As both faithful readers of this humble blog know, I have a few recurring themes here. One is that cheaters aren't my favorite people. The second is that the NY Times' health coverage sometimes leaves something to be desired. So imagine my excitement when I saw a recent Times article on the high incidence of exercise-induced asthma among athletes that combines both of these themes.
According to the article "exercise-induced asthma has been diagnosed in as many as half of tall elite cross-country skiers and almost as many world-class ice skaters and hockey players." The author quotes Dr. Christopher Randolph, a clinical professor at Yale University who sees patients at the Center for Allergy, Asthma and Immunology. Dr. Randolph suggests intense exercise in a cold environment may contribute to the problem. He suggests that the "squeezing and loss of moisture prompt certain cells within the bronchial tube to release allergic chemicals that initiate an inflammatory process, slowly closing your throat."
Our own Dr. Horne is far better qualified that I am to determine if this hypothesis has any medical merit, so far be it from me to argue against it (or the Times' for including it.) However, the author ignores the fact that the rate of EIA in athletes in a variety of warm weather events including track and field and swimming is also higher than that of the general population.
Perhaps the reason that so many of these athletes are claiming to have EIA is that such a diagnosis gets them prescriptions to potentially performance enhancing drugs such as Albuterol, Clenbuterol and other drugs that are on the banned substance list unless prescribed by a physician. It's possible that Dr. Randolph's take makes sense. But why ignore the obvious answer that some of these athletes are lying in order to get a competitive advantage?
Is It Still Cheating?
Last week, our friend and frequent blog commenter Yan sent us a tip about a woman who ostensibly completed the marathon in 5:20+. Seems that this woman didn't trigger a timing mat until the finish, and she only showed up in one Brightroom photo before the finish. In said photo she was clearly walking. Last year she registered at all the mats until the midway point, and then disappeared until the finish in 7+ hours. The fastest half marathon time we could find for her is 3:30+, which makes the 5:20 all the more implausible.
So here's the question - if this woman did not complete 26.2 miles, is it less offensive because her times were modest? Would it matter if she was a cancer survivor or raising money for charity? Are others as offended by such matters as I am, or should I worry more about myself and our athletes, and not care if others cut corners? Also, aside from cheating, is there another possible explanation for her quirky results?
Personally, I don't care what her story is, how much of a challenge it is to do part of a marathon, or anything else. Zoe Koplowitz takes over a day to do the marathon. Lots of other people stay out and suffer for however many hours it takes to complete the full course. If this woman didn't cover 26.2 miles on foot, I have as much disdain for her as for anyone else who shortens the course. I think anyone who cheats does a disservice to everyone who completes the race and does the best they can. Clearly there's no way to stop all cheaters, and what someone else does has no direct impact on someone else's race, but I find it disrespectful. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. Based on the input I've gotten from people I respect, it seems that I may be in the minority.
Posted at 02:00 PM in Cheaters, Coach's Comments | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)