For a deeper dive on this topic, I recommend Jason Koop’s multipart series on anti-doping on his Koopcast podcast. He and Corrine Malcolm deserve credit for advancing a lot of the dialogue and developments. I’m intrigued by your idea to get sponsors to require testing of their athletes, but it’s hard to see this catching on unless it became a widespread bragging & selling point. One thought on your proposals: I think you’re overlooking the desire and potential of midlife age-groupers to cut corners and dope. They’re at a time in life of generally greater financial security (i.e. willing to spend big on their sport) and wanting to fight aging and boost ego with doing well in their age group. I think this demographic, which flies below the radar, may be most susceptible to cheating and justifying it as another hack. It’s a slippery slope from supplements and super shoes and caffeine, exogenous ketones, and Adderall to thinking that some extra testosterone or HGH isn’t so bad or wrong to take. Also, FWIW, I briefly last year took testosterone off label on my doc’s advice for menopausal hormone therapy, which is increasingly common among women my age (over 50). It didn’t do much, and my level remains nearly nonexistent. But when I got into Hardrock this year, I stopped taking it and have remained off it since there’s no TUE for women taking testosterone, which is a banned substance. Although Hardrock doesn’t test, I wanted to be clean on principle. But hormone supplements are increasingly used and justified to get levels back to a normal range. Just goes to show how complicated this is, and although someone can be anti-doping in theory, they can justify using a banned substance if they feel they truly need it to make up for a deficiency.
Thank you! I saw Jason Koop had a multi-part podcast, but haven't been able to get through it all yet.
I agree some of these suggestions may be tough to catch on, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't identify possible solutions and push the sport in the right direction.
Thanks for flagging some of the age-group cases and providing context for your own situation. These are exactly the types of situations that make this issue so complex. Admittedly, my focus was more on the sponsored / elite end of the sport, but from a moral standpoint it's wrong to cheat regardless of if you're the best or in the mid-pack or chasing cutoffs, and your examples provide meaningful context to just how nuanced this issue can be.
Perhaps on the elite end, a good first start would be to have consistent standards across races, with the understanding that there is a long tail of other runner types and edge cases that may fall into a gray area.
Either way, it seems like there is a lot of room for both organizational infrastructure as well as education for all levels of runners.
Thanks again for adding a meaningful context to this conversation!
Thank you for the review and suggestions on a very complicated topic. If illegal PED's in sport were as clear-cut as driving through a red light, we could simply say, "Let's enforce the law!" and quickly figure out how to do just that. Here's a few confounding factors for consideration:
1) We are a drug culture. Everyone takes drugs. Caffeine is by far the most efficacious PED in existence, and it of course is legal. The infamous EPO illegally improves the performance of a few people while also saving thousands of lives every year; alcohol is not only legal but is celebrated, and is responsible for at least a hundred thousand deaths every year. It would be great to draw simple and clear ethical lines, but these lines can be wavy.
2) Sport is supposed to be good for you. HRT can be very good if not vital for one's health, yet is quite illegal, and a TUE is very unlikely. OTOH, the supposed negative health consequences of using illegal PED's turns out to be surprisingly questionable - investigating these claims reveals them to be mostly negative marketing.
3) So the main reason to establish and enforce PED guidelines is to create a level playing field, especially for professionals with a paycheck at stake. This is definitely a valid reason which I support. However, the concept of "level playing field" itself is slippery - the average cost of a hyperbaric chamber is $8,000, which pro athletes use regularly, and which runners from poorer backgrounds can't possibly afford. But they can afford a pill given to them with a monthly dose costing maybe $100. Paying for a coach is now standard practice, which again many runners cannot afford, and the crew support at aid stations top runners have nowadays requires a major outlay of time and money. So have we created rules that favor our peer group while keeping others out?
4) The testing is problematic. A runner friend who does peer reviews for scientific studies marvels at the standard method of the "A and the B sample". Why would sample A ever test different than sample B? If it does just 5% of the time that means the test has a margin of error of 5%, which is too high for any scientifically valid test.
It's tricky, but we'll keep working at it! Again, let's keep in mind the real goal is for a level playing field.
I also want to say I really appreciate your thoughtful response and additional information on such a complex topic! I am by no means an expert, nor am I trying to be, and responses like this add meaningful context to the conversation. So thank you!
I agree we should look to level the playing field. And agree the current system is (obviously) not adequate because otherwise we would be able to effectively test for the things we don't want without worrying about testing errors, false positives, contaminated supplements, etc.
My goal with this article was to question whether there is anything we can do on the financial/economic incentive side to reduce an athlete's likelihood of doping.
I acknowledge there are edge cases and other use cases for substances that are currently banned, which is why a more organized infrastructure + education is vital for making meaningful progress in trail running. We need a consistent, agreed-upon list of substances that should be banned + education for runners to understand what is on the list and why.
If it's a matter of further research being required to prove/disprove the efficacy of a specific substance for a specific use case, that's a separate issue subject to further research.
It's obviously a nuanced and complex topic that is far from being solved. Like you said, tricky, but we'll keep working at it!
Next big problem? The problem is already here and its already rampant, there have been at least 10 high profile mountain and trail athletes (including a number of world champions) caught in the past decade on the basis of what is a relatively flimsy testing framework which lacks out of competition testing.
I think the economics of the sport is broken, which you've kind of alluded to, but I think ramping up testing is only a small and expensive part of the solution. If widespread testing worked to discourage doping Track & Field would be a clean meritocratic utopia. I think radical economic solutions like flattening out and extending prize structures or paying prize money as annuity payments conditional on clean racing are things that need to be considered. Also, the lack of guaranteed money like in team sports or sports administration means that there is massive pressure and incentive to dope to make prize money.
I like your ideas of changing payout structures or altering sponsorship structures to have more guaranteed money in order to change the incentive to dope!
That’s specifically what this article was about: finding ways to change the economic and financial incentives for runners to cheat (while also acknowledging the entire issue is nuanced and complex)
This might be the most determined and baroque effort I've ever seen by a jogging and babbling enthusiast to absolve a group of obviously unethical -- and in many cases, plain sociopathic -- actors of all responsibility for breaking simple rules everyone knows about.
"I’m just a guy on the internet with a background in finance"
As I would have guessed. Well, I have a backgroound in the kind of people with backgrounds in finance, so I can help you with the glaring deficits in this post. And I'm honestly not sure the post is an intentional snow job; you may just be failing to account for how lowly, emotionally hyper-needy, and narcissistic the people who gravitate toward these endless jog-fests are regardless of their occasional ability to string readable sentences together.
In short, you blame "the system" for encouraging cheating among ultrajogging participants and assert that the kinds of people who end up in ultras represent a morally random slice of the population, with normatve ethical standards. You essentially claim that, in such a system, a certain fraction of people will inevitably fail ethical tests because the system is too lenient and includes too few external disincentives.
Would you say the same thing about politics? That it's mostly or entirely the system that breeds bad behavior, and that the kind of people who run for office are just as fair, humble, and honest as the average yutz? Doubtful.
And no one can sensibly make this claim about the kinds of people who gravitate toward ultras, either. These are generally the dumbest and most attention-desperate children of affluent, liberal parents who choose not to use their degrees or professiional credentials if, any, because they are to lazy, personality-disordered, or both to function in a standard vocational environment. The Roches, who are both complete train wrecks -- liars, cowards, and morons, oh my -- are the perfect broken and diseased representatives the whole morbid MUT shootin' match.
You are strongly motivated to dismiss all of this, of course, because you're a shitbag yourself (no offense, as there's nothing you can do about this now). But have a look at how "clean" ultrajoggers are even when advised their pee will be tested:
"Among 412 individual urine samples, 205 (49.8%) contained at least one substance, and 16.3% of the samples contained one or more prohibited substances. Substances detected in urine included nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) (22.1%), acetaminophen (15.5%), opioids (6.6%), diuretics (4.9%), hypnotics (4.4%), glucocorticoids (2.7%), beta-2 agonists (2.2%), cannabinoids (1.9%), and stimulants (1.2%). None of the samples contained erythropoietin-receptor agonists or suspicious testosterone. Drug use was not associated with the participants’ characteristics or ranking. Respondents to the questionnaire reported using acetaminophen (13.6%) and NSAID (12.9%); however, no prohibited substances were declared."
These results alone suggests more than a startling prevalance of cheating; it implies an undeniable hunger for shitty living or at least an inabliity to escape it without chemical aid. Why are so many of these people on narcotics and hypnotics anyway? And mixing glucocorticoids, NSAIDS, and ultras together is a greeta way to cook your kidneys.
Anyway, "the system" is exactly the way the ugly rich people keeping it alive want it to be. I'm sure this laff-fest of a post has done its job by mollifying a lot of other shitbags, but it really is that simple.
For a deeper dive on this topic, I recommend Jason Koop’s multipart series on anti-doping on his Koopcast podcast. He and Corrine Malcolm deserve credit for advancing a lot of the dialogue and developments. I’m intrigued by your idea to get sponsors to require testing of their athletes, but it’s hard to see this catching on unless it became a widespread bragging & selling point. One thought on your proposals: I think you’re overlooking the desire and potential of midlife age-groupers to cut corners and dope. They’re at a time in life of generally greater financial security (i.e. willing to spend big on their sport) and wanting to fight aging and boost ego with doing well in their age group. I think this demographic, which flies below the radar, may be most susceptible to cheating and justifying it as another hack. It’s a slippery slope from supplements and super shoes and caffeine, exogenous ketones, and Adderall to thinking that some extra testosterone or HGH isn’t so bad or wrong to take. Also, FWIW, I briefly last year took testosterone off label on my doc’s advice for menopausal hormone therapy, which is increasingly common among women my age (over 50). It didn’t do much, and my level remains nearly nonexistent. But when I got into Hardrock this year, I stopped taking it and have remained off it since there’s no TUE for women taking testosterone, which is a banned substance. Although Hardrock doesn’t test, I wanted to be clean on principle. But hormone supplements are increasingly used and justified to get levels back to a normal range. Just goes to show how complicated this is, and although someone can be anti-doping in theory, they can justify using a banned substance if they feel they truly need it to make up for a deficiency.
Thank you! I saw Jason Koop had a multi-part podcast, but haven't been able to get through it all yet.
I agree some of these suggestions may be tough to catch on, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't identify possible solutions and push the sport in the right direction.
Thanks for flagging some of the age-group cases and providing context for your own situation. These are exactly the types of situations that make this issue so complex. Admittedly, my focus was more on the sponsored / elite end of the sport, but from a moral standpoint it's wrong to cheat regardless of if you're the best or in the mid-pack or chasing cutoffs, and your examples provide meaningful context to just how nuanced this issue can be.
Perhaps on the elite end, a good first start would be to have consistent standards across races, with the understanding that there is a long tail of other runner types and edge cases that may fall into a gray area.
Either way, it seems like there is a lot of room for both organizational infrastructure as well as education for all levels of runners.
Thanks again for adding a meaningful context to this conversation!
Thank you for the review and suggestions on a very complicated topic. If illegal PED's in sport were as clear-cut as driving through a red light, we could simply say, "Let's enforce the law!" and quickly figure out how to do just that. Here's a few confounding factors for consideration:
1) We are a drug culture. Everyone takes drugs. Caffeine is by far the most efficacious PED in existence, and it of course is legal. The infamous EPO illegally improves the performance of a few people while also saving thousands of lives every year; alcohol is not only legal but is celebrated, and is responsible for at least a hundred thousand deaths every year. It would be great to draw simple and clear ethical lines, but these lines can be wavy.
2) Sport is supposed to be good for you. HRT can be very good if not vital for one's health, yet is quite illegal, and a TUE is very unlikely. OTOH, the supposed negative health consequences of using illegal PED's turns out to be surprisingly questionable - investigating these claims reveals them to be mostly negative marketing.
3) So the main reason to establish and enforce PED guidelines is to create a level playing field, especially for professionals with a paycheck at stake. This is definitely a valid reason which I support. However, the concept of "level playing field" itself is slippery - the average cost of a hyperbaric chamber is $8,000, which pro athletes use regularly, and which runners from poorer backgrounds can't possibly afford. But they can afford a pill given to them with a monthly dose costing maybe $100. Paying for a coach is now standard practice, which again many runners cannot afford, and the crew support at aid stations top runners have nowadays requires a major outlay of time and money. So have we created rules that favor our peer group while keeping others out?
4) The testing is problematic. A runner friend who does peer reviews for scientific studies marvels at the standard method of the "A and the B sample". Why would sample A ever test different than sample B? If it does just 5% of the time that means the test has a margin of error of 5%, which is too high for any scientifically valid test.
It's tricky, but we'll keep working at it! Again, let's keep in mind the real goal is for a level playing field.
I also want to say I really appreciate your thoughtful response and additional information on such a complex topic! I am by no means an expert, nor am I trying to be, and responses like this add meaningful context to the conversation. So thank you!
Same here - agreed!
I agree we should look to level the playing field. And agree the current system is (obviously) not adequate because otherwise we would be able to effectively test for the things we don't want without worrying about testing errors, false positives, contaminated supplements, etc.
My goal with this article was to question whether there is anything we can do on the financial/economic incentive side to reduce an athlete's likelihood of doping.
I acknowledge there are edge cases and other use cases for substances that are currently banned, which is why a more organized infrastructure + education is vital for making meaningful progress in trail running. We need a consistent, agreed-upon list of substances that should be banned + education for runners to understand what is on the list and why.
If it's a matter of further research being required to prove/disprove the efficacy of a specific substance for a specific use case, that's a separate issue subject to further research.
It's obviously a nuanced and complex topic that is far from being solved. Like you said, tricky, but we'll keep working at it!
Next big problem? The problem is already here and its already rampant, there have been at least 10 high profile mountain and trail athletes (including a number of world champions) caught in the past decade on the basis of what is a relatively flimsy testing framework which lacks out of competition testing.
I think the economics of the sport is broken, which you've kind of alluded to, but I think ramping up testing is only a small and expensive part of the solution. If widespread testing worked to discourage doping Track & Field would be a clean meritocratic utopia. I think radical economic solutions like flattening out and extending prize structures or paying prize money as annuity payments conditional on clean racing are things that need to be considered. Also, the lack of guaranteed money like in team sports or sports administration means that there is massive pressure and incentive to dope to make prize money.
I like your ideas of changing payout structures or altering sponsorship structures to have more guaranteed money in order to change the incentive to dope!
That’s specifically what this article was about: finding ways to change the economic and financial incentives for runners to cheat (while also acknowledging the entire issue is nuanced and complex)
https://runningmagazine.ca/trail-running/utmb-and-sierre-zinal-champion-suspended-for-doping/
This might be the most determined and baroque effort I've ever seen by a jogging and babbling enthusiast to absolve a group of obviously unethical -- and in many cases, plain sociopathic -- actors of all responsibility for breaking simple rules everyone knows about.
"I’m just a guy on the internet with a background in finance"
As I would have guessed. Well, I have a backgroound in the kind of people with backgrounds in finance, so I can help you with the glaring deficits in this post. And I'm honestly not sure the post is an intentional snow job; you may just be failing to account for how lowly, emotionally hyper-needy, and narcissistic the people who gravitate toward these endless jog-fests are regardless of their occasional ability to string readable sentences together.
In short, you blame "the system" for encouraging cheating among ultrajogging participants and assert that the kinds of people who end up in ultras represent a morally random slice of the population, with normatve ethical standards. You essentially claim that, in such a system, a certain fraction of people will inevitably fail ethical tests because the system is too lenient and includes too few external disincentives.
Would you say the same thing about politics? That it's mostly or entirely the system that breeds bad behavior, and that the kind of people who run for office are just as fair, humble, and honest as the average yutz? Doubtful.
And no one can sensibly make this claim about the kinds of people who gravitate toward ultras, either. These are generally the dumbest and most attention-desperate children of affluent, liberal parents who choose not to use their degrees or professiional credentials if, any, because they are to lazy, personality-disordered, or both to function in a standard vocational environment. The Roches, who are both complete train wrecks -- liars, cowards, and morons, oh my -- are the perfect broken and diseased representatives the whole morbid MUT shootin' match.
You are strongly motivated to dismiss all of this, of course, because you're a shitbag yourself (no offense, as there's nothing you can do about this now). But have a look at how "clean" ultrajoggers are even when advised their pee will be tested:
https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/fulltext/2024/05000/prevalence_of_drug_use_in_ultraendurance_athletes.9.aspx
"Among 412 individual urine samples, 205 (49.8%) contained at least one substance, and 16.3% of the samples contained one or more prohibited substances. Substances detected in urine included nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID) (22.1%), acetaminophen (15.5%), opioids (6.6%), diuretics (4.9%), hypnotics (4.4%), glucocorticoids (2.7%), beta-2 agonists (2.2%), cannabinoids (1.9%), and stimulants (1.2%). None of the samples contained erythropoietin-receptor agonists or suspicious testosterone. Drug use was not associated with the participants’ characteristics or ranking. Respondents to the questionnaire reported using acetaminophen (13.6%) and NSAID (12.9%); however, no prohibited substances were declared."
These results alone suggests more than a startling prevalance of cheating; it implies an undeniable hunger for shitty living or at least an inabliity to escape it without chemical aid. Why are so many of these people on narcotics and hypnotics anyway? And mixing glucocorticoids, NSAIDS, and ultras together is a greeta way to cook your kidneys.
Anyway, "the system" is exactly the way the ugly rich people keeping it alive want it to be. I'm sure this laff-fest of a post has done its job by mollifying a lot of other shitbags, but it really is that simple.
Hopefully not a huge thing to worry about…. Noooooo will take away the “pureness” of trail running