If Torres has "long been suspected of doping" why doesn't the article give any details? Did it start at her first Olympics in 1984? Or was it something that didn't come up until much later? Shouldn't Shaffer easily be able to pinpoint the first time she started hearing these rumors? Shouldn't she be REQUIRED to do so if she's going to make such a claim?

And what specifically do these suspicious folks think she's on exactly? All the article manages to dig up is she's on asthma medication. But the Olympics allows that in her case, so that's not very likely the main reason she's still competing at 40.

This is a terrible article in that there's absolutely no way Torres could successfully respond to it, even if she wanted to try. Her attempts to explain her success get labeled as a smokescreen and her passing repeated drug tests are just seen as proof of how effective a cheater she really is. You might as well declare she's an alien from outer space, then use the fact doctors say she's human as evidence of just how good her disguise is.

My guess is she's been suspected since 2007 which gives her a year before that. Gains can be rapid but you have to manage them properly which requires off time from the cycle.

As for what she's using? Well Anabolic Steroids. Which ones are the question, probably a new synthetic unknown to detection.

If you want to do some investigation try: <link>

Of course her's won't be on the list but will eventually.

Thanks for pointing out the realy terrible rhetoric in this article. As for the 'anabolic steroid' reply, why that seems like exactly what answer Shaffer wants us to give. But there's a really, really, really long space between 'suspected of doping' and evidence of doping. And nothing in this article provides that evidence.

And, why is it not possible for Dara Torres to simple be a fine athlete? Is her age the only thing that suggests steroid use? When did it become impossible for one athlete to be successful into her forties?

"Doping" casts a big net. You can swap your post race or workout blood with your own oxygen enriched blood and that's against the rules. Obviously, her gain in speed means power which is lean muscle and that's drugs.

The problem is twofold. She is simply smashing her old records (akin to Floyd Landis in the time trial during his ill fate Tour de France) at a significantly different age. And she has the entourage of trainers who can't accurately explain to her what she's taking in a manner that she can then explain to the press. When an athlete starts consuming supplements outside their own basic understanding its a red flag to the drug police.

She could be just an athlete in the right place. But the past 10 years have shown very few power sports success stories are clean.

Before she dropped the 100m this month she was never regarded as one of the pure technicians on turns. That means her power output increased at 40 (when our metabolisms begin to shift from muscle production) to such a high degree that not it only canelled out out her existing technique flaws but even shaved seconds off her times from her 20s and 30s. That is an amazing gain in strength.

The NYT says the rumors about her are from 2000. Don't know about that but considering she had a child two years ago I doubt she's been cycling for so long.

It's not just "successful," though. She's the best in the country. The improvements she's made at her age are suspicious. It may very well be legitimate, but when an athelete has that much improvement, to that level of competition, that late in life, doping is the most common reason. Dara Torres knows that; that's why she's making cheap infomercial videos without compensation.

"My guess is she's been suspected since 2007 which gives her a year before that."

A year or two ago does not qualify as "long suspected" for somebody who competed in the 1984 Olympics. But the point is we shouldn't have to guess at the timeframe: It's part of Shaffer's job to provide relevant information like that. It wouldn't have been hard to add a line saying "I first heard rumors about this back in XWZ." Better yet, she'd have given some idea of who she heard it from. None of that would be proof of anything, but it'd certainly be better than passing off an unsubstantiated allegation as an established fact.

One of the reasons that I read Slate is that this kind of sensationalistic, "convicted in the court of public opinion" nonsense is minimized -- this article is truly a gross disappointment. This incredibly poor article uses as 'evidence' of doping that Torres hasn't convincingly articulated all of the reasons for her success -- that has to be the flimsiest 'evidence' I've ever heard. Here are a few reasons that may be more accurate but that a person with class and discretion probably wouldn't say out loud. (1) Darra Torres is a freak of nature (no offense to her) -- she's the Michael Jordan or Carl Lewis of swimming. Neither were ever accused of doping, yet even after they'd begun to age, they were still stand outs in their respective sports. (2) She works harder and smarter than her competition. Like Jerry Rice, she's never let her fitness slip and she has better coaches and trainers than the field. (3) While Torres might look like a stud compared to the other US folks, her US record time is still 3/10ths off the world mark. Maybe (like Carl Lewis again) she got to the Olympics because the US field just isn't that great. Torres has been accused of doping since her last Olympics but she's never failed a drug test. Given that there are more 40 year olds than Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds who are maintaining a high level of performance in their 40s, we should at least have evidence before throwing stones.

Jerry Rice was out of football at 40 (that God awful Seattle jersey) and his last 3 years were known for declining production and injuries.

Torres is setting personal records at 41.

But Rice never took any time off during his career and swimming is easier on the body than pro football.

But it's all anecdotal, anyway. I could find some guy who was out of football by 30 and use that as "evidence" to support that Rice must have been doping for the last decade of his career. Or decide that Bob Beamon must have been on drugs when he jumped 29'2" and then went off them because nothing else could possibly explain why he never approached that mark again. You can drag anybody and everybody through the mud once you decide that evidence isn't required before making accusations.

True. But its her performance arc that skews it. Like older athletes who juice - Bonds - the gains in production come in the later years while non juicers decline, albeit some slower than others.

No Time - you're making a big assumption. You're assuming that in her "prime" years, she was performing at full potential. She may have been in tip-top athletic shape, but not necessarily at the tip-top of her swimming potential.

She is now 15 pounds lighter than she was in her "prime", yet she is just as strong. Her flexibility has increased exponentially without giving up strength, from her pregnancy and her resistance stretching techniques, which massively increase her efficiency.

Do the simple math: say her maximum potential in her "prime" is valued at X. Her maximum potential now is Y. If she's more efficient now than she once was, her efficiency can overcome her decline in potential. If X = 100 and Y = 90, she could be at 95% efficiency now, and was only at 80% efficiency in her prime. That means it's not impossible that she's better now. It also means if she had the same workout regimen in her prime, she may have obliterated world records. Then again, her pregnancy changed her body chemistry and made her more flexible, so pregnancy may have erased the potential deficit between now and her "prime".

It's only if you assume that in her "prime" her potential was greater AND she was more efficient that it becomes impossible for her to beat her old times at this age. Those are two giant assumptions.

So is the assumption that she is the first late in life athlete to produce at a higher rate clean in the last 10 years.