Posted By:
davidcyclebackThe rule of thumb is that if many players are using drugs that greatly enhance their performance, the only way to be ahead of them is to also use drugs. One would have to be Superman incarnate to naturally beat others who are using performance enhancing drugs.
A Tour de France doping expert was asked which place the top clean athlete will finish. "About fiftieth," he said.
With those Get Rich Quick investment scams, when the person promises returns above a certain rate the government automatically considers it attempted fraud. The government considers it impossible to guarantee a rate so high from trading stocks or real estate or whatever. Thus, a company advertising the rate of return is considered fraudulent. In one case, a seminars company promised a return higher than the company made on its own investments ... Along those lines, if the majority of athletes, especially competing superstars, have had their performance artificially enhanced, it can be judged with great accuracy that the winner has had as well. The performance or 'rate of return' itself is reliable indicator ... For discussion's sake, if is true that the top 49 Tour de France placers used drugs that dramatically increased their speed, endurance, recovery time, etc, it can almost be assured that the winner used similar drugs as well. This is because it would be near physiologically impossible for a human to beat those riders with no artificial aid.
In short, in a sport where performance enhancing drugs is prevelant, highest performance, in particular being #1, can itself be considered strong evidence of drug use. In similar vein, if someone sneaks 20 percent of players aluminum bats, you don't have to inspect the bat to judge if the home run champ used an aluminum or wood bat. You just have to look at the performance. If he hit batted .420 with 120 home runs, there's no need to look at his bat.