So the 41-year-old swimmer Dara Torres is breaking records she couldn't touch in her 20s. Alright. She submits herself to extra testing, and has never failed a drug exam.
But neither did Marion Jones. So let's say, hypothetically, that the technology for testing new methods of doping will always necessarily lag behind the current methods athletes are using which allow them to pass current tests. Which means we can catch the dopers, eventually, but only after the technology catches up to what they were doing.
She can win fleeting glory, set records, and making lots of money off endorsements in the span of time before she could be caught, the records erased, and the endorsements removed. Is it worth it? If that's the calculation, I suppose, maybe, it is. We could ask Marion Jones or Floyd Landis how it worked out for them.
Of course, there may also be a fair amount of hubris involved. Torres may legitimately believe she is doing nothing wrong, or that she will never be caught.
But my question for the scientists is, with the financial incentive so amazingly high for top-tier athletic performance (even in the very short term), will there ever be a time when testing can adequately rule out performance enhancing drugs, or will it always lag behind?
