Now you have me thinking of these principals ina different context.
So you have tested and untested feds. You assume untested automatically means PED use by some competitors . Or at least I assume that.
So what about training plans for the TsC. It’s an untested comp, and while I have zero idea of anyone’s drug use nor am making accusations, someone at the top level is most likely using stuff not WADA approved. people still seem to get a lot out of those prep plans. Regardless of their “supplement” stack.
Yeah, that's a good point. The question, however, is still: if someone
was running some kind of PED regimen, how different would their performance be had they
not used them?
Experimentally, you would have to separate the effect of the training plan and the effect of the PED(s). To do that, you would need enough participants who were a good fit for the plan (meaning, they aren't newbies), AND you would need about half of them to agree to be using the same dosage of the same PED(s). Then you could compare results. Since PEDs aren't exactly legal, I don't think we will see something like this soon, although we might in the future.
Separating the effects of training, diet, "genetics" (the dreaded g-word which gets thrown around pretty willy-nilly imo), and PEDs would tell us better about how much PEDs
actually help. It seems like most of the evidence out there is kind of anecdotal, if I'm not mistaken. I think it's safe to say, however, that if PEDs didn't do that much, people wouldn't use them. So, under the constraints of the hypothetical study I outlined above, the experimental group (which would be using the PEDs) would certainly have better performance. How much? Well, we'll have to wait for someone to do a study like that.
I know it's anecdotal, but there's also something to be said about how people who are clean are often accused of PED use if they make any kind of dramatic gains. That alone says something about the extent of their effects, doesn't it?
