Columnist Pete Magill seeks stories from medicine-taking masters
Pete Magill, the best runner/writer in masters track, writes: “I’ve been following Ken’s recent posts on medications/PED use (Craig Shumaker’s positive result and the anonymous essay on health-related drug usage, including testosterone), as well as the numerous comments attached to each post. And I’m convinced that this is a major issue that masters track, road racing and cross country have to deal with. Simply put, this is the kind of issue that could tear our sport apart — just as pure PED use has had such a negative impact on open level competition.” He concludes: “If you’d like to participate in this column, please email me directly at: petemagill@hotmail.com”
Pete is pictured on Running Times website, where he writes a masters column.
Pete continues:
Some of you might know that I write a monthly column for Running Times magazine called “Magill on Masters.” The column originally appeared on the Running Times website, but it has now moved to the magazine.
In it, I try to tackle many issues that affect masters athletes. And I’d like to make this topic the focus of my next column. So I’d like to ask for your help. In order to accurately address this issue, I need firsthand accounts from masters athletes who use medications/prescriptions for their health that might in fact be considered PEDs as far as USATF is concerned.
I can either use your names or keep you anonymous — it will be completely up to you. And I promise to be respectful with any information you share and with you as a masters athlete/peer.
I’ll be honest with you: I don’t yet have an absolute personal perspective on this.
I hate PED usage and think cheaters should be banned from the sport after a single positive test. But I simultaneously think that masters track isn’t just about records and titles; it’s about our lifelong embrace of our sport. I want clean competitions, but I’d hate to see health conditions associated with aging stand in the way of anyone who wants to keep competing.
I’ve long thought that there should be a waiver for masters athletes who might require prescriptions that double as PEDs, but I can also see where such a waiver could be a green light for abuse. Our championships shouldn’t be won by someone who gets the waiver, then juices to the gills so that he/she can destroy all the other competitors in the field.
My point is that my proposed column isn’t starting with its ending already written. I’d like to hear from you. And then I’ll talk to a couple health professionals about what constitutes “normal” and “performance-enhancing” for masters athletes. And I’ll also contact a couple of the higher-ups in USATF. And then I’ll lay it out.
If you’d like to participate in this column, please email me directly at: petemagill@hotmail.com. I can’t just quote comments left after these posts as I have to get permission from you personally before including your quotes/info in my column.
Thanks!
Pete Magill
5 Responses
Pete, I couldn’t agree more with the article “Wanting to Compete”. I’m all for drug testing our elite Maters Athletes who win most of the awards at our National and World meets. These folks have tremendous ability and dedication to the sport we love and deserve to know that their hours of training are are being applied on a level playing field. I find myself though in a situation similar to the writer. I’ve run my whole life, but as I approach “50” (soon), I now find myself having to take Zestoretic (hereditary high blood pressure) and Ciales (ED) to maintain a healthy lifestyle. I’ve attended a couple of National Meets (never placing higher than 8th) in my age group and had a great time competing and making new friends. I have to admit though that I now feel that less talented athletes like myself who enjoy the competition and chance to set a PR are no longer welcome at the National Meet by USATF and the elite athletes who have commented on this issue. The last thing I want to do is embarass Masters T&F or myself/friends by testing “positive” for drugs I consider normal for aging people. I would love to see more discussion on the comment of allowing athletes to compete who take “age medications” and allow them to opt out of the medal process or be in a separate award category. Thanks for all you do to support Masters T&F. Jim
Pete, as part of your article, you should address the potential for legal action as a result of the USADA issuing press releases about banned Masters athletes.
Banning someone for two years is one thing; publicly destroying his or her reputation through a press release is another thing.
Many Masters athletes are in the middle of successful business careers and to have their names sullied in the press could have adverse effects on their careers, especially if they were under a doctor’s care and merely failed to get a TUE.
With younger athletes, it is difficult to prove damages against future earnings. With Masters athletes, some of whom are in the middle of their earning years, it would not be difficult from an accounting point of view to assess the financial effects of a drug news story, should the athlete lose his job or lose clients/customers as a result of the press release.
An attorney, which I am not, may be able to offer comments on this point.
But looking at the USADA rules on drug testing, I find it interesting that there is no provision allowing the USADA to public announce a drug result. The rules only say that the athlete and governing bodies will be notified…not the public.
Given that the courts are lining up on the side of medical privacy, I think the USADA is flirting with disaster. According to the rules, banning is supposed to be the punishment; public humiliation is not. Press releases show intent to humiliate.
There are really two issues here: whether Masters athletes should be drug-tested (and the debate rages on) and whether the results of drug tests should be public information. The latter issue, to me, seems to have potentially greater consequences than the first.
Yes. Press releases and for instance a contentious article including full date of birth in a Masters Athletics Magazine, show a deliberate intent to humiliate. Such official spitefulness has no place in society, let alone in our sport.
Rob,
FYI. This is from the WADA Code. Link is http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v2009_En.pdf
14.2 Public Disclosure
14.2.1 The identity of any Athlete or other Person who is asserted by an Anti-Doping Organization to
have committed an anti-doping rule violation,
may be publicly disclosed by the Anti-Doping
Organization with results management
responsibility only after notice has been
provided to the Athlete or other Person in
accordance with Articles 7.2, 7.3 or 7.4, and to
the applicable Anti-Doping Organizations in
accordance with Article 14.1.2.
14.2.2 No later than twenty (20) days after it has been determined in a hearing in accordance with
Article 8 that an anti-doping rule violation has
occurred, or such hearing has been waived, or
the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation
has not been timely challenged, the Anti-
Doping Organization responsible for results
management must publicly report the
disposition of the anti-doping matter including
the sport, the anti-doping rule violated, the
name of the Athlete or other Person
committing the violation, the Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method involved and
the Consequences imposed. The same Anti-
Doping Organization must also publicly report
within twenty (20) days appeal decisions
concerning anti-doping rule violations. The
Anti-Doping Organization shall also, within the
time period for publication, send all hearing
and appeal decisions to WADA.
1 Doping Control
PART
Article 13: Appeals
Article 14: Confidentiality and Reporting
World Anti-Doping Code • 2009 87
14.2.3 In any case where it is determined, after a
hearing or appeal, that the Athlete or other
Person did not commit an anti-doping rule
violation, the decision may be disclosed
publicly only with the consent of the Athlete
or other Person who is the subject of the
decision. The Anti-Doping Organization with
results management responsibility shall use
reasonable efforts to obtain such consent,
and if consent is obtained, shall publicly
disclose the decision in its entirety or in such
redacted form as the Athlete or other Person
may approve.
14.2.4 For purposes of Article 14.2, publication shall be accomplished at a minimum by placing
the required information on the Anti-Doping
Organization’s Web site and leaving the
information up for at least one (1) year.
14.2.5 No Anti-Doping Organization or WADA accredited laboratory, or official of either, shall
publicly comment on the specific facts of a
pending case (as opposed to general
description of process and science) except in
response to public comments attributed to the
Athlete, other Person or their representatives.
Thad
So the BMAF decision to hang me out with full date of birth on its Spring 2007 Masters Magazine was unusually spiteful by any standards, wasn’t it? BMAF treats me even worse than a drug abuser.
Leave a Reply