should multiple doping athletes be allowed?

Why would any 15 year old dope...all you've said is you're pretty good amongst a bunch of undeveloped kids. It's not comparable to the world class level of running, where they're so close to their physical limits that shaving 30 seconds off their time is almost unimaginable.

And yes, that would include starting to test young athletes. If you are good and do well at youth competitions, get tested. If you suddenly appear out of nowhere with amazing times/distances/feats, get tested.

Why would any 15 year old dope...all you've said is you're pretty good amongst a bunch of undeveloped kids. It's not comparable to the world class level of running, where they're so close to their physical limits that shaving 30 seconds off their time is almost unimaginable.

^ it's because he said they should make youth competitors who beat national times get tested and such be treated as such taking drugs because you improve out of the middle of nowhere being a youth athlete if you're not doping.

Except they're not unimaginable at all. It's happened for ages. Someone comes along with a better way of doing thing;s better training, better equipment, better natural physiology and they go further / higher / faster than others have before.

Look at Paula Radcliffe and her marathon times. Look at Bradley Wiggins and his hour record.

Records will always be broken. But that doesn't by default mean people are cheating.

Nah, I wasn't talking about long distance events where obviously 30 seconds is simply impressive.

Then you're also not basing your posts on anything resembling reality. What other events is it possible to improve "by 30 seconds", if not long distance?

I was a 2.27.3 standard when I was running at a club level, fast forward two months and I upped my time to 2.15.2 with top ranking in the UK u15 2012, if I was doping, everyone else is, you know nothing about athletics and improvement. Training and good coach does wonders it can.

^ it's because he said they should make youth competitors who beat national times get tested and such be treated as such taking drugs because you improve out of the middle of nowhere being a youth athlete if you're not doping.( but I did, I improved massilby in two months with hard work and good training, you don't have to improve over a amount of time to be good and not doping )

Not unusual and not the first.

But, sceptics gonna sceptic.

middle-distance events? 1500m/2000m/3000m(albeit on the borderline).

Ignorant gonna be ignorant.

U15...we are talking about adults and that gains.

And yes, for youths with that improvement I said, and maintain, that they should already be tested.

As I said above, get tested. I did not say I automatically assume you are doping. I said that about Hosszu and Jebet who had miraculous improvements within a year (i.e. just one off-season training period) and are not young anymore. About young athletes I said they should already be tested. Nothing more.

There's a difference between the two.

Nobody's blind to the effect of drugs in sport, but you can be realistic without being an arse.

So what I should be tested because I made such a massive improvment in the space of two months with hard training and good coaches?/

Why such a doubt over my performance ability that I have to be tested if I make a massive improvement with good coaches?

For an individual to improve their own performance over that kind of distance is, if not easy, then realistic given the right changes in training, diet, etc. It's happened to all kinds of people for all kinds of reasons.

But when you consider that the world record for the 1500m, for example, has only improved by 3.6 seconds in 30 years, that kind of improvement is unheard of.

If you aren't doping, why whine about tests? You have nothing to fear...

Fair enough. But considering the head of Kenyas atheltics being suspended only after foreign media proved him to be a drug cheat (like they didn't know what was going on with him) and then later a coach trying to pass as an athlete for a urine sample...Africa is a corrupt continent, it just is, it's not a wrong generalization, so yes, it would be naive to think that just when it gets to sport, it suddenly isn't. For many poor there it's a way out, but hey they need drugs to win, so they do and to get away they bribe officials. It's pretty straightforward. Or is it a surprise that a plethora of ex Soviet bloc states were all banned from the weightlifting?

This is not me being an arrogant westerner or an arse. But countries like Germany and the UK have much better anti-doping agencies, they promote a clean and fair sport, they have money to support athletes, etc. Take Germany, where is all that female talent from the East? It never existed, it was all drugs. If the drugs had continued you'd see say German swimmers still doing well. But you don't. Maybe one or two in a decade for the women that could compete at the top (Steffen, van Almsick). UK, pumped a lot of money into sports and you saw the benefits of that now. They are above China not because of cheating but because of investment.

That is being realistic. Not an arse.

If you aren't doping, why whine about tests? You have nothing to fear...

Who's paying for it?

Making youth and amateur athletes pay to compete is going to drive a lot of them out of the sport - or make cheating more prevalent as they then would have to win to make it worthwhile.



That's also not what you're been arguing. Nobody's saying doping doesn't happen or that it'll stop overnight. But just because someone shows a big improvement in what you think is a small amount of time does not by default mean they have to be doping. We need to be fair on both sides of the argument. If you can prove someone is cheating, then fine. If you can't you have to give them the benefit of that. You can't just turn around and say "well clearly you're taking something that doesn't show up on the tests".

I agree with you to a certain degree that doping regulations need to be made stricter to catch doping out but this is common in athletes ( if you were in the athletics world you would know my improvement isn't extraordinary ) so to say all the good and improved athletes who have got good and improved times/pb should be tested automatically under the assumption that they're possibly or a small percent of this could be due to doping is discriminating. When reality, this is common, and shouldn't be automatically treated as if unattainable, ( which is isn't, in reality, this stuff happen every year, with the good coach, if you were in the athletics world, you would know) it's not just me loads of athletes improve by 12 seconds. To say that if you improve by 12 seconds with hard work, can be only achieved with doubt is unfair. If so, all the athletes should be tested, not just the good ones.

I think it's unfair to give an ultimatum when you don't understand how recreational athletics work.

Who said anything about the kids paying?

And no, but it does mean I get to question whether other countries test as strictly as mine. What track record athletes of other countries have.

And that's what I said in another post, you need much more comparable testing across the world. You need much better visibility of who produces PEDs and where do these go to. And of course you need "get caught once = banned for life".