B.J. Duhon accepts 2-year suspension after refusing Sacto test

B.J. Duhon

A third American bites the dust. USADA yesterday announced “that Byron Duhon, of Elk Grove, Calif., an athlete in the sport of Track & Field, has accepted a two-year suspension for an anti-doping rule violation based on his refusal to comply with the sample collection process. Duhon, 53, refused to comply with the sample collection process for an in-competition doping control test on July 13, 2011, after being notified by a USADA Doping Control Officer at the World Masters Athletics Championships in Sacramento, Calif. Under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) Anti-Doping Rules, both of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code, an athlete’s refusal to comply with the sample collection process when notified that he has been selected for doping control, constitutes a rule violation.”

The press release continued:

Duhon accepted a two-year period of ineligibility, which began on October 21, 2011 the day he accepted his sanction. As a result of the sanction, Duhon is also disqualified from all results obtained during the World Masters Athletics Championships, which began on July 6, 2011, as well as any other competitive results obtained subsequent to July 6, 2011, including forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes.

In an effort to aid athletes, as well as all support team members such as parents and coaches, in understanding the rules applicable to them, USADA provides comprehensive instruction on its website on the testing process and prohibited substances, how to obtain permission to use a necessary medication, and the risks and dangers of taking supplements as well as performance-enhancing and recreational drugs. In addition, the agency manages a drug reference hotline, Drug Reference Online (www.GlobalDRO.com), conducts educational sessions with National Governing Bodies and their athletes, and proactively distributes a multitude of educational materials, such as the Prohibited List, easy-reference wallet cards, periodic newsletters, and protocol and policy reference documentation.

USADA is responsible for the testing and results management process for athletes in the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement, and is equally dedicated to preserving the integrity of sport through research initiatives and educational programs.

This revelation answers the question of who-is-the-athlete? posed in my blog entry of August 15.

B.J. is the No. 2 M50 short hurdler in the United States this season after Dexter McCloud. I’ll check out why B.J. refused testing.

Print Friendly

October 26, 2011

74 Responses

  1. Rob D'Avellar - October 26, 2011

    Is B.J. eligible to pursue a post-event TUE if he refused to be tested?

    If it turns out that Kathy and Craig are eligible to pursue post-event TUEs after testing positive, it would seem logical that B.J. should be able to look into a TUE if he so chooses. After all, he didn’t test positive. He just refused to be tested,

    By the way, why is it taking so long to figure out whether Kathy and Craig can pursue post-event TUEs? Aren’t the rules written down anywhere?

  2. Terry Parks - October 26, 2011

    If we have three people suspended so far under quasi random testing, it seems that Masters Track has a deep PED problem. After reading the various posts on this website, I think we need more testing because some people seem to think that the use of PED’s is OK in all circumstances. While I think that TUE’s should be given more liberally to Masters athletes for legitimate medical needs, those who refuse to seek a TUE or to even take part in testing are effectively saying that they don’t care about the rules and they are willing to roll the dice in terms of getting caught. Kathy’s case is more complicated and it seems that giving her a two year suspension instead of a lifetime ban after the second violation was a compromise that reached.
    I felt sad when the first suspension came down, but now I think that it is time to clean house and rigorously eliminate people who use PED’s in wanton disregard to the rules.

  3. Greg Theologes - October 26, 2011

    I’m surprised there isn’t a picture available of BJ throwing. It appears that of his 39 listed results since 2006, he competed in the shot put once:

    http://www.mastersrankings.com/meetresults.php?pseason=Outdoor&cyear=2010&meetno=A351

    Damn those throwers! Hurting our sport…

  4. Greg Theologes - October 26, 2011

    I’m surprised there isn’t a picture available of BJ throwing. It appears that of his 39 listed results since 2006, he competed in the shot put once:

    http://www.mastersrankings.com/meetresults.php?pseason=Outdoor&cyear=2010&meetno=A351

    Those throwers! Hurting our sport…

  5. Weia Reinboud - October 26, 2011

    Refusing a test is the same as admitting to use PED’s. It has been the case a decade ago, a European thrower, as I remember well, talking about ‘freedom to refuse etcetera’, but he was using anaboles.

  6. Jeff Davison - October 26, 2011

    BJ had informed me a week before Worlds that he was injured, that he only planned to watch. Because of his injuries he could not compete in several meets this season.

    Question: Is it fair to take a test if you are not really planning to compete?

  7. Milan Jamrich - October 26, 2011

    ^ looks like he was competing…”it was an in-competition test”..

  8. Terry Parks - October 26, 2011

    When we signed up for the Worlds, we were informed of testing and that we might be randomly selected. So, if you competed you were agreeing to these rules. Plus, we were told that a refusal to test would be treated as a doping violation. Rob statement that BJ did not test positive is factually correct since BJ refused to take the test. The rules don’t allow one to opt out of testing because we can only find PED’s if we test, so a refusal is treated the same as a positive test in as far as punishment.

    There really is no reason not to take the test once you have agreed to participate and have been informed of the testing protocols except for fear of testing positive.

  9. Milan Jamrich - October 26, 2011

    another guy who based on the picture clearly needs steroids :-)

    when I read the contributions on this forum I get the impression that I am one of very few who is not on drugs

  10. Anonymousie - October 26, 2011

    To Jeff, #5: BJ ran in the quarterfinals of the 110m hurdles on July 13. He was a DNS for the finals.

  11. Pete Magill - October 26, 2011

    This is depressing.

  12. George Patterson - October 26, 2011

    TO Greg T.
    You can’t put this on the shoulders of throwers. PED is used in all events and even though he may look like a thrower and has tried the shot, BJ is a hurdler first.
    As I compete in many events, and keep track of my competition and their marks and times over an extended time period, I see many substantial improvements as well as muscle mass gained or body fat lost(being ripped) as they get older. My training partners and I talk about PED use from time to time, and we do note that, while we make light of it, it’s not a joke to the integrity of the sport and the fairness to your competition. It is time to do some early Spring cleaning.

  13. Troy dietz - October 26, 2011

    Post 11 you missed it, Greg T. was being sarcastic.

  14. Ken Effler - October 26, 2011

    Rob;

    The information regarding post testing TUE’s was discussed during the USADA Masters conference call and is also found on their site at the following link.

    http://www.usada.org/uploads/level%202%20tue.pdf

  15. A Master's Runner - October 26, 2011

    To #10 Pete–

    Precisely what is it about this that you find depressing?

    To all others, including posters on another thread, who hold the opinion that none of this really matters because, after all, this is “masters track”, I have 2 things to say:

    1) this is NOT “masters track”, this is “track”, and involves organizations representing non-masters athletes, and therefore by proxy involves also those other athletes.

    2) competitive sports in general, and athletics in particular, are non-trivial in a social and cultural sense, and it has been that way for millennia. They represent a metaphor, a microcosm, and have always been the subject of not only the individual but of the state and its citizenry. They express particular values, and act as a social and cultural analogue to combat, with which athletics in particular was intimately entwined in antiquity, and which it still was in the early days of the modern Olympics.

    Even now, more than half of all women, and more than two-thirds of all men, in the USA watch NFL on Sunday–I know some of you yourselves do. Everyone in Europe lives and dies by football.

    To the extent that we desire sport to express certain values, we embed those values in the sanctioning of competition, at both the national and international levels.

    It has always been so. Sports, and athletics in particular, are culturally non-trivial. The values athletics officially reflects are non-trivial.

    If you want to associate yourself with this paradigm, you must respect not only what is going on now, but a large part of the history of western civilization.

    To say that “it’s just masters track” TOTALLY misses the mark.

    To treat competition in an officially-sanctioned event as mere recreation is juvenile at best, and ignorant at worst.

    If you want to recreate, do it somewhere else.

    Like it or not, society and civilization have decided that this is important.

  16. Rob D'Avellar - October 26, 2011

    Thanks, Ken.

    I can see how there is confusion on the point.

    The policy states you don’t have to get a pre-event TUE for “substances that are prohibited only in-competition” and that you can try to get a post-event TUE for any of the substances prohibited in-competition.

    Thus, folks have to figure out what drugs are prohibited in-competition versus out-of-competition.

  17. Weia Reinboud - October 26, 2011

    @Milan: I think many are not on drugs. Or at least I hope so.

  18. peter taylor - October 26, 2011

    Thanks, Ken Effler, for post no. 12. I wasn’t in on the conference call to which you refer, nor do I frequent the USADA site.

    In some ways, things are even more complicated, but now I see that some drugs I worried about have been addressed. To sum up in one sentence:

    Some banned (prohibited) drugs are not banned for masters.

    Was I supposed to know this? We have been speaking of the long list of banned drugs but, again, they are not all banned for masters. This is good news to me. The two most important are insulin and diuretics.

  19. Mike Sullivan - October 26, 2011

    Ban him for life…..no let me just take up the hurdles……Pete Magill this is not depressing there will always be cheaters…..One has to be able to sleep at night….Played hard on south mountain this morning to help maintain my falling testosterone level…my girlfriend is not complaining to much yet…..Keeping it light in Arizona….Sully

  20. Test Early! Test Often! - October 26, 2011

    It is nice to see that people are starting to come around, in terms of realizing that PED use is and has been rampant among many of our fellow masters athletes.

    Hopefully, the movement away from blind allegiance & support for those suspended for PED use will continue. Folks, just because you meet someone at an event and they seem like a decent person and you see or talk to them a few times a year, does not mean that you really know them. Let’s face it, most of us don’t know what is in someone’s medicine cabinet or refrigerator, nor do we know about the shots or implants that they MIGHT be getting from their doctor.

    A rush to judgement, whether it be condemnation or support, is unwise!

  21. Greg Theologes - October 26, 2011

    To George Patterson….I was being sarcastic. My response was a follow-up to one made on another drug suspension thread where someone mentioned that a picture of the person throwing the shot was used, even though the person involved was mainly a sprinter. Hence, the picture bringing negative attention to the throwing community.

    I’m a thrower myself.

  22. Hmmm? - October 26, 2011

    I wonder if the fact that BJ is a firefighter has anything to do with his refusal of testing.

    As a public servant, a positive test for steroids could put his job in jeopardy. If the municipality where he works finds out about this, then it seems that they would have strong grounds to test him.

  23. Milton Girouard - October 26, 2011

    Interesting…I guess those “Gladys Kravitz” PED eye ballers forgot to look in their own back yard…Didn’t we explain the circle of trust to you guys? I’m going to be like a “Jack Byrnes” at track events from now on. Signaling runners from the stands with two finger pointing to my eyes, so you know I’m watching you. Studying your every move. And if I find that you are trying to corrupt the sport, I will bring you down, baby. I will bring you down to Chinatown! ;~)

  24. Mary Harada - October 26, 2011

    The pdf Ken provided should be made widely available to all masters athletes. In addition – where is the list of the “substances that are prohibited only in competition”? One should not have to spend hours clicking through the USADA website seeking information. It is very obvious from comments on prior blogs about doping that some are very confused – including the woman who wrote that her MD refused to give her a TUE for insulin because he was too busy. Apparently she does not need a TUE if she is an insulin dependent diabetic.

  25. Rob D'Avellar - October 26, 2011

    Yes, the PDF that Ken supplied should be widely distributed as well as any other material that was discussed in USADA Masters conference calls but never made easily available to athletes.

    For example, were officials supposed to tell Kathy and Craig that they could pursue post-event TUEs or where they supposed to find this PDF somewhere themselves? Where is the rule on this point?

    So far, we have two athletes banned because of possible confusion over TUEs and one athlete banned because he refused to take the test for whatever reason.

    None of these people appear to be Val Barnwell types.

    A better roll-out of the program might have eliminated a lot of confusion and spared all this controversy.

  26. Stefan Waltermann - October 26, 2011

    Dude refusing a drug test for whatever reason gets banned. That’s the rule. What is questionable about it? In my company, refusing a drug test leads to termination as well, religious or personal reasons, I don’t discriminate. They’re gone. Too bad USDA did not convict the world champion, I was mentioning in an earlier blog. It might have prevented this terrible mess.

  27. Alnonymous - October 26, 2011

    Not using my name because I don’t want to make any enemies because people, it’s not that serious. Life isn’t fair. People that are taking banned substances for WHATEVER reason should not be able to compete against those who are not. If you need drugs to compete for medical reasons, I’m sorry but too bad. What makes master sports great is that we are doing things that most people our age can’t do, and if you can’t do it anymore you need to stop. (competing that is, feel free to do all the training you want at your local track) I reached a certain age (late 30’s)when I could no longer compete with the big boys in track basically because I got old. Should I have been able to juice up because it’s not fair that I got old? I’m sure my testosterone levels were lower that in my 20’s, so why not? With all the ailments we encounter as we get older it’s a marvel to see elderly athletes who can still do it. That’s what makes them special. Medicine may be absolutely needed for some to maintain a certain quality of life and that’s fine, but it’s not fair for those people to COMPETE against those who are not on drugs that enhance or even enable their ability to compete.

  28. Thad Wilson - October 26, 2011

    To Rob (#15)
    This is the link I used to verify that the medication I take for blood pressure control was not on the banned substance list prior to the World and National competitions. I’m not exactly sure when it was made available, but I bookmarked it at the end of May 2011. If you do a search for your medication(s), it will tell you what drugs are prohibited in-competition versus out-of-competition.

    Thad

    http://www.globaldro.com/us-en/default.aspx

  29. Kevin Jordan - October 26, 2011

    Can’t you just hear it now “I’ve never failed a drug test!” Hey, maybe has a lot of money, a good coach, great training facilities, a job with a lot of free time and fast people with big muscles to train with and he’s squeaky clean ;) …or maybe he had a fire to go to? Who knows?

    But Pete is right. It is depressing to think that grown men and women will stoop to this level (if truly guilty) all for the sake of a monster ego or a shot at some re-claimed youth. What else could it be?

  30. George Patterson - October 26, 2011

    Sorry Greg T.

    Peace,

    G

  31. Dan - October 26, 2011

    USADA explains when an athlete does not need to file a TUE before hand if they are masters. The web page is http://www.usada.org/tue-determine. There are specific substances. I don’t think that these substances qualify because they are anabolic agents., which are prohibited at all times

    Also if a retroactive TUE was a possibility then USADA would have waited until that process was complete I imagine before giving the sanction. These cases are over.

  32. Joe Kessell - October 26, 2011

    Folks, enough already! I understand the right of everyone’s opinion, but a rule is a rule. If you do not like l=it, challenge it, get it band, but until then, If you refuse to be tested, do not submit form prior to competing…………TOO BAD!

    We are all adults, and as such, act like adults. If you beleive that a certain drug you are taking (under medical doctor’s care) may be questionable, then announce it and fill out the *&^()*&^% form and submit it.

    If you do not, then I am suspect as to why you did not.

    “Can we all play fair?”

    Thanks for listening.

  33. Joe Kessell - October 26, 2011

    Milt,

    I love your answer. You have been a stalwart in the throwing community for years, and it would be my honor to have a beer with you some day.

    To me, it still remains soooo simple. Kindly disclose what medicine you are taking, let your doctor fill out the form, i need be, but MAKE IT KNOWN BEFORE YOUR COMPETE.

    Why would you want to spend all that hard earned money to compete at an event, only to know that any result may be rejected? It sounds to me like money NOT WELL SPENT! WHAT, FOR A MEDAL. ThAT HUNK OF $#@_)(*&^ CAN STAY IN YOUR CLOSET FOR POSTRIETY.

    How hard s that?

    As an example, I met and spoke with Criag Shumacker
    on several occasions and found him to be forth right, and a “class act”.

    Why he did not make the drugs he was taking known prior to competing is ALSO SUSPECT!

    I only reviel my gut feel.

  34. Joe Kessell - October 26, 2011

    Posting Records:

    Submit your documentation:

    Tony Harlin…………..SSUBMIT THE FORM, FOR THE 50-55 RECORDS IN THE SHOT PUT.

    I won the NYS Shot-Put Championship in the indoor and outdoor meet my senior year 73, so I know how how important it is.

  35. JStone - October 26, 2011

    Rob D’ (post # 24), The fact that Craig and Kathy did not apply for TUE’s has LITTLE to do with their suspensions and the fact that their prescribed medications were ANABOLIC ANDROGENIC STEROIDS has MUCH to do with their suspensions!

    Buba Sparks has posted numerous times that USADA would not grant him a TUE for ANABOLIC ANDROGENIC STEROIDS. What part of that don’t you get?

    Many cities have zoning restrictions that prohibit businesses from operating in residential areas. In some cases exemptions are granted and certain businesses are allowed in residential areas, for example; I have seen medical & dental practices and photography studios & CPA offices located in residental areas. However, an athlete being granted a TUE for anabolic steroids is akin to granting a zoning exemption to allow a sex shop, liquor store or sex-offender halfway house to operate next to an elementary school! As we all know, that sh*t just does not fly in this country!

  36. Troy dietz - October 26, 2011

    Ref. Post #14. I was considering critiquing just about every paragraph but have decided to instead quote the same author from one of his very recent posts on the Stephen Robbins thread. “Your entire post is a disaster, but let’s first consider the merit of this single assertion.” (let’s see, so many to choose… Oh, I know) “everyone in Europe lives or dies by football.” Now here I could say that position is untenable, the argument dissuasive, and don’t get me started on “factual predicates” I might focus on the word “everyone” or “dies” until I forget the point you were making…….but that doesn’t really advance the dialogue does it?

  37. JStone - October 26, 2011

    This just in…Transgender (female-to-male) athletes can get TUE’s for testosterone, but only to compete against males.

  38. A Master's Runner - October 26, 2011

    Hi Troy–

    The obvious difference is that my statement was, I thought, obviously hyperbolic. I didn’t need to be specific, as I was specific in the immediately preceding assertion I made about American football-watching–the hyperbole was intended, and was used for emphasis, not to be taken literally of course, as that would be an absurdity.

    Hyperbole is a legitimate literary tool and if used properly does, in fact, advance dialogue.

    I thought I had used it properly–but if not, the chagrin is all mine. However, I would suggest that when you are faced with 2 possible interpretations, the outcome of one of which is absurd, it is incumbent on you to select the other one, unless there is stronger evidence to the contrary.

    Contrast this to the assertion made by Stephen in the other post, which suggested that all master’s athletes were uniform in their attitudes toward age-grading in particular, and I would argue at this point toward track in general.

    The essential difference is that THE CENTRAL POINT of the other discussion was that all master’s athletes are NOT uniform in their attitudes toward PED use in particular, and as I argued toward track in general.

    Whereas my mischaracterization was intentional hyperbole included as a mere literary device to emphasize a fact for which specific evidence was already offered, Stephen’s mischaracterization appeared unintentional, and amounted to a conclusory statement concerning the central issue under discussion.

    A conclusory statement without supporting evidence–that doesn’t really advance the dialogue, does it?

    As regards critiquing, please critique away–I would enjoy hearing rebuttal argument aimed at proving that sports, and athletics in particular, are culturally trivial, and that the values athletics officially reflects are trivial.

    And that’s not just for Troy, that’s for anybody who honestly believes that sports and the values they officially reflect are socially and culturally trivial.

  39. A Master's Runner - October 26, 2011

    And I’m still waiting to hear what in particular Pete finds depressing about this news…or was it about the comments?

    Although, the more important thing is, I think, how you respond to your feelings of depression.

  40. ben - October 26, 2011

    this is why everyone needs to be tested at a national meet. drug use is rampant in the masters world.

  41. Bubba Sparks - October 26, 2011

    Rules are rules and we know the consequences and we all agree to them when we enter the big meets. We know there is testing. If you go in dirty it’s Russian roulette. I only made the details of my situation public to show there is a real medical need. I did not ask for the rules to be changed nor am I opposed to testing. As many have said, apparently we may need more testing. Even though I clearly have a need, I clearly cannot and do not use. Seems simple to me.

  42. Ken Stone - October 26, 2011

    Masters cyclist accepts an 8-month suspension:
    http://bit.ly/t9UkK1

    Why not two years? It ain’t fair!

  43. Lindy Raney - October 26, 2011

    Drug use is rampant in the world, period. Guess us mature adults are prone to the same temptations as the young athletes.
    I’ll keep doing masters track until I’m 6 feet under. May not be a world or national champ, but I know I did it clean.

  44. Randy Wilson - October 26, 2011

    Shouldn’t the title read:

    Drug positive at Berea nationals: M50 hurdler …..

    Might have made the throwers feel a little better. HaHa

  45. bob - October 26, 2011

    post 26 hit it on the head.
    If u need the drugs fine, just stop competing. Pretty simple.
    and Ken the masters cyclist only got 8 months because apparently the substance is in a popular energy drink. and it is not banned
    “The World Anti-Doping Agency classifies methylhexaneamine as a “Specified Substance,” that can result in a reduced sanction.”
    hence reduced sentence
    does that clear things up for u Ken?

  46. Larry Barnum - October 26, 2011

    Granted, any is too many, but I don’t see how “rampant” drugs are in masters if we don’t know how many were actually tested. So far, we’ve caught one that definitely seems suspicious and refused to be tested, and two others that may or may not be as intentionally “guilty”, depending on your personal viewpoint. (Lack of intent still doesn’t excuse not trying to get a TUE.)

    But if they’re about 10 age groups, times 23 track & field (and race walking) events, times 2 (M and F), then they’re at least 460 gold medalists and probably another 800-920 silver and bronze. So if they were going to randomly test medalists, conservatively, 1200 at Worlds could have been tested and maybe 400 at Nationals.

    So 99% of medal winners did not test positive for drugs. Obviously, that’s literally true yet somewhat misleading until we get more info. But 3 hardly seems rampant.

    It seems a waste of USATF resources to test everyone. These tests are probably much more comprehensive and expensive than just testing for recreational drugs. So why not test randomly until there’s more evidence of an actual problem, yet test all record breakers.

  47. tb - October 26, 2011

    Looked up the cyclist’s drug. Here’s some info:
    http://drugfreesportrec.blogspot.com/2011/03/methylhexaneamine-1-3-dimethylamylamine.html

    Most common source seems to be a drink called “Jack 3d”. I guess these all might be drinks; can you imagine downing a can of “Hemo-Rage Black Ultra Concentrate”?

  48. Anthony Treacher - October 26, 2011

    We must start to quantify the eventual TUE-PED problem. I would like to see the numbers of entries with TUEs at WMA Sacramento. Is that so unreasonable or impossible?f

  49. Terry Parks - October 26, 2011

    We know that there is a problem, what we don’t know how big the problem is. I say test more of the medalist and get a good random testing of some of other competitors. Definitely test all record breakers.

  50. Matt B. - October 26, 2011

    Can’t we just have an all drug Masters competition? Similar to the Saturday Night Live skit – All drug Olympics. I’m 100% for it, especially if you are 75 and over. That way you can compete and not have to worry about being tested or feel any type of guilt or shame.
    I’d actually come cheer you on!

  51. Jimson Lee - October 27, 2011

    Maybe it **IS** a level playing field after all! It’s just not the level you thought it was!

  52. Francis A Schiro - October 27, 2011

    Does anyone have an email address for A Treacher?? Thanks. F A Schiro

  53. Stefan Waltermann - October 27, 2011

    Larry, they were busy in Berea, taking samples from many athletes, many more than I ever expected. That’s a good thing, of course. The drug testing crews are at the venues, might as well collect as many samples as possible if only to show they are serious. The next step is more expensive, conducting the actual tests. Only when USADA tells us they analyzed all samples, we can make (cautious) assumptions about the scope of our problems.
    Everything is evolving; new drugs are followed by new tests by new drugs. Only recently, carbon-isotope ratio (CIR) testing was approved to distinguish pharmaceutical testosterone from testosterone made in the body.
    Use human-growth hormone, and well, you probably won’t get caught, at least not by a drug test. WADA (the World Anti-Doping Agency) now tells us that they might have a reliable HGH test available for the 2012 Olympic Games but then, maybe not. USADA might keep the samples around and re-test when the test in development is reliable. Naturally, dirty masters will claim Prader-Willi Syndrome and ask for TUEs. Oh, by the way, ““The most disastrous side effect of using human-growth hormone is the disease acromegaly, which is a disease of excessive growth and, in a sense, disfigurement. It causes the hands and feet to enlarge, and it causes the jaw to protrude. It is not a very handsome disease.” I noticed a dude at an industry expo in Las Vegas last week. No, it is not a very handsome disease. But it takes years to develop acromegaly, in the meantime, taking human-growth hormone could push an athlete toward diabetes and poor blood-sugar control, among other problems. That is no problem for us masters, right? Depressing? It is.

  54. dave albo - October 27, 2011

    My viewpoint is evolving. Here’s my latest:

    We have put a system in place, with the TUE route there to handle actual medical issues. That much seems potentially reasonable, with some tweaking needed to get it right. More information that is easy to understand would be really useful! I suggest that right on the entry form for a nationals meet is a list of drugs you can’t take without a TUE, and words that say you might be tested and if these are detected, you’ll get a two year ban. and you sign something that says you are in compliance. Then if you show up and fail a test, you are basically guilty of libel and deserve your punishment. Make it easy to understand and hard to ignore.

    The problem with the current system is in my opinion too much power in a few hands. What if the powers that be put in place a real stingy TUE decider person, and nearly everyone gets rejected, sometimes unjustly. It could happen. As an analogy, the (lack of) ratification of records over the last few years seems to be very much like this. In other words, who decides about TUEs and how do they make their decision? Too much power in one place leads to the potential for corruption and unfair use of that power.

    Similarly, what about when you get your 2 year ban, who decides and how do they come to the decision? What about a possible testing error, or some other very unusual circumstance? Or a corrupt decider? Any of these could happen. There seems to be NO individual rights, both for TUE rejection and for being found guilty.

    Why is there a completely separate legal system for this? We have a legal system in this country, why not allow that to come into play? Perhaps make it like a traffic offense. You can plead guilty and take your ban, or take it all the way to a jury trial and fight for your innocence if you have a strong case. Hire a lawyer, USADA has a lawyer, and so on. If still found guilty you get an even longer ban. Not perfect of course, but it does provide some protection for the individual. Similarly for TUE rejection, some kind of appeals process that is legal in nature… where USADA is not 100% in charge.

    Our masters ‘society’ needs rules to meet its societal needs, but you need some kind of individual rights that are kept in place by distributing the power to make decisions over more than one person or one groups interests, and thereby protect the individual. I don’t want USADA to be ‘big brother’.

  55. A Master's Runner - October 27, 2011

    Reply to #53 Dave Albo

    Individual legal protections remain intact in doping-related offenses, and the appropriate jurisdiction of the various court systems in the USA, especially the federal court system, can be invoked by the aggrieved individual to commence an appropriate action therein.

    That action can be maintained to the extent that the US court decides that it has, and that it wishes to exercise at that time, that jurisdiction, and to the extent that the court determines that there exists a genuine case or controversy within that jurisdiction.

    The real problem is, of course, expense. Generally you will only find elites invoking legal action in response to doping-related offenses–for the rest of us, either we can’t afford it, or if we can afford it, we decide that it isn’t worth pursuing.

  56. Stefan Waltermann - October 27, 2011

    Good grief. Why are you throwing this stuff around without looking into it first? Of course, there is a separate legal system. It’s called CAS, Court of Arbitration for Sports, aka Sport’s Supreme Court. If you are a member of USATF, you live under rules, laws and by-laws. Of course, you have legal rights. ^%$%# up and get a lawyer, it’s the American way.

  57. Anthony Treacher - October 27, 2011

    Francis Schiro. Here it is anthony @ treacher.se leave out the blanks. I am a bit worn since last but it will be good to hear from you again.

  58. Troy dietz - October 27, 2011

    “anonymous masters runner”
    Hi , before we indulge your little message board arguing hobby any further I was hoping you could summarize your stand towards the current Masters Track & Field drug testing policy. Is it all good? Would you make changes? What might those be? Try to steer away from formulating debates no one is interested in like the one you created in the last paragraph of post 37. The one you carefully worded and framed and then dangled hoping someone would bite.

  59. david albo - October 27, 2011

    Geez sorry #54. Please give me a break, ok? Guilty of ignorance, but I brought up something new in this discussion, didn’t I? I’m feeling like I need a lawyer just to translate all of this stuff into something that I can understand. Am I alone? Maybe I’m a complete idiot who is in denial!

    I just spent half an hour+ checking out the appeals process on line. Is there any step to take besides going right to the ‘supreme court’? Couldn’t find that. Anything that involve a jury of my peers? Not that I can find. Is CAS really fair and of high integrity as advertised? How am I supposed to know? How does one get to become a member of the CAS? I couldn’t figure that out, but I suspect I won’t be invited.

  60. Kevin Jordan - October 27, 2011

    Trent Lane, a 101yr old masters runner who has 17 world records, was a former
    Teacher, a WWII Vet and an inspiration to many (read his obit) dies and his post as of this writing gets ZERO comments. A nice positive story I might add.

    Some guy gets busted for suspected PED’s or someone makes a comment about drugs use vs. other advantages or whatever and over 100 comments pop up. A lot negative stuff here.

    Not too sure what that says about our sport. Who’s gonna be the first to ask wether or not he was competing with a TUE the last 6 years?

    RIP Trent, great life.

  61. JStone - October 27, 2011

    Here is another reason to stay away from energy drinks. Personally, I have always felt like adequate sleep is the best pick me, but failing that, good ol’ coffee and Coca-Cola work just fine and caffine will no longer get you banned…at least for now, but stay tuned, as WADA seems goes back and forth on caffine!

    http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-kieser

    Looks like athletes from T&F and cycling got the same ban -8 months- for the same stuff.

    Everyone out there having trouble confirming whether or not their meds are banned, the link below is very easy to use.

    http://www.globaldro.com/us-en/search/search.aspx

  62. Alison Suckling - October 27, 2011

    Hello Masters Runner Post # 14: Re your blythe reference to “posters on other sites saying none of this matters”…..

    Peace

    I didn’t say it didn’t matter. I said you can’t care enough to have it stop your enjoyment of the sport.

    I do consider (my) masters track involvement recreational.

    But whatever – I get it !.. You’re right!!

    I won’t respond to you anymore as I kind of despise people who hide behind pseudo-names, and don’t like dealing with a sniper. I don’t know why anyone with so much to say (and as eloquently) is afraid of being known. There is nothing wrong in you having and voicing your opinion. Why are you afraid? What’s your problem? (But there again – haha – not that I care).

    Peace again and signing out.

  63. A Master's Runner - October 28, 2011

    In response to Troy #57:

    I didn’t “create any debate that nobody’s interested in”–the point referred to the point in post #14, which was a response to an issue raised in, among others, a post made on another thread by Alison Suckling.

    I didn’t create the debate by raising the issue–I engaged the existing debate created by those who DID raise the issue.

    I would be happy to engage you in discussion regarding masters T&F drug-testing policy, but your question is overly-broad. Are you thinking of any particular policy, or of the fact that there is any policy at all?

  64. A Master's Runner - October 28, 2011

    Response to David Albo #58–

    David, I won’t get into it here, but suffice it to say that the law can get pretty difficult to unravel when international treaties, accords, agreements, and conventions get signed into law in a signatory nation.

    Depending on the exact instrument and mechanism of adoption used, they can have the force of law in the US, for instance. Legal complexity can arise when their application or enforcement runs up against provisions of the US Constitution, the “supreme law of the land” which, among doing other things, affords certain protections to individuals. Various courts in the US have jurisdiction over issues arising from alleged violations of those individual constitutional protections.

    Those protections are not absolute, however–and there are other subtleties that I won’t get into here. Like I said, if it’s that important to someone, as it is to elites and their sponsors, a lawyer can be retained to figure it out.

    For people like you and me, the best thing to do is to understand the relatively simple rules, and do your best to abide by them. Easy for me to say, I know, because I take nothing–but it is best to do your best to steer clear of having to open the can of worms that is the challenge or appeal process.

  65. A Master's Runner - October 28, 2011

    Alison–

    Maybe I misunderstood your post, but I thought you were expressing incredulity that anybody could care sufficiently about master’s track to allow the anti-doping paradigm to affect the nature of their participation or enjoyment.

    What you said was:

    “How can anyone care about it? There is no formal selecton process or endorsments or millions of dollars in deals in masters track. You can have enjoyment and fun with it, but really – caring?”

    Me personally, I care not particularly about master’s T&F, but about T&F in general, and more broadly, about sports in general. The reasons for my caring mirror the reasons for society’s caring.

    Society cares because sports are important, as I tried to argue earlier, and it is as a result of this importance that somebody could develop a sufficient level of caring in master’s T&F to allow the anti-doping paradigm to affect the nature of their participation therein or enjoyment thereof.

    I believe you when you say that you consider your involvement merely recreational–but as long as that involvement is in USATF-sanctioned events, and USATF is a member federation of the USOC, society does not share your view, and considers your involvement MORE than merely recreational.

    If you care about what happens to you personally regarding your involvement, you would do well to align your view with that of the social organizations that create the conditions for, and allow, your participation, based on your having met certain criteria.

    Essentially, it is no different than somebody saying that they consider their narcotic use to be merely recreational. Try telling that to the judge. That may be your view, but it is not the view of society as expressed through law and regulation.

    Understanding the paradigm and aligning your thinking with it will only benefit you. Consider this Duhon guy–at this point, with all the grief he is receiving, might it not have been better for him to have not competed in sanctioned events? That is of course for him to decide, and for him only. We must all make our own decision in this regard.

    I’m lucky personally because I don’t have to worry about any of this–save for a botched test–as I’m totally drug-free.

    If I weren’t drug-free, I’d be worried enough about the possible results to care about the anti-doping paradigm.

    I would ask you, how can you NOT care? You must have a situation in which the costs and adverse effects of a rule violation are minimal to you personally–either that, or you haven’t fully considered the possibilities.

    And once again, I’m not afraid of “being known”, I just don’t want to invest the time explaining my involvement in this to people who are not specifically involved themselves.

    Why did I post here at all? Because I thought that it might represent an opportunity to reach a specific audience that would be difficult to efficiently reach otherwise–PED-users–while allowing those PED-users to remain invisible or anonymous.

    So to those of you who are PED-users, I’d really encourage you to form your own league or circuit. Think of the benefits. At least stay away from sanctioned competition, if you can.

    Anyway, peace out, Alison.

  66. david albo - October 28, 2011

    Thanks for providing some clarifying info, Masters Runner #63. I guess the international bit does make it a lot more complex. Agreed best to avoid the whole appeals thing, I was just poking at it to see if that part of the system was as good as it could/should be. We just might find out based on some of the more recent news. Nothing like an actual example.

  67. Sarasota Masters Track - October 28, 2011

    Re: post 46, USP Labs makers of the pre workout creatine drink power, Jack3d, offer this desclaimer at the bottom of their official website page for this product:

    “It’s mandatory that athletes or anyone subject to testing check with their governing body before using this product. Read the entire label, including directions, precautions & warnings. While this product contains compounds & constituents that are found in nature, tested athletes make up the extreme minority of the American public and have to follow strict rules on what they can and cannot use in competition. For example, compounds such as caffeine, creatine & 1,3 dimethylamylamine (also known as methylhexanamine, 2-amino-4-methylhexane & 1,3-dimethylpentylamine – a natural constituent of the geranium flower) may not be allowed by your specific sports organization. It’s completely up to the user to get this and any dietary supplement cleared by their organization before using.”

    No such warning appears in the actual retail container. BUT IT IS THE ATHLETES RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THE RESEARCH.

  68. Randy Wilson - October 30, 2011

    re: Post 43. Who’s posting under my name? Not amused….

  69. Linda Carty - October 31, 2011

    Geezerjock (post #69) – they gonna chew you up and spit you out on this blog. LOL But I’m standing up and shouting “AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY-MEN dude!”

  70. Greg Theologes - October 31, 2011

    I agree with Geezerjock too. Worry about your own training, and do your best on meet day. If you’re overly concerned with those who are better than you, you lose your ability to compete at your best.

  71. Greg Theologes - October 31, 2011

    And how did Geezerjock get profanities to post? I’ve tried and my entry never makes it to the thread.

  72. Anthony Treacher - October 31, 2011

    Case Geezerjock exemplifies how “don’t care” and “move on” damage your personality.

  73. A Master's Runner - October 31, 2011

    Hey geezerjock–

    Your vulgar post is not offensive, it is uninteresting.

  74. Kevin Burgess - November 10, 2011

    Can I just clarify something the press release stated “As a result of the sanction, Duhon is also disqualified from all results obtained during the World Masters Athletics Championships, which began on July 6, 2011, as well as any other competitive results obtained subsequent to July 6, 2011, including forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes.”

    How far back in time are are results subsequent to 6th July to be disqualified?
    I raised the question of Val Barnwell being stripped of his Gold Medal in Claremont Ferrand when he also broke the World record but was told that could not happen. This ruling seems to contradict that.
    Can anyone shed any light on this matter.

Leave a Reply