If I took performance enhancing drugs then presumably I would improve. But that doesn't mean that everyone currently faster than me is already on drugs, I'm just not as good. It's possible that someone who gets caught after winning was always a worse runner to start with and never quite up there, and the drugs have pushed them that extra bit further to enable competition with the best of the clean and producing a close race. There doesn't have to be a big gap.
I accept that where one person is doping it could well mean they aren't the only one. That's still a long step from saying everyone, or the majority, is doping.
I'm reading that as 'all top athletes are on drugs and you shouldn't bother trying unless you're willing to put your health at risk to get to the top'
Has it occured to you that what you might be saying is not only dishonest but also unmotivating to people reading this? You can argue that you're being honest, but you have no concrete evidence??? I have no concrete evidence that the top people are clean, but I know from my own experience that with very little talent and a lot of hard work I've got to a level where I've run for England abroad and got a real kick from my running. There were people at school far more talented and if they had stuck at it, I'm sure they'd be competing at a higher level still!
Also...one positive test in mountain running after...hang on...no previous positive tests?
And to say that few athletes get tested? The first couple get tested at each WMRA grand prix event, that might not sound a lot, but look at the results, there's a lot of different athletes there.
To be honest the cynicism grates because a young athlete starting out doesn't know how good they can be, and hearing 'everyone at the top is on drugs' is going to be off putting to most.
it will be good news for the england camp,they will be upgraded to team gold medal and a bronze for sarah tunstall.