Time to panic about doping culture infecting USA, masters track?
A friend sent me a link to a New York Times opinion column about the Barry Bonds case and what it says about doping in society. My friend wrote: “If we thought drugs were a problem in our sport up to now, this article scares the heck out of me. Are those of us who are “clean athletes” on the verge of being overtaken by artificially-enhanced competitors?” Actually, this train left the station years ago, as noted in the 2008 documentary “Bigger, Stronger, Faster.” So what’s the real issue here? Is it time to throw in the towel? Or can we accommodate this new reality?
20 Responses
We now have drug testing because use of PED is a problem. That is the new reality and unless Masters athletes accept this new reaIity expect more suspensions.
I compete to stay alive and enjoy life.
Why put pressure on yourself???????
Masters is a way of life and everybody
need to enjoy!!! If you the stuff you
might be great, but for how long??????
Sorry for the last sentence:
If you use the stuff
you might be great, but for how long???
I think it’s great that we are actively testing at the big meets. By and large I don’t see much protest about testing. I’d like to see a system that incorporates medications that older people take as long as they don’t trigger an abnormal level. A high level IS a violation and the user IS cheating. Detection of a physician prescribed medication in your system that does not trigger an abnormal level is not cheating.
Everyone suspended for PEDS noted higher than normal levels so that means the system is working. But when we can’t get a TUE, and the mere presence of the drug will trigger a positive test, even if the levels are LOWER than normal, then we have a system problem.
For example, the average testosterone reading for a 55 year old man is 552. Mine is <20 by the lab report I shared you many months ago. That is not normal. But if I took the medications my physician wants to prescribe I would test positive even though my levels would still be well below average; so I don’t; and I am always hurt from far less than normal effort.
Again, the older Olympic system only checked levels. It was a cheaper screening test. If it showed high levels then the “BIG test” was run on the B sample for detail. If they just tested masters with the “Screening Test” this would all go away. No one would need a TUE because our levels would be normal. If you are above normal you are cheating and should not be “saved”. This would get rid of the TUEs except for rare cases. Before WMAs this year I know I spent six months and a sizable amount of money with four separate physicians, lab tests, etc, trying to get a TUE and was flat denied and pretty much told that there will never be a TUE issued for testosterone.
I will keep competing clean because that is the rule and the system we presently have. But if you have higher than normal levels you should expect to be caught and suspended because you are cheating. So good for us in being out there and public about the problem and the testing to prove we mean business.
I think the philosophy and system proposed by Bubba is the right way to go. It maximizes fairness and health by penalizing only those who are trying to get an unfair advantage, but not those who are just trying to stay in a normal state of health for our age (which does not include trying to be as “healthy” as a 25-year-old).
Let’s have a discussion on this topic….
Ultimately if we are serious about this subject and believe that it is so easy to improve your “low-T” score, as suggested in TV,print and radio ads, then:
1) Suggest that the only marks that go can into the Annual Rankings are from a tested competition, World’s, Nationals, Etc. OR if the sport evolves itself, then other meets would begin to test in order to become a “sanctioned” meet that the more serious athletes compete in.
2) This would effectively mean that all other meets that masters compete in would be considered “recreational”, for your health and fun only. Which a lot of people apparently have no problem with.
As a personal trainer and lifelong athlete, I have researched this subject in depth many times and there is NO DOUBT, NO DOUBT that especially those in the masters age groups, if you are tweaking your hormone levels or take hGH, your workouts are going to go through the roof as well as your new-found youthful recovery time from workouts.
So…does the sport evolve itself into 2 groups? Recreational vs. competitive? If so, yes, the numbers will suffer because masters doesn’t have that much to draw upon at the moment. But potentially…we don’t know the answer to this, but maybe it could start drawing MORE PEOPLE to it.
Let’s get a discussion on this….
Good ideas, Steve.
My body makes ZERO testosterone, not “low”. Steroids were invented for cases like mine yet I can’t get a TUE. It’s not a panacea but a way to stop being hurt at every turn. I’m OK with two classes of competitions but I would remain in the clean class, as I always have, when given the choice.
I’m simply stating there currently exists a fair way to apply the testing, and that is the “old” way. For example, Ben Johnson was found to have very high levels of testosterone at the 1998 Olympics. The “B” test gave the detail including exact level and what the drug was.
If we turn back time we can test more athletes for the same money because the “Old A test” was cheaper than the follow up “B” test. Today the “B” test IS the “A” test. That is probably needed for elites trying to dodge detection. But for us, we just need to know if levels are high first, then do the “B” test to confirm.
I was taught not to complain unless I have a suggested solution. But until something changes I will remain clean and follow the rules. I’m sure this makes way too much sense to ever happen. 😉
Steve–If rankings are only going to include meets where there is drug testing, why would we even need rankings? I would hate to see performances at meets like Hayward, Penn Relays, or Regionals excluded from rankings because there isn’t drug testing. While current rankings denote hand times in the sprints, they don’t indicate wind-aided performances. So rankings aren’t currently a level playing field.
Bubba–If I understand you correctly, you’re arguing that drug testing of testosterone levels should only get a “positive” if someone tests above normal. I think that makes a lot of sense. As I’ve argued before, no one should have to put their health (or quality-of-life) at risk in order to compete at any level of our sport. If someone tests low and uses a supplement to get themselves into the normal range, I have no problem competing against them. This discussion makes me wonder what my testosterone level is. Maybe I’ll have it checked at my next annual physical 😉
Great points Mr. Robbins. BIG fan of yours.
We have one set of rules for everyone. If people want to take PED’s to make them feel younger then go ahead, but don’t expect to be able to compete in competitive sports. How is this different than a young person who wants to be better than his or her normal self and feel better by taking a little extra testosterone? Sure, taking a little testosterone is going to give you a boost that is why it is banned.
If I was a young elite and I had a medical condition that required me to take a banned drug for my health, I simply would not be allowed to compete if I could not get a TUE.
If the rules are too much so some, then goodbye and good luck.
On the practical side, the rules are in place and take your chances if you want. However if you get caught, you will be banned and you will have you name ignominiously posted all over the internet as a drug cheat.
It sure is refreshing to read thoughtful non-insinuating ego-free comments on a hot-button topic. Keep up the good work folks.
Bubba, Steve et all. It is so refreshing to read
positive and informative mail, with no personal attacks.
Can you believe that after the Indoor meet in
Albuquerque I took 2 sudafeds – had a miserable cold – and did not even think of the “no-no” list.
I just wanted to get over it.
Is that an excuse for being “sooo old” and not thinking. No more colds or flue’s for me!
Merry Christmas to all and a Happy, Healthy!!!
New Year.
Just to restate what Steve said:
“there is NO DOUBT, NO DOUBY that especially those in the masters age groups, if you are tweaking your hormone levels or take hGH, your workouts are going to go through the roof as well as your new-found youthful recovery time from workouts”.
It is not fair if you are competing against athletes who do not take testosterone or hGH. Stay away!
I understand Bubba’s personal situation, and I’m not only sympathetic but supportive of his need for testosterone supplementation – and in his case, a TUE is warranted.
But when Bubba says “552” is the normal level for a man his age, he’s actually talking about what’s “average” for a man his age. “Normal” testosterone levels for men can vary by as much as 300% (between about 250 and 800). Someone functioning perfectly well at the low end of the scale could boost their performance incredibly by using supplementation to raise their levels to the high end – yet still lie within the “normal” range.
When a sport uses “levels” to determine PED use, it’s basically institutionalizing the use of PEDs in that sport.
For instance, EPO raises blood hemotocrit count (the measure of oxygen-carrying red blood cells in the bloodstream). In cycling, they’ve determined that 50% is the cut-off point for an allowable hemotocrit count. This means that cyclists with counts lower than 50 can dope until their counts reach 50, giving them a “legal” advantage. For those who naturally produce counts higher that 50? … Oh well, better find something to thin that blood.
Or take HGH. Incredibly fit endurance athletes actually produce less growth hormone during training than unfit athletes. Since these fit athletes are mostly reinforcing training adaptations that have already occurred (rather than recovering and rebuilding from training stimuli that are more than the body can handle), this makes sense. But institutionalizing “normal levels” as the allowable marker for PED use would also provide an opportunity to raise HGH levels to “normal” in a way that could produce some pretty spectacular results.
Frankly, whenever we talk about “normal” levels as they relate to our body’s hormones, we aren’t talking about single numbers. We’re talking about ranges. And people can function equally well within those ranges – our bodies find the level that’s right for us personally. A green light to raise these levels based upon averages – or to punish based upon the same – would open Pandora’s box.
Ultimately, athletic competition is NOT about leveling the playing field. It’s competing to see who’s the most gifted both physically and psychologically, about who’s trained the hardest and made the most out of the bodies we have – not the bodies we can recreate through pharmacology.
I can only imagine the times I’d be able to run if I raised my testosterone level to the upper end of “normal,” then did the same for EPO, HGH, DHEA, etc. But what would that have to do with being a masters runner? How would that be part of this rewarding and self-affirming process we go through? We embrace the aging process by shrugging off traditional limitations and pushing ourselves to new horizons, but our sport also helps us come to terms with bodies that can no longer train or perform as they did when we were longer, by helping us make peace with this journey from cradle to grave.
For me, masters isn’t about rejecting the aging process through any means possible, it’s about embracing it.
@Pete – Post#15
Well said…..we would enter a slippery slope if we re-introduce the “A” sample test to check for “levels” – your explanation is the exact reason they got rid of it. It allows too much room to game the system. Strict black & white rules and enforcement is a must for drug testing. That being said I am definitely for the option of letting athletes declare they are on a banned substance via TUE request and not being eligible for medals, team points, etc. The more participation we can get in Masters track the better.
Mr.Sparks ideas are good, and his (and others) situation does require some consideration. The problem is an athlete can take tesosterone all year, train at an exceptional level , reap the benifits from said training and the taper off the drugs X number of weeks before the tested meet and bring down levels to below the “normal” threshold. This is I believe why the testing methods were changed.
There will always be cheaters. There have always been cheaters. The testing will never keep up. Just look at how many people have run better times than Ben Johnson did in 1988 in thae last few years. Do you really think they are all clean ??
Some Masters athletes are caught in the wake of the chase between the cheaters and the testers. There may not be a way to accomodate Masters without a deepening of the burocracy, i.e., a medical certification board that certifies TUEs individually. And we all know that added burocracy always helps ( I’d add LOL but I ain’t laughing).
Well said Pete Magil.
I see that Stephen has given the matter some thought, and has subtly revised his earlier statement of “Why should masters athletes EVER be expected to jeopardize their health (or life) by not taking a prescribed drug merely because it provides a performance advantage?”, to “no one should have to put their health (or quality-of-life) at risk in order to compete at any level of our sport”.
The first statement was made, and refuted, in this thread: http://masterstrack.com/2011/10/20380/#comments
Credit where credit is due–apparently having understood and accepted the refutation, Stephen’s new formulation demands a new response.
By “any level of our sport”, I assume that Stephen is referring to the distinction between sanctioned and un-sanctioned events, and arguing that “no one should have to put their health (or quality-of-life) at risk in order to compete at any level[, sanctioned or un-sanctioned,] of our sport”.
This is a much more interesting formulation. Having said that, I’m not sure that I agree with the premise. Preservation of individual “health”, or “quality of life”, is certainly a laudable goal at the individual level–but there are other social goals that can weigh against this goal.
I think a better formulation would be that “no one should have to put their health (or quality-of-life) at risk in order to compete at [SOME] level[, sanctioned or un-sanctioned,] of our sport”. Stephen’s statement is ambiguous, with the term “any level” equally well referring to “all levels”, or to “some level”; it appears more logical to me to proceed with the latter construction.
Here we are, with categories of levels again, which are separate and distinct–hence all of the previous discussion on this thread: http://masterstrack.com/2011/10/20451/#comments still applies equally well to this new formulation.
The real question, IMHO, comes down to this: what is the best social vehicle for delivery of the opportunity to participate in T&F, and should it be a public body that provides that vehicle?
The narrower question is: is the provision by the USATF of all levels of competition within the sport of T&F, the most socially desirable way of delivering said vehicle?
This is the real question that needs discussion, and ultimately it will likely be public policy that decides the issue.
I submit that public policy already HAS decided the issue, has rejected Stephen’s premise, and has answered in the negative.
An answer that I understand, and with which I happen to agree.
__________________________________________
In another matter, On Dec. 20, Pete Magill repeats the point regarding “normal ranges” that I originally made on this board on Oct. 30, on this thread: http://masterstrack.com/2011/10/20451/#comments
It is not a complicated concept, but maybe now that it has been parroted by one of the apparent oracles of this board, his various acolytes will begin to murmur their approval for the idea.
For more commentary on these issues, there are other posts which may also prove informative to the interested reader:
http://masterstrack.com/2011/10/20442/#comments
http://masterstrack.com/2011/10/20422/#comments
isn’t it amazing how many national and world class athletes who are against drug testing just happen to have hormonal issues, not to mention how many male athletes have erectile dysfunction. what a great advertisment for master’s track
Leave a Reply