I concur with Karen in that one does not take steroids in order to get a boost in a single performance. Instead, steroids enable athletes to work harder for longer periods of time, and recover more quickly from hard work. When I ran track at the University of Tennessee in the early 1970s, steroids were used mainly by people in field events, such as the shot put, discus throw, high jump, and the like.
The effects of steroids on track athletes were quite evident at the 1972 Olympics, when Valery Borzov of the U.S.S.R. won the 100 and 200 meters convincingly. Seeing his sub-par performances in off-years pretty well convinced me that he was an example of better sprinting through chemistry. The Eastern Bloc countries at that time were the leaders in doping, and anyone who mentioned that obvious fact was shot down in the western press (like the New York Times) for “red-baiting.”
With the amateur codes dropped and track and field athletes permitted to be real professionals (as opposed to the under-the-table professionals that they were in my day), the prize and appearance money is so great that athletes almost certainly are going to try doping.
Moreover, runners from African countries are able to escape their environs if they are successful, which is one reason why we see so many distance and middle-distance runners from East Africa, Ethiopia, and North African countries like Algeria. The times they are running today tell me that while they might be immensely talented, they, too, are taking advantage of modern chemistry.
So, is Floyd Landis guilty of doping? I am not sure, except that I cannot imagine anyone being able to handle the Tour de France without some pharmaceutical help.
10:28 am on July 28, 2006