Drug-testing under way at Kamloops; WMA prez bemoans Barnwell
WMA President Stan Perkins of Australia has reacted to the Val Barnwell drug suspension officially, or at least publicly: “My reaction is disappointment more than anything else,” said Perkins, who also served on the WMA anti-doping committee for 10 years. “People want to be the best. Sometimes they do the wrong thing.” But the “random tests” mentioned by Stan remain an issue. They may not all be random, in fact, but possibly target specific athletes. If 50 tests were done at Lahti, as was reported, I’d think half that many are being done at Kamloops. USADA, meanwhile, has released its “interim order” on Val’s case, which says he’ll be assessed $1,000 for expenses incurred in the case (correction to my earlier phrasing.) See it here.
Reactions are trickling in about Val’s bust. Pete Magill, an anti-drug crusader at his masters runners blog, sagely wrote: “This is absolutely terrible news for our sport; Barnwell has set world records and won numerous championships as a masters athlete … although I suppose we should say ‘stolen’ instead of ‘won,’ and ‘masters cheat’ instead of “athlete” . . . Honestly, people, we have to stop being scared of second place, or fourth, and four hundredth – we compete in a sport without monetary rewards and with our lifelong friends, and cheating to win robs everyone sharing the path.”
Here’s the Kamloops Daily News story:
Masters drug-testing up and running
BY ROBERT KOOPMANS
DAILY NEWS STAFF REPORTEROfficials with the 2010 World Masters Indoor Athletics Championships say the games’ drug-testing protocols are fully underway, with random and “targeted” testing taking place across a wide cross-section of ages and sports.
The assurance from Stan Perkins, president of World Masters Athletics, comes on the heels of news that one of the U.S.’s master sprinters, who was registered to compete in the Kamloops games, was suspended for two years on the eve of competition after being tested for banned substances.
Val Barnwell was touted by the U.S. team as a “star to watch” at these games. He competes in the M50 category of the 60-mand 200-metre dashes and won gold in both those events, as well as in a team relay, at the 2009 World Master Outdoor Championships in Lahti, Finland, in August. It was at those games the sprinter was randomly tested. His urine samples came up positive for banned testosterone.
Perkins said the WMA notified the U.S. Athletic Track Federation as per protocol when the positive results were noted several weeks after the 2009 games ended. Barnwell was temporarily suspended from competition by USATF pending appeal.
Barnwell availed himself of all his appeal options. The last of those, a two-day hearing, was held late last week. The USATF upheld the suspension, leaving Barnwell unable to compete in Kamloops.
“My reaction is disappointment more than anything else,” said Perkins, who also served on the WMA anti-doping committee for 10 years. “People want to be the best. Sometimes they do the wrong thing.”
Perkins would not say how many athletes will be tested in Kamloops, but said firmly the testing regimen is meaningful. Some athletes are randomly selected, while others are being chosen from specific sports.
Results from the testing won’t be known for weeks, however. While testing in major international events like the Olympics is done almost immediately, the cost of such testing would be prohibitive. It costs roughly $500 per test, Perkins noted.
Perkins said the cost must also be balanced against the risk masters athletes will use banned substances to enhance their performances.
Most masters athletes participate for their health, he said, adding that fewer than 10 masters athletes have been found using illegal performance enhancing drugs at WMA competitions.
Is it possible others in Kamloops are competing illegally?
“I would hope not, but I would never say no. We can’t say. Nothing indicates anything adverse is happening here,” Perkins said.
Bob Weiner, a U.S. masters athlete and the former spokesman for the White House’s national drug policy office, said Barnwell wasn’t the first masters athlete to be busted for drugs nor will he be the last.
Speaking personally, Weiner — who was adamant he doesn’t speak for the U.S. team on this issue — added the sport is doing all it can to create a “no-doping” environment.
“The sport is insistent on no cheating,” he said.
He said the motivation to win is strong enough — even in masters sports — that some turn to drugs to increase their chances on the track or field. It’s a poor strategy that steals both physical and emotional health.
“There is no money in master track, there is only your own satisfaction. What respect is left if you have cheated to gain your result? There is no respect,” said Weiner.
“(Cheating) is worse than if you had not competed at all.
“I’m not disappointed we are busting people. The dirty athletes are far fewer than what the public perception is.”
39 Responses
Date: March 5, 2010
Ken:
I disagree with you re: drug testing of Masters athletes. No one wants to compete against a fellow traveler who is doped-up. It is unfair and makes the competition meaningless.
That goes for “geezer” medications as well. It is pure, unadulterated BS to allow someone to compete who is on “performance enhancing” drugs of any kind. If a person is not well enough to compete without performance enhancing drugs, no matter what their age, then they shouldn’t be competing period! Let them go run around a park somewhere in their home neighborhood.
I am ALL IN FAVOR of getting that $50,000 grant money and at least testing the winner ALL events.
So simple, why do we make things so complex and continue to BS about this subject. It is a fact of modern life. Just do it!!!!
I am glad for testing. I want to know that I am competing fairly with other athletes who work has hard as I do. I hear from more experienced competitors that some athletes from other countries have even admitted in the past to using performance enhancements. Besides being unfair, it is also unhealthy to use some of these substances.
Don Baumrucker, your “If a person is not well enough to compete without performance enhancing drugs, no matter what their age, then they shouldn’t be competing period!” I agree entirely. I may be missing something but that has been exactly my standpoint all along and I am glad to see someone else shares it.
Re: Don and Anthony
It’s difficult to agree that a person lacking perfect health should be summarily dismissed to the sidelines. However, when PED’s are administered to bring them to competitive health it is important. It may grant an advantage for that athlete over the non-medicated crowd. A former pro athlete friend of mine has an interesting proposal. He says allow doping for everyone, with one important constraint. The levels of artificially introduced substance, such as testosterone or HGH, should be restrained within the band of normal human production. What that range would be has to be defined and ratified. Then, when a random athlete decides to talk/demand the doc into testosterone supplementation, he or she still has to test out in the normal non-supplemented ‘natural’ production range. When that happens, ALL athletes, including the supposedly legal doping class – (too unhealthy to compete), are required to test withing normal human production ranges. That places all of us on the same playing field.
One important questions to be asked here: Did Val’s test results show ranges of substances above the normal human range? and, are the ranges shown in Val’s testing considered acceptable in the ‘legally doped’ athletes around us? Perhaps its possible to take the substance he was taking, yet not have enough dosage to land outside normal human production range, granting no clear advantage to him?
I don’t know the answers to those questions. Perhaps some readers do know, beyond mere speculation. If there are ‘legal/medicated dopers’ among us that show test results as high as Val’s or other banned athletes – well that raises legitimate questions, doesn’t it?
I agree with the above remarks abhorring the use of performance enhancing drugs in masters athletes.
I think it’s sad that the money in professional track has led to any, let alone rampant, drug use.
Amatuer athletics is a higher thing than professional athletics. Amatuer means we do it for the love of the activity. Professional means it is done fr the money.
Back in the day, the best of sport was amatuer: track, tennis…
The corruption of professional sports has led to some corruption in amateur sports, which is profoundly saddening.
And it is so dangerous to health. For example, women taking human growth hormone which can lead to rampant breast cancer, even at an advanced age. – I suspect one such case. Names are irrelevant but I am sure the danger is very real.
I also do not like the idea of competing with people who are maybe taking allowed TUE-sanctioned PEDs. So I think competitors should be allowed to see who is competing with TUEs in their events. How about that?
I do not agree with remark #4 (Rick Riddle). It was posted while I was writing.
Now we’re talking sense: Ric Riddle, you’re hit it on the head.
I agree with Anthony that when we’re competing at drug-tested events we should be able to see a list of all athletes who are medicated/”legally doped” and what they are on.
And yes, as Rick says, when it comes to “replacement” medication – as with testosterone – the “within normal limits” factor is key.
We have to look at a number of issues this raises. The perception of the public with positive PED tests. Do we want the public to think that is how we perform at the level that we do? Zero tolerance is the only way to keep our sport clean. And for those of you who get caught…just like a drunk driver who gets caught, it is never the first time they ever used it. Probably they have been using it for a very long time, stealing medals from more deserving athletes.
It is very self-centered for those of you who are trying to justify getting away with taking a substance that enhances a master’s athletes performance. It’s not all about you!
Finally…and take it for what it’s worth but I have been involved in athletics and training athletes for several decades and can tell by looking at someone, especially someone in their fifties and sixties, by their musculature and the type of muscle they develop, if they are natural or not. When you go to a meet, take a guess yourself by the cut of certain people’s muscles, you will know. Especially if they haven’t looked like the way they do now their whole lives! Just common sense….you hear people talking about certain people and turns out, maybe it’s not just talk after all….
Response to # 5 (Marie-Louise Michelson) – It’s nice to see that you were able to spot the blatant doping symptoms of one of your competitors. I saw her at Orono in 2007 and she had an incredibly distended (bloated), but muscular abdominal wall (HGH sign) and a red/purple tint to her skin (testosterone sign).
I have competed against Val on many occasions and I am disappointed that he felt the need to cheat.
I do not know if he has been tested in the past but it did surprise me as he was getting faster as he got older. His results for the 60m when he was 45 were a tenth slower than when he reached 50. So the question beckons, “how long as he been doing this”.
I was 4th in Claremont Ferrand and now feel that although I do not have a medal I was in reality 3rd as I was beaten by a cheat. In Sindelfingen Val ran I think 7.32 4 years later 7.18. When did it start?
Mr. Martin,
Thank you for you the acknowledgment of fresh thinking. There is a great deal of gray area left in the definition of “normal limits”. Some of us produce more testosterone than others. And, as we all know – the production of testosterone diminishes with age. It also has a relationship with diet and lifestyle.
The point my friend was making to me, is not that the use of PED’s in all athletes be indiscriminately ignored or allowed, but that a basic recognition arise about the following:
1) Use of products to enhance hormone levels should be a consideration for the athletes banishment only if it causes the athletes blood tests to test outside the defined ‘legal/normal’ range.
2) Some people enhance their testosterone and other hormone levels through medical supplementation – sometimes legitimate and sometimes not, as in docs writing scrips for non-existent medical issues claimed by the unscrupulous athlete. And of course, sometimes the medication is the result of a legitimate diagnosis and is medically required.
2) Artificially raising the test and hormone level can/may place the TUE athlete at a hormone level that another athlete cannot match under natural circumstances. This can occur in the case of medical legitimacy or medical illegitimacy.
3) Athletes seeking advantage will ultimately find a doc that will write what they seek, despite the health risks. My personal physician, also a masters athlete, confirms to me that this notion about a minority of his colleagues is sadly accurate.
4) The current system has the potential to reward the TUE athlete for performances made under enhancement, while demonizing and banning the non-TUE athlete under the same circumstance.
The notion that there are TUE athletes that might have the test level of a 21 year old, while an old 58 yo plodder like me continues to produce what I can naturally, is what is creating the aggravation in the comments here.
I am not an advocate of using drugs and I don’t use them. The risk is not equitable to the reward in my
opinion. I also submit respectfully that this not a personal attack on those with medical issues.
However, legitimate issues should not be papered over with indignant reactions that ignore reality.
If a baseline hormone level is ratified for all athletes, then that baseline should be appropriate for every athlete. Accepting that notion leaves the immensely thorny issue of affording testing for every athlete that enters competition.
In my opinion, this is the real place where our energy belongs. The first scientist to develop on the spot drug testing at the call tent, with immediate results available, will secure a place in history. I personally hope just such a scientist is on our horizon. Then all cheats will be at risk every day.
Since writing my previous post a few other things have come to mind.
1) I have already mentioned Vals “improvement” since the Sindelfingen meet. I feel it would be justified to strip any drugs cheat of medals won at any time and any records achieved. It is now fairly obvious that Vals WR of 7.13 for the 60m set last year was probably the result of taking prohibited substances. Surely this record shoul be wiped from the record books?
2)As I previously mentioned Val improved from 7.32 in Sindelfingen to 7.13 5 years later. If he was not tested during this time surely all medals should be taken away. This would send a clear message that you will not gain at any time from cheating, past or present.
Response to Kevin Burgess’ comment # 12 – I too feel that drug cheats need to be stripped of medals, records, and awards. In Val’s case, I belive that he recently won an AOY for his age group. However, I would not hold my breath on this one because Regina Jacobs (Balco cheater) still holds the AR & WR in the women’s indoor 1500M.
There is hope for those of us who run clean. Major league baseball and the NFL are considering implementing a new test for HgH (blood test), which until recently was not possible. And the best news about this is that this test can tell is someone ever took Human Growth Hormone.
I say, let’s find a way to use this test and kick out everyone in the sport who has ever used it. In testing for steroids, the cheaters usually know to get off 30 days before a known test and they will test clean. But imagine the horror they face knowing that this HgH test goes ALLLLLL the way back to when they first started cheating. Maybe there is hope after all for those who believe in the integrity of our sport.
One more comment about some people who have said they are “naive”…I think we are naive because we want to be. There is so much information in the media and medical data available online nowadays, it’s kind of hard to ignore the truth about the percentage of athletes at all levels of sport, from High School to pro to masters who become desparate and start cheating. All of us work too hard sometimes only to find we walk onto a playing field that is not level.
Ken Burgess is absolutely right. Any record ever set must be negated and expunged from the record books. Zero tolerance is to only policy for cheaters and this includes any performance past or present. The same goes for Regina Jacobs and others of that ilk, including Val. These people have hurt our pure sport so much and caused all of us to be cynical about any result. Let’s see what officials act or don’t act promptly.
Kevin Burgess is one of those athletes hardest hit by Val Barnwell’s cheating. It is terrible. We should all read over what he says.
Thanks Dominic Rappazzo for the reminder that certain officials are missing the boat. The first official who should act promptly is WMA President Stan Perkins. Let’s have less “disappointment” and more outright condemnation from him.
I for one would not keep a gold medal if one of my relay teammates had been suspended for doping. So before the outside world ridicules masters athletics to oblivion, Stan Perkins should immediately strip Val Barnwell’s USA teamates of their relay gold medals.
Val ran 7.18 in France in 2008 and 7.13 at Landover in 2009. Wow, those are some fast times. How fast are they? Well, at the OPEN indoor nationals in Albuquerque this year, the new hotshot, Ivory Williams, ran 6.49 seconds, just 0.64 sec faster than Val’s record of 7.13.
Here’s an interesting problem: Let’s say that at this year’s masters nationals in Boston someone in M50 runs a time in the 60 dash that is slower than 7.18 but is FASTER than the pre-Barnwell mark. I doubt that Val’s mark of 7.13 will ever be overturned, but I also think that anyone who runs 7.19 will say, “I have the fastest non-Barnwell mark, I want the record.” Will an application be filled out for this person in case there is a ruling in the future about the 7.18 and the 7.13, or will he be ignored and then forgotten?
Personally, this fall and winter, I hit the weights like a maniac. I increased my mileage to 55 miles of running per week. I regularly walked a mile with a 100 lbs sand bag or an 80 lbs Everlast punch bag in different holds. Did long and short interval on the track. I did hill repeats, bounding, sprinting, short hills, long hills. Worked my butt off. All, while managing a few companies in the U.S., China and Vietnam. Yes, I’m in constant danger of over training, even while very much aware of the work of Dr. Hans Selye. Also while aware of certain changes of endocrine hormone activity in my body. Aware of the danger of increased levels of adrenaline and noradrenaline hormones associated with chronic high intensity training. And the danger of decreased testosterone levels with high volume training (along with decreases in the testosterone/cortisol ratio). What do you think? Would it be perfectly okay for me to contact my doc to get synthetic testosterone or even HGH since I’m having legitimate problems? I could train harder and longer, avoid overtraining and not having to think about strange things like rhabdomyolysis. I would have no lack of desire to train, no reduced appetite, no problem with my sleep, no reduced resistance to infection, no stiffness or muscle soreness, no loss in strength, neither in stamina. I would not have to carefully plan relaxation or recuperative measures, neither have expensive massages nor think about meditation, neither monitor my energy levels and emotional state. In short, I could train harder and better than you, all perfectly legal with a wonderful TUE, all with the help of drugs to ‘level the field’, as one of you so wonderfully put it. Oh well, screw it. I still love our sport. I will continue to train and compete drug free. You do what you want.
Stefan,
I think what people have been saying here is that nobody in any age group is allowed to take advantage of drug technology and still be allowed compete in masters. Zero tolerance to me is the only way. Part of getting older is that hormones DO decrease. What comes natural is genetic in many cases. And that’s the point, isn’t it? We all take our natural abilities, our training knowledge, our effort level and mental strength all while trying train to the brink of our bodies tolerance….but not quite over, as to the point of injury.
Hormones ARE the way to stay younger. That’s why HgH works, for example. If your doctor gives you a prescription to up your testosterone, or some other synthetic, unfortunately, you will have to give up going to competitions and just enjoy training for the fun and the exercise.
Steve, we are in total agreement. I wanted everybody to perfectly understand what kind of advantage the ‘legally doped’ “enjoy” over the rest of us. Still, I think the careful planning of a season, the execution of the plan, the needed adjustments… all the challenges and joy of a drug-free journey through our athletic lives easily outweigh the gains of legal or illegal doping.
Nice post Stefan…however, a word of warning to you – there are people posting here who will take one look at your fitter, faster, stronger self and “know” that you have been taking illegal drugs.
And that is a very valid point, Simon. Those of us who are genetically gifted, those of us who have the time to train harder than others, those of us who put in too much time in the gym (me, for example), those of us who are aging a bit slower than most of us, THEY ALL GET HURT BY THE CHEATERS. John Ziegler let the devil out of the bottle, now we have to live with the demons among us. Nobody is clean anymore, not even Mother Theresa with all her stamina! I’m for drug testing, I’m for profiling as well. Hell, I would pay for my own test anytime, in and out of competition. Why don’t we add US $ 1 to all entry fees, profile and test? I simply don’t get it!!!
“I posted the following comments today under a different story on this masterstrack blog…comment if you like….”
Finally, some people are getting upset about drug use in masters track. Since I joined masters about 17 years ago, I have never seen any deterrent! Al Cestero, in his above comment speaks about frustration with a “lack of oversight in masters track”. It has always been the honor system. You don’t cheat because you are an honorable person. I get that.
But what do you do when a small percentage are not? I am going to throw a radical idea out there at the risk of being chastised by some people. But I can tell you that it will probably rid the sport completely of cheaters….here is what I propose…
As Stefan spoke about…there are mumblings at meets of who is cheating…and although there are innocents in that group, for sure, the majority of cheaters do look the part. I propose that if somebody suspects a cheater in their age group, they are allowed to request and pay for the drug test (anonymously). Let’s say that’s $200. A pittance compared what we pay to go to just one big meet. If the alleged drug user comes up clean, we post the results and shut up about them. If they come up positive, the system worked. I will volunteer myself as the first person to be tested, if anyone wants to pay!
I have thought this through before I wrote this proposal and I honestly cannot see why anyone would have a problem with a test, if they are innocent. Isn’t it a compliment to think that some people think you are so good that you must be doping?
I have posted on this site previously that I am in strong favor of mandatory drug testing for Masters. I was willing to allow TUEs, but after reading the posts this week, I am convinced that TUEs cannot be done in a manner that lets these drugs be taken without providing an unfair advantage. The problem with Stefan’s proposal (#23) is adding $1 to each entry fee would finance perhaps a quarter of a drug test per meet (and at most two for our nationals)as the test appears to cost $500 each.
What I would like to see is perhaps mandatory collection and storage of urine from the top four (perhaps) finishers. Then, add random drug testing of one or two each meet (from the pool of EVERY competitor or perhaps just the medalists) with a LIFETIME ban for confirmed positive tests. The collection makes sense to me to be able to determine when a known violator might have started using the drugs, and perhaps identify drug use that is masked by current technology but not future technology. The random testing makes sense because at the moment, anyone who is using PEDs can avoid detection simply by not competing in meets where there is the possibility of testing. Cheaters cannot possibly be caught. At least with random testing, there is some small probability of getting caught and added to the death penalty for getting caught (lifetime ban), it should deter many (but not all) cheaters.
This is a bit like cheating on your tax returns: Some folks would never cheat, period. Others would not cheat not because they are inherently honest but because of the fear of getting caught and the penalty for doing so. I assume Val would never have gotten caught if he had simply competed in U.S. championships–and doing so he would have stolen all of these medals and records with impunity from those who truly deserved them. Instead, he weighed the low probability of getting caught along with the penalty for doing so, and decided it was worth it to risk competing where there was drug testing. under those conditions, a 2-year ban is a slap on the wrist.
As for Stefan’s support for profiling, this makes me uncomfortable. But from reading these posts this week, it appears that there is reason to suspect certain competitors of being dirty based on both physical appearance changes and performance.
If I were one of these super performers and was “clean,” I would WELCOME being drug tested so I could stop the whispering. Athletes who are “clean,” should certainly welcome drug testing–as long as they don’t have to pay for it themselves.
The current system–no testing in the U.S. for Masters–is an open invitation for cheating for those too ignorant to recognize that there is a heavy price one pays for taking these drugs. We need to restore integrity to our sport by demanding USATF address this issue. Otherwise, the “cheaters never win, winners never cheat” litany is a bunch of bull when it comes to Masters T&F.
Steve (#24) and I are thinking along the same lines, and he hit “submit” probably seconds before I did (I trust not because he was taking PEDs and beat me because of that).
I would volunteer to be the second person tested. I’m not that fast so no one suspects me of cheating, and I am one of those scrawny middle/long distance runners who looks like he NEEDS to take steroids so he could look like a normal person.
I have spent a lot of money to travel cross country to compete in national T&F events, and I think perhaps I WOULD invest a couple of hundred $$ for such a test if I thought the guy likely to beat me out of a gold medal or world record was using PEDs. Or perhaps raise it from other suspicious competitors who are also being ripped off. Again, not much of a problem in long distance as far as I know. But I can imagine that there might be 20 100 meter runners who would be willing to chip in $25 one-time-only if EVERYONE knew that Val was cheating and there was no other avenue to get him tested, and they could remove him and help clean up the sport. And I would suggest that IF the drug test comes up positive, the accuser gets a full refund from USATF.
I fully agree with everything you say Gary. As for profiling, it makes me a bit queasy as well. As Steve Kemp pointed out, there are markers that are difficult to miss. I used ‘profiling’ for lack of a better word. After all, English is my second language and I started to learn it late in life…
Stefan (and all): How about this for a solution (and I suggest this not just as a national competitor but as a member of the “recently deceased” USATF ethics committee and as someone who teaches ethics courses in U.S. universities at both the Ph.D. and Masters level:
The USATF board would approve an ethics code that is more like a REAL ethics code rather than something that is called by USATF as its “ethics code” but is merely a conflict of interest policy. All members, as a condition of membership, pledge to meet certain ethical standards, including, in alia, competing drug free and following the laws of the U.S., competing fairly with good sportsmanship, and obeying USATF rules. Any member would have the right to lodge a complaint of a violation by any other member. Complaints would be investigated by an independent USATF ethics committee. If the allegation is found to be true, the ethics committee can levy sanctions against the member, which I would expect would be, at most, to be thrown out of the organization. Can’t compete if you’re not a member, right?
Almost every professional association I know of has an ethics code–some have enforcement provisions, others do not.
The ethics committee would have authority to throw out capricious complaints, but would be able to target individual members who are the target of lots of complaints for whatever reason. So, if they ordered a drug test, it wouldn’t be random. Refusing a drug test would be grounds for expulsion. If the ethics committee rejected a complaint, a member would have the right to appeal the decision to the board.
If agreeing to become a member is conditional on accepting the ethics code and agreeing to any adjudication by the ethics committee, this might avoid a lot of messy legal wrangling. Thoughts, anyone?
I totally agree with Steve Kemp and Gary Grobman—zero tolerance for PED’S is the only way to maintain integrity in our sport. I pray that there is hope for all who run clean.
Hi Gary,
I appreciate the idea, however it does not address the issue raised by Rick and elaborated by Steve, which is that an unknown (to “rank and file” masters athletes) number of masters are currently competing among us while being legally doped through the use of TUEs.
Under WADA’s criteria, these exemptions can cover an athlete for the use of, for instance, HgH and testosterone, as long as “The therapeutic use of the substance would not produce *significant* enhancement of performance” (my emphasis). How you judge/measure improvement of performance and its significance is not stated. Big grey area.
So these athletes would also have to be exempt from any pledge the rest of us take about “competing drug free”, as you put it.
As Steve Kemp has said (comment 20): “…I think what people have been saying here is that nobody in any age group is allowed to take advantage of drug technology and still be allowed compete in masters. Zero tolerance to me is the only way. Part of getting older is that hormones DO decrease. What comes natural is genetic in many cases. And that’s the point, isn’t it? We all take our natural abilities, our training knowledge, our effort level and mental strength all while trying train to the brink of our bodies tolerance….but not quite over, as to the point of injury.
“Hormones ARE the way to stay younger. That’s why HgH works, for example. If your doctor gives you a prescription to up your testosterone, or some other synthetic, unfortunately, you will have to give up going to competitions and just enjoy training for the fun and the exercise.”
Simon–These are two distinct, but related issues. The first is whether it is fair to permit TUEs. I am convinced it is not after reading these posts. I remember competing 20 years ago in a road race that had cash prizes for the first three overall. I finished fifth. The first three were wheelchair racers, and got the money (this was a race raising money for the physically disabled). It would be ludicrous to suggest that any of the three who got money didn’t really need their wheelchairs. But they beat the first abled-bodied runner by several minutes and it didn’t seem fair at the time that they got the prize money–and doesn’t seem fair now, either.
Taking a medically necessary drug that gives you an unfair advantage over those who cannot take the same drug (assuming they would want to) is simply not fair. And until we get to banning TUEs, I would like to see it required to be DISCLOSED if someone is competing with a TUE. Those with TUEs are not cheaters (assuming they really do need the drug); they are following the rules. I would like to change the rules.
The other issue is how to stop the cheaters. There is no Masters drug testing now, and if there were, because of the costs, it would likely be random and not catch anyone. (Val likely was caught solely because he was foolish enough to compete where there WAS some form of drug testing, and because it likely wasn’t random, as he assumed it was going to be, making the probability of getting caught almost negligible.) With a Code of Ethics,those with complaints would have some avenue to pursue those who they “know” are cheaters. At the moment, there is no such avenue. Even in the “best” case, USATF would be testing the top three in its championships, and those not getting medals who are cheaters would have no chance of being caught. Athletes could still win medals locally or regionally if they are cheaters.
A Code of Ethics with enforcement would provide an avenue to deal with cheaters even if they didn’t compete in meets that had drug testing. It would deter cheating–there doesn’t seem to be any deterrent now.
And there are other issues relating to unfair competition that could be dealt with by having a real code of ethics, as some other sports do.
Chronic high intensity training will increase levels of adrenaline and noradrenaline hormones. High volume training will decrease testosterone levels along with the testosterone/cortisol ratio. If my low testosterone levels are self-inflicted through very hard training, is it okay to get treatment (and a TUE)? No, I don’t think so.
By the way, almost 1,250 athletes signed the Helsinki Declaration, also known as Vaterstetter Declaration (www.promasters-la.de/dokumente/VaterstettenerDeclaration-englisch.pdf) This is an anti-doping declaration and a personal pledge by masters athletes. Phil Raschker signed and so did Bill Collins. Look it up. Make the pledge and become a member of a world wide movement to outlaw and ban illegal drugs in our sport.
I don’t wish to have this seem like the “Last Word” or “Paul Harvey, Page 2, the rest of the story”, but I did have the first post on this blog and I am amazed by some of the responses. I’ll spare the euphemisms.
1. Is it not possible for a person taking drugs (at any age) to find a competitive venue that does not test for drugs and is outside of a USTAF santioned event? There are hundreds of such events each year.
2. Why is it seemingly a “draconian” measure to ban people using performance enhancing drugs from USATF events? They (the competitor) has other choices.
3. The governing bodies need to take a stand and do it quickly. This is becoming a “paralysis by analysis” situation. We should send it to Washington and throw it in with the health care debacle. It’s plain what has to be done so just do it. Test the winners for starters and assess the necessary fees to pay for the testing.
4. If Masters Track & Field and USATF in particular feels that they need the financial and participation support of people on PED’s, then something is definitely rotten in Denmark et al.
Just ask yourself: What would Ronald Reagan have done? Hey, the planes are still flying.
After all the comments i did some research on drug testing. Read it here at http://petemagill.blogspot.com/search/label/On%20Call%20With%20Dr.%20Cheryl%20Bellaire
That’s just a blog piece; it is not totally accurate (she has reworded the TUE criteria, for example) and is a mix of fact and opinion. Don’t rely on it. All you need to know about drug testing (and TUEs) you can get straight from the horse’s mouth on the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) website here: http://www.wma2011.com/en/home.htm
Stefan – it’s a moot point whether your hypothetical low-testosterone level is “self-inflicted” by the lifestyle you choose or not. Medical treatment doesn’t depend on those kind of calls – and neither does the granting of a TUE. All that WADA requires on that score is that you can prove you “would experience significant health problems” without having hormone replacement.
If you check on sites like WebMD, where there are opinions from endocrinologists, the “experts” are saying that low testosterone – or what they call “symptomatic androgen deficiency” – is associated with Low testosterone is associated with diabetes, depression, osteoporosis and possibly cardiovascular disease. So I don’t think there’s any question that under the current anti-doping laws, yes it IS OK for you to get treatment to restore your testosterone level to “normal” and you would have no problem getting a TUE to allow you to continue to compete.
To Simon Martin: It was a blog piece written by a physician after talking to a physician at USADA. I did not just look up things on WebMD. It became clear to me after reading comments on this site that there was a lot of misunderstanding mixed with some fact. After reading all the information on the USATF site and DRO site I found that I was left with some questions and called for clarification on some points.
As far as changing the wording of the TUE criteria I left out “Prohibited Method” from “Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method” only for simplification. The rest of it was word for word. I was only trying to help people understand the process if they didn’t already.
I gave no advice but to be careful, to refer to the DRO,Resource Exchange Center and USATF websites, to discuss medicines with your doctor that are prohibited to see if an alternative is available and to get a TUE if necessary. I am sorry you find fault with that advice. If a TUE was given for a testosterone supplement I think that would be the exception and the athlete would still run the risk of having a too high testosterone level. I will call the physician back tomorrow and see if he is able to tell me if athletes have received TUEs for testosterone supplements in the past.
Hi Cheryl,
I didn’t realise you were the author of the blog piece, so sorry for the reference to “she has reworded…etc” That came over as rude.
I also didn’t realise you were quoting USATF and DRO; my understanding is that the authority on this is WADA and everyone else follows their lead. So I was comparing your paraphrase of TUE criteria with WADA’s published criteria.
When it comes to quoting and misquoting you’re in my field of expertise as I’m a journalist. So to nit-pick, you didn’t quote two of the criteria completely, let alone word for word.
You said, the criteria includes “that the athlete would experience a significant impairment to health if not for the use of the Prohibited Substance”. The full WADA criterion includes the phrae “…if the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method were to be withheld in the course of treating an acute or chronic medical condition.”
This is important because your quote is misleading – it supports your opinion that no one is going to get a TUE for testosterone for “well-being”, whereas the criterion actually makes it clear that you can get a TUE for testosterone (or any supposedly “prohibited” substance), but that it needs to be part of treatment for a medical condition.
Similarly, you said, “The therapeutic use of the Prohibited Substance would not provide an enhancement to performance other than what might be anticipated by a return to a state of normal health”. This, again, is not word for word and also omits some important information included in the criterion, which is that “The Use of any Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method to increase “low-normal” levels of any endogenous hormone is not considered an acceptable Therapeutic intervention.”
So sorry, but yes, I do find fault with your advice. But to be fair on you, most of your article was concerned with doping in general and not with TUEs. I think that athletes would be better served going to the source, the WADA website, and reading their lists and standards – they are clear enough.
For some reason you didn’t give a link to WADA in your blog piece.
I also didn’t find helpful your advice/opinion about TUEs for testosterone – but I will admit I’m only assuming it is an opinion and not factual.
What you say is that,”So based on these criteria [which are not accurately nor fully quoted] you can see someone is not going to get a TUE approved to use testosterone for his well being.”
This isn’t helpful because it misses the point, as no one’s been talking about use of testosterone for “well-being”. What is clear is that there is a case for its use to correct a medically recognised condition – ie what they’re calling “symptomatic androgen deficiency” – which is associated with a number of health conditions.
Again WADA (rather than USATF and DRO) has chapter and verse on this (under male hypogonadism). In athletes past puberty as “consequences to health if treatment is withheld” they list
– Muscle weakness
– Serious osteoporosis
– Diminished libido
– Erectile dysfunction /impotence
– Male infertility
– Depression
(My understanding is you don’t have to have ALL of these 🙂 )
Testosterone is what started all this in the first place, that’s why I and others have focused on it. But it would be wonderful to see a list of ALL current TUEs. Why isn’t that information published, I wonder?
Your blog piece states that the most common TUEs are for insulin and for beta-2 agonists, so it is obvious that your source has some idea of how many TUEs are out there and what they are for. I would love to know how many athletes I’m competing against are allowed to use beta-2 agonists, which increase airflow in the lungs – illegal without a TUE.
WADA allows the local national organization USADA to implement their guidelines.
As masters, since we’re not in a registered testing pool of athletes, and we don’t get tested out of competition, according to USADA policy we’re not always required to submit a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) in advance. (particularly for beta-2 agonists) So under these circumstances below, we don’t have to submit TUE’s for:
1. Substances that are prohibited only in- competition
2. Diuretics and other masking agents
3. Beta-2 agonists
But, okay, if you then do get tested, and test positive for one of the above substances, then you’ll have to submit medical documentation to justify their use. If the medical documentation, (you’re history and some pretty difficult tests, not just a note from your doc) justifies their use, and meets all their criteria, then you’re okay. If the committee doesn’t accept the documentation, then you’re in trouble.
For all other substances and methods (see lists for prohibited substances out of competition) All athletes must apply for a TUE prior to using the substance.
http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/2010_Prohibited_List_FINAL_EN_Web.pdf
Love all the posts, I am a M55 sprinter with much success in my youth, started running masters track four year now, I train when I have time,most times I am the only person on the track and I question my sanity(lol).I increase my intensity and frequency of training when I have meets coming up but still can’t seem to decrease my times significantly , this is when I question the times of many athletes, not to take the thrill away from those who win but I have had questions. Just an observation.
Leave a Reply