Having said that, and assuming your eyeglass prescription is up to date (unlike mine), to “stay up on these things” you only have to check one website, once a year.

That’s because the WADA prohibited list is updated annually. The next revised list is due to be published in October 2010 and will come into force January 1, 2011.

When the new list is published WADA routinely includes an FAQ and a summary highlighting what’s changed.

So if you check the list in October, you have 2-3 months to make whatever adjustments to your medications are necessary.

WADA reintroduced pseudoephedrine becauee, it says, “Results of the Monitoring Program over the past five years have shown a sustained increase in samples containing pseudoephedrine. The Program indicated clear abuse of this substance with high concentrations in a number of sports and regions. In addition, available literature shows scientific evidence of the performance-enhancing effects of pseudoephedrine beyond certain doses…”

Apparently pseudoephedrine was put back on the list in Jan 2010 and one of the Asthma medications “Salbutamol” has a changed status (just looked it up because of this blog). My point is- How do you keep up with changes? If I had a cold or flu recently I could have taken what I thought was a legal drug. In fact recently in conversation I have mentioned the legal status of this drug to other athletes.

I would expect that even one caffeine tablet (still legal?) would have given Geraldine greater benefit. Surely in the case of stimulants, the level in the athlete’s sample would make it very clear if it was a trace such as from a nasal spray, or at a level likely to boost performance.

Check the levels in her sample. They were taken straight after the event. If the level would help then ban her. If the level clearly would give no help and was likely to be the low level caused by topical use suspended ban. If she ever tests positive again give her 4 years ban.

I have never been tested but will be “pissing myself” worried that something has inadvertently got into my system if / when I am!

Presumably he got a TUE, but maybe it helps, being an Olympic champion.

Meanwhile, what do you make of this comment I found on a cycling site (posted in 2008)?

“Today’s Cycling News mentioned that 76 of the 180 riders who started the Tour De France had a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE).

“Does this mean that one of the pre-requisites for becoming a professional cyclist is that you’ve got a pre-existing medical condition that requires permanent medication? Now I’ve been enlightened, I’m all the more impressed with the efforts of these guys, knowing that they’re all so sick!

“A quick poll of my office colleagues has shown that, on average, we’re healthier than a TdF cyclist.”
(http://survey.cyclingnews.com/letters.php?id=letters/2008/08-15letters)

“He can tell you every reason why something won’t work, but he never has solutions to anything.”

I was looking for something on type 2 diabetes (far more common than type 1), and I am still not clear what the situation would be for someone with that disease. Would they get a Therapeutic Use Exemption for using insulin, for example?

According to Robert Tanenberg, MD (Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University), writing in Diabetes Health (December 2007):

“As recently as 1994, there were only two options for patients with type 2 diabetes: insulin and the sulfonylureas (such as glyburide and glipizide). The good news is that today, seven totally different classes of medications are available, as well as much better insulins.”

…

“The overwhelming majority of type 2s eventually require insulin to obtain or preserve satisfactory glucose control and an A1c of 7% or less.”

…

Jack, from looking at various sites I am confident that people with type 1 diabetes (which used to be called insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus) would get an exemption for using insulin. But I am not at all sure that people with type 2 (which used to be called noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus) would get an exemption for taking insulin.

Moreover, I am not sure whether hurdler “Joseph Everyman,” while discussing his therapeutic options with his internist, Dr. Kildare, would have the time or inclination to say: “Now, the one thing we have to ensure is that whatever choice we make, whether it is insulin or some of these new drugs, or a combination of insulin and drugs, will not prohibit me from getting a Therapeutic Use Exemption.”

This is fairly detailed, Jack, but type 2 diabetes is a very common problem, and yet I am still not at all sure what would happen to our hypothetical hurdler in 2010 or in some future year (when treatments have changed). And this is just one scenario of hundreds or even thousands.

“The shop manager of the local health shop assured her that it was legal for World Championship.” Well, that is good enough for me…

The WADA list should be included in entry forms for all masters meets where drug testing is conducted along with a web site which must be reviewed by entrants to determine if any other substances have been added to the banned list. Athletes should have to sign when they enter the meet that they have read the banned list of substances and verify that they have not taken any banned drugs. A review of the WADA list requires a chemistry or med school degree. All I learned for sure is that people cannot show up for a track meet having used pot but that a meet director may have trouble banning an athlete who has alcohol on their breath.

In order to use the Web Findex system, an athlete has to know how to spell correctly the “Substance X” which they enter in order to find out if it banned. Most masters rely on their physician to write a prescription. How much will masters have to pay their physician to log on to Web Findex or to read the WADA list and attest to their patients that the medication being prescribed will in no way lead to a positive test at a masters track meet? What does the masters athlete do if the physician tells them that they should not compete if they do not take the banned medication which the physician believes is the best prescription for their condition?

Neither the WADA list or the Web Findex sites acknowledge age or sex in developing the set of banned substances. Drug testing for masters should not be started until separate banned substances are established which recognize the aging process related to every five year age bracket for men and women.

David Ortman states in his article in reference to track and field, “It’s all about world records.” Wrong, David, masters track and field was not developed by David Pain for the primary purpose of setting records.

Let us keep the focus on encouraging men and women of all ages, particularly the oldest living beings, to enjoy training and competing in track and field without fear of being labeled a druggie.

For one of my False Start columns on drug testing see:

http://www.ortmanmarchand.com/fsh.html