using exogenous Testosterone."
[quote]boomerlu wrote:
JSBrook, read Charlie Francis’ old column.
It’s pretty telling. Much politics go into drug testing. Don’t be naive, most top level athletes probably use. The only reason I say probably and not certainly is I haven’t seen it myself. To me, it doesn’t make the things they achieve any less amazing. It just makes me lose a little faith in our governments.[/quote]
I am not naive. And I ran track in college. I am fully aware of the rampant juicing. But I don’t think it will continue in the same way. Whether or not it’s a witch-hunt and certain indiviuals are targeted, no one is safe and secure. Especially those who are at the top of the field. They are exactly the people that are targeted and whose every move is scrutinized. If it’s pretty much a certainty that the top of the field is going to be rigorously tested and there’s no real escaping this, you think that top athletes are simply going to continue old practices and have records tossed and get banned from their sport ad infinitem? But I also think it’s a terrible test. As someone mentioned their are many whose T/epitestosterone levels naturally fall out of the permissable ratio. I think there will be an outcry and some reform of the test. There should be.