[throwaway30yo]

No.

Also I do not think Olympic athletes should be tested. I once competed at a very high level in sports and the use of drugs is significantly higher then anyone would expect. The difference was that the poorer countries only had access to old school steroids (testosterone, dbol, tren etc) while the richer countries had access to things which at the time were impossible to detect (GH, IGF-1, Research Peptides).

The effects of steroids specifically are seen many years after use, so unless you are testing the lifetime of an athlete the test is meaningless anyway.

2 twins, one does steroids for 2 years, one does not. The steroid user comes off of drugs for another 2 years, and still has a major advantage over the non-using athlete.

[JamesBarney]

Many people like to believe our choices are between letting the best drug infused athlete win, or the best drug free candidate win.

But based on your comment and other readings I think that is a false choice, and the real choice is between letting the best drug infused athlete win, or letting the best athlete who can hide their drug use win.

The difference between natty and enhanced body building is not drug use, but deception.

[fiftyacorn]

The problem is people respond differently to doping - and some people are hyper-responders

An example being Lance Armstrong was considered a hyper-responder to his doping, and it put him at unfair advantage.

[dsacco]

How is being a hyper-responder meaningfully different from other genetic advantages that make a sport intrinsically unfair, like height?