Guilty of wanting to compete: An athlete’s essay on drug-testing
Nothing I say about drug-testing of American masters could be as eloquent as the following essay from an athlete who asked to remain anonymous. In a note to me, the athlete wrote: “I think for every Val Barnwell, there are many more athletes like myself. There needs to be a commonsense approach to drug testing for senior athletes. Holding us to the same standards as open athletes is asinine…. Hopefully the leaders of masters track will take notice and act, although I won’t hold my breath waiting.”
Here’s the essay, with references to the athlete’s identity edited out:
Â
All the comments (both reasonable and inane) regarding the stories about Craig Shumaker have struck a nerve with me. I am trusting that I can keep you in my confidence for now because I find myself in the same situation as Mr. Shumaker. I believe that much of the vitriol directed towards Mr. Shumaker is because he medaled at Berea and it had to have been because of the PED’s he took (or so the purists say). Craig was an accomplished thrower in the past, whether or not it was due to PED’s only he knows for sure.
Â
I have had some success as a Masters athlete, but generally finish just outside the top 3. I’ve had 1 gold, 1 silver, and 1 bronze finish … at the USATF outdoor meet, but in years when the field wasn’t at its strongest. I consider myself an average masters athlete, but enjoy the training, competition, and the camaraderie associated with the sport.
Â
I entered the 50s in relative good health, but as with many, my health has declined over the years. I now have high cholesterol (in check with medication), the onset of kidney disease (in check with diet and exercise), and suffered from the effects of low testosterone.ÂMy doctor had been monitoring me quarterly because of the kidney and cholesterol issues, and when I started to complain of excess fatigue, lack of motivation for work and play, and general lethargy, he started to monitor my testosterone levels. Normal for males is 200-800 and mine was in the 50-75 range. We finally had a discussion about trying testosterone gel to get my levels back to the normal range.Â
He did ask me beforehand if I’d be subject to drug testing, and at the time the answer was no. I started the therapy and in the past 2 years my levels are now just short of mid-normal (300-350) range. I have been able to begin training again, and my overall health has improved. My energy levels are good and my work has also improved.Â
Â
I have only competed sporadically in the last 2 years and if the steroids are supposed to help, you couldn’t prove it by me. I did compete [recently] ….
Â
I now face the dilemma of whether or not to continue in the sport I love. If I attend the indoor or outdoor nationals, I run the risk of random drug testing. I could continue by only competing in local association meets, or just go to the NSGA nationals, but they don’t have the event of my choice. … I have tried a different sport, having played age-group soccer the last two years, but my injured right knee can’t withstand the movements inherent to soccer. Running and track are uncomfortable on the knee, but not as painful as playing soccer.Â
Â
I thought about pursuing a TUE, but after reading Bubba Sparks’ comments, if he can’t get one with testosterone levels lower than mine, what chance do I have? Also the process to obtain a TUE is so cumbersome, it discourages people from trying to get one.Â
Â
While I still want to stay anonymous for now, I think my story may be typical of others in the 50 and 60 age groups. We want to compete in the sport we love. We may never challenge world or U.S. records, and our continued participation is probably good for our overall health. But we also don’t want to face the stigma of being caught in random drug testing.ÂDoes my participating with near normal testosterone levels, although obtained through steroid therapy, so threaten the purists that I should be shunned — or banned altogether? I’d even be willing to check off a box on the entry form that read “I may be taking substances that will cause me to fail a drug test. Any world or U.S. records that I set will not be recognized.” I wouldn’t even care if they treated me like a foreign athlete. If I finished second, give me a silver medal, but also give one to the non-PED performer that finished behind me.Â
Â
If you’d like to do another story sometime on masters track and PEDs, and the inevitable medical problems that we face during aging, and the fact that many of us using banned substances do so for health reasons, and not to break records or win at all costs, I’ll be glad to talk more about it. I still am in training and hope to compete next year in the … age group, whether at the national level or not, so for the time being I need to stay anonymous.
Question for USATF Masters Chairman Gary Snyder and anyone else on his Executive Committee:
How do you answer this athlete?
54 Responses
Ken. It is not about the few athletes who need extra testosterone on medicinal grounds and wish to compete. It is about the majority of athletes who do not take performance-enhancing testosterone, particularly athletes who would be at a competitive disadvantage. It is also about all our athletics officers who rightly must have a drugs policy to administer that is uniform for all athletes.
Well, Ken, how about this: I don’t have diabetes and am not a woman, but the following “story” might be informative.
My name is Evelyn and I’m 63. About 5 years ago I discovered sprinting, for some reason, and I love it. I will never be a Phil Raschker, Nadine O’Connor, or Irene Obera, but I am actually pretty good.
When I was 9 I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, and I have depended on insulin ever since. Somehow I have been able to live a fairly normal life, however. But you won’t see me at Lisle next year for nationals, and I skipped Berea.
I know that insulin is a performance-enhancing drug (PED), and I even mentioned to my physician the need for a TUE. He laughed, told me he had other patients to see, and wished me a nice day.
Can I even get him to stand still for a minute to consider this whole TUE business? If I apply will I get the exemption? If I went to Lisle and somehow got a third in the 100, would I be denied a place on the awards platform because I am a “PED athlete”? Guess I would. Oh, well, you won’t see me in Illinois next summer.
He’s preaching to the choir with me but I like the waiver of place or medal idea he makes. I’m in the healthcare business (24 years) and have direct walk in access to physicians and PTs. They told me when they read the TUE application that they would be shocked f I got one even though my need is dire. What’s funny is that elite and pro athletes build muscle in the offseason with PEDs, then go off for the season and that strength carries over. People our age show a massive level drop off in only 2-4 weeks. The only thing that remains is the metabolites to cause a positive test.
I personally will be making fewer national meets, but not because of the PED issue. As you know I readily go to all big meets with a clear conscious. I won’t be making as many meets because DB Schenker, the only company that ships pole vault poles no longer will do so. And in post 9/11 most airlines won’t let you bring them on the plane. Have a great day! Bubba
I sympathize with those athletes who need insulin or testosterone in order to function well- or in the case of insulin – to live. The USADA drug testing policy for masters can be cruel to those who do not have perfect health. Yes it is possible to obtain a TUE for a number of prescription drugs – but not all of course. I am shocked to read that a physician would not take the time to look at the requirements for a TUE for insulin. That is very unprofessional behavior in my opinion.
I have exercise-induced asthma which is made worse by allergies. My allergy/asthma specialist has filled out the forms for a Tue for me for many years. In fact a few years ago he commenting that he now had a patient who needed one for the US Olympic Trials and he was glad he knew how to fulfill the requirements having done it for me for some time.
I obtained a TUE for my asthma medication for a number of years for WMA meets which has had drug testing for some time. The process is the same now for USATF. It is not that difficult to obtain if one’s physician is willing to cooperate. I would note that now the medication I use no longer requires a TUE – if the level of the drug found in the sample is below a certain mark. Or that is how I read the drug policy. At any rate – without that inhaler I would have stopped competing years ago as I would gasp for breath and wheeze, or potentially gone into cardiac arrest. In fact I gave up competition for several years until asthma medications improved to the point where I could train and compete without having severe bronchial spasms which can be life threatening.
Yes the inhaler enables me to train harder even during the worst of allergy season. But it is not magic, if it is cold and damp I can start wheezing by the first 100m of a race – and I run middle distance. The rest of the race is a struggle just to run – never mind try to run faster.
Perhaps the purists would like to have my records removed – as I am a PED athlete too. Had I been tested and not had a TUE – before the standard was changed for my prescription medication – I would have failed a drug test and been suspended as well as branded as a drug cheat.
I have zero patience with the so-called purists who call for absolutely no drugs for masters athletes. They should be grateful that today they are in such good health – it could be a very different story tomorrow. Then they will sing a very different song. The PED standards for masters should be revised to take into account the authentic medical needs of non-elite athletes. Otherwise the ranks of masters in track and field will continue to shrink as we scare away competitors with draconian drug testing policies meant to deal with elite athletes.
That fact still remains that all males lose some testosterone as we age. You’re opening a big can of worms allowing drug use. Who’s to say who has a legitimate use and who does not ? Then will we need testing to make sure no one’s testosterone levels are above a certain reading ?
The idea of checking off a box on the entry form that acknowledges potential use of banned substances, therefore forfeiting any records that may be set and accepting a duplicate (or even no) medal has merit. It could be temporary simple solution to a thorny problem. It would give us a short-term fix while we wrestle with the overall issue. It was easy to look at the Val Barnwell situation and get righteously angry. Craig Shumaker has put quite a different face on the issue of masters drug testing.
If we allow unrestricted use of steroids, these athletes will win most of the competitions. Is that fair? I agree with Liz.
AAU has instituted a series of “drug-free” weight lifting competitions. If USATF masters did this, we’d see a dropoff in numbers. In any case, USATF is still a semi-democracy, and the annual meeting can make changes to masters rules. If you feel strongly about this one way or another, contact your association’s masters rep. They can vote to end drug-testing.
I dont understand. Why can European athletes live with drug testing, but american cannot?
It’s more fun to have people at the meets. I am and have always been at a competitive disadvantage in some aspect, be it size, skill, speed. That’s life, and I train to overcome it. Medically (or otherwise) disqualify more and more people over time and what’s the point?
Age grouping takes away the biggest competitive disadvantage there is.
I’d gladly throw against Craig Shumaker. He’d destroy me in the discus and shot, but that’s because he’s better than me.
To be clear, I’d even welcome those who are non-medical steroid users. Do we risk an arms race in masters athletics? I don’t think the incentive is there. I’ll worry about it when Nike starts forcing EPH on all those famous 75-year-old runners it sponsors and China institutes a state program to dominate WMA championships.
Milan, the rules regarding PED abuse, especially steroids and diuretics are geared towards open track and field where athletes have abused the drugs to gain a competitive advantage. These drugs are also prescribed to older athletes for legitimate medical conditions, and in dosages that do not give the senior athlete any competitive advantage, but allow the same to continue with a normal life. A senior athlete using these drugs could also produce documentation showing non competitive gaining levels of these drugs if necessary.
Rules created for open and Olympic level athletes do not address the legitimate medical needs of older athletes.
i agree with Milan, those are the rules why is it so difficult to comprehend?
when i began in athletics as a youngster one of the first things i learned, it was not about beating your competition it was about doing your best. In high school i did very well, i ran open meets against college runners to improve and did quite well.
I had another endeavor that i excelled in besides running and i began to pursue that and even though i was among the best half milers in the country for my age i switched my focus to my other love.
I quickly rose through the ranks of my new occupation and reached the pinnacle of my profession.
However i still had the love of running inside me, i ran for many many years and while i would occasionally drop by and visit old friends at the track i just did not feel the need to compete. I have done two races in the last 4 decades a triathlon where i finished in the top 10, and a 10K which i came second overall.
just for kicks.
no what i do NOT understand is you can take drugs if u need to for your health and you can still enjoy the camarderie of the sport and participate. You just cannot compete in official events against others.
what is the problem? do you really NEED to measure yourself against others ? and if you do the fact that you are gaining an unfair advantasge negates your results no matter how to try to rationalize it.
Consequently
the only problem i can see is EGO plain & simple.
you want to tell people you came 5th at natz or placed in your age group.
Years ago when i was in high school they had all comers meets with two categories
novice & open. novice was only for high school runners, once you got to college you were open.
I usually ran open, but my last year in high school i ran novice, i lost 3 times to a guy who ran for glendale college, people went nuts but i really didnt care, i figured he had a problem so if he needed to win that bad let him win.
If you people want to rationalize your cheating go right ahead
just do not expect us all to ignore the real reason
Your ego.
Ken maybe we would like to vote to increase drug testing? No tues under any circumstances.
Did you ever think that maybe the reason why so many records in masters track have been broken is because of drugs?
And maybe the first masters were just better more efficient? What if they had the same medical problems or even worse and got NO meds? the fact that people with TUE’s are taking away their records is an outrage.
there is no way to determine if the people who set the records before TUEs had any medical conditions that could have been improved by a TUE.
In other words maybe some of the older athletes would have set records that would still be standing today if they received the same medical assistance.
keep the playing field level
no tues for anybody!
and one last thing
it is common for WOMEN to actually GAIN testosterone as they age, so maybe we should look into the levels of some of these women setting records…
@Milan: 🙂
I’m going to table the discussion about how to handle PEDs and TUEs for a moment…
Can we, once and for all, stop saying things like “Normal for males is 200-800 and mine was in the 50-75 range”.
“Normal” is a completely meaningless term!
What that REALLY means is:
At some time in the past, some doctors measured the testosterone levels of some number of people at some range of ages (if they didn’t pick enough then EVERYTHING that follows is meaningless, too). They found there was a LARGE RANGE OF VALUES for that measurement. Some very high and some very low (there’s NO indication of whether they found any symptoms associated with EITHER the high or low levels).
Then, they made a statistical decision to call some percentage of the values “normal.”
NORMAL, like High or Low is a completely meaningless term. And, therefore, taking supplements to “get back to normal” is equally meaningless.
I know of a “fitness trainer” who, at 48, is ripped like a 20 year old. He admits to taking HGH and Testosterone, but says, “Only to get back to a normal level.” The problem with his statement is that the “normal” level is HIGH for him. His hormone levels have been boosted. End of story.
Steven, “normal” is not a completely meaningless term. As you note, age-related norms are derived by testing healthy individuals of the given age and finding the mean, then establishing the norm as plus or minus two standard deviations. As you say, it is a statistical definition, without clinical findings – but that is a given, since the people tested to establish such norms are predetermined to be healthy, asymptomatic individuals. It is also true that some people can be outside that normal range and symptom-free – but the key point is that if they are within that range and complaining of certain symptoms, then a normal level generally excludes that (in this case, a testosterone deficiency) as the cause of their symptoms.
For my part, I am willing to compete with anyone who has normal testosterone levels for my age group, no questions asked, I don’t care how they get their normal levels. Mine are normal not because of anything I did right, and I don’t want a competitive advantage against someone who wasn’t as lucky. Furthermore, if mine ever do fall below the norm for my age and I am symptomatic, I would like to be able to take a supplement without being thought that I am seeking a competitive advantage.
I would also be in favor of the proposal by the author of this post to allow athletes to self-identify banned drug use (I use that term to agree with those who point out that many of them are not PEDs in masters athletes) and compete with duplicate medals awarded if he/she places in a medal position.
I think it will be interesting to revisit this question after a few years of drug testing. Will the pace of new records suddenly diminish, as it did in baseball? If so, then we have good reason to keep drug testing. If not, then those who have suggested that drug use is related to the many records recently established will have to apologize for their innuendos. In the meantime, I am in favor of working towards a coherent, compassionate policy with modifications for masters athletes established with good medical input as well as input from those who compete. I am also in favor of the suggestion that those who are found to be using a banned substance without a TUE be notified in private rather than a public announcement that tarnishes all of us and the sport as a whole.
Just because you love the sport doesn’t mean you get to bend the rules because you have health limits. There are plenty of other recreational activities to engage in where officials won’t question what substances you consume. If you love to swim but your legs are weak, yes you can wear fins on your feet but you cannot compete against swimmers without fins. If you like to bicycle but your legs are weak, yes, you can attach a small motor but you can’t compete against non-motorized bicycles in an official race. If you have chronic fatique syndrome and require stimulants to run the mile, by all means take the meds, but no you cannot compete against those not taking them. Running in a Masters meet against other competitors is NOT a right you were born with. Go and organize a Masters meet(s) where runners/throwers are allowed to take anything they want.
Bob, here’s another reason why “normal” is meaningless:
The level of a hormone in your body is only one side of the equation. What your body DOES with that hormone is the other.
You could have “low” testosterone levels, but be hypersensitive to testosterone. In that case, adding more T to get to “normal” is the same as being HIGH testosterone.
So, if you were competing against someone in that situation, they potentially have a HUGE hormonal advantage.
Steven, yes, that’s plausible, but much rarer than true testosterone deficiency. It is also true that the total testosterone level does not correlate very closely to the free testosterone level, which is probably a better measure of activity. So if your point is that “normal” levels don’t absolutely positively guarantee normal performance, I will concur. But I am willing to take the chance that I would be competing against one “freak of nature” out there who is hypersensitive to testosterone rather than use that as a reason not to allow those who are testosterone deficient to compete after they take a supplement to get them back to the normal range. It is in that sense that I think “normal” still has considerable value in the discussion.
One unfortunate “side effect” of the drug-testing program seems to be a growing suspicion about anyone who does well. Is he/she on drugs and just didn’t get selected to be tested? Why did he/she do better this year than last year? Must be drugs!
Perhaps a more workable program would have a voluntary component in which a record setter or even a medal winner could volunteer to be tested to prove he/she achieved the result without drugs.
The drug testing program, as is, seems to have created, or at least surfaced, some nasty suspicions that undercut the camaraderie of the sport.
dear Bob White
Steven is absolutely right, there is no true definition of “normal”. Or what ones body would do with additional hormone.
On a personal note i had a condition when i was competing in high school due to an injury i had far lower testosterone production. And yet i was very successful. Obviously my body made very efficient use of what it had, it is also plausible if i had”normal” levels i might have been even faster.
I guess maybe i should ask for retroactive consideration for high school records for a one testicle runner.
Just as taking drugs does not guarantee better performance, lower level does not mean diminished performance either.
To 18 John:Agree 100%!
This and the other discussion/debate have been really good. Thought provoking.
So suppose person A over a short period of time starts feeling bad, tests come up with a hormone number low, lets say it is extremely low, and with supplementation the number becomes ‘normal’, and they feel good. And their athletic performance dropped quickly when they felt bad, then came back to about what it was before once they went on the drug. Seems very much like an abnormal medical issue that should reasonably be allowed.
Suppose person B had hormone #s dropping down lower and lower over 10 years, along with athletic performance, then got similar supplementation, and came right back up to hormone #s and performance levels of 10 years earlier. Seems like a normal aging issue that should reasonably be disallowed.
But.. to distinguish the cases above for competing is almost impossible in the system we have, because a variety of Doctors out there could write up either one the same way on the exception form.
But I think if you disallow for both cases above equally, you won’t have many people left to compete completely clean, less and less as the age groups go up and up, and hormone replacement for men becomes more normal, which I predict it will.
This is a complex problem. I’m only talking about a very small subset of the banned drugs that old folks like us might take… those that actually can improve athletic performance.
My vote is to be more inclusive and less exclusive for now, because its so complex, and let some bad apples slip through. I am pretty much conflicted, however.
No fair! My competitors are taller and have more fast twitch fibers. I deserve a head start.
I’m waiting for the first lawsuit over defamation of character because the drug test results are made public and someone loses his or her job.
Some folks are in Masters are pretty high power and will not go gently with a positive result if it tarnishes their character and they suffer financial consequences.
Pretty easy to get a high power lawyer to argue that the test result was contaminated.
Dave Albo brings up another euphemism that I wish would change: “Hormone Replacement”.
What you’re actually engaged in when you take hormones is Hormone Supplementation.
Your hormone level has dropped, most often for natural reasons. To say that you’re “replacing” them by taking additional hormones is a misnomer, but makes it seem that it’s an obvious choice. I mean, clearly, you would want to “replace” something that’s gone missing, right?
Rob #21: “Perhaps a more workable program would have a voluntary component in which a record setter or even a medal winner could volunteer to be tested to prove he/she achieved the result without drugs.”
Except for the costs this would be the best solution. For national records in the open class this is the way it is obliged (in my country), but there are so many masters world records…!
Perhaps it because I don’t have to worry about setting any records and the few national medals have come as being the slow leg in a relay or in an event with very few competitors, but I say let EVERYONE compete. Who cares if other people are on drugs and if they need them or don’t? Who are we to judge others anyway? The only person you have to answer to is yourself and if you need to use drugs to gain an advantage and you need to medal / set records to feel worthwhile, then do it. Life ain’t fair, some people cheat, some people don’t. You can only control yourself. I’d rather see national meets with 2000 people than 200 – I don’t really care if they are clean or not. I’ll be drug free, except for some vitamins and maybe a couple of Advil.
One of the most interesting things about masters track and field is that is a very big experimental set up to study ageing. When you cannot trust the masters records the exeriment is destroyed.
(I personally do not mind to lose, one of my most interesting competitions was when I lost with 21 cm of Debby Brill jumping 1.76 in Gateshead.)
To follow Dan’s logic ( #28); it would be OK to submit times taken from a stopwatch and without a wind guage; for record purposes. After all; people will cheat and lie. The purpose of the drug controversy is to make the playing field as level as possible; when records are at stake. Otherwise; let’s all take a performance enhancer.
That’s the point WYD – who cares if everyone else is juiced. It’s no different when you are at a meet and people are full of complete BS telling you what kind of bogus times they SAY they ran. Who friggin cares? Just show up, run (jump or throw) to the best of your ability and let everyone else do their thing. If you are really worried about records, medals, etc. then you are just as bad as the druggies. I compete to see how well I can do. It is a little frustrating to get beaten by people that are probably juicing, but so be it. I would rather run 0.5 seconds faster and get 8th against a bunch of dopers than run slow and win against a clean field. I honestly don’t care who is in the meet and what they do to themselves. I really can’t see why anyone else who thumps their chest and sings the masters’ motto “live to compete, compete to live” would give a rat’s hind end about everyone else. So who’s your, not that this is a shock, you missed the point, as you frequently do when you post. The other thing it seems like people don’t understand, even if someone is doping, you still have to work really hard to get to the level. Yes, the drugs make it possible to get to said level, but the work still has to be done.
The purpose of the drug controversy is not to make the playing field as level as possible. To make it as level as possible, you subsidize steroids (if they’re expensive) so everyone gets them.
They are a dangerous choice, but so is pole vaulting. Me, I’ll stick to coffee. And bacon, the fuel of champions.
Now, to be facetious, what about the world’s most famous cheater? How long should his ban be? Usain Bolt left before his adversaries and only stopped because he got caught. Oldest trick in the book, taking off first. I don’t buy his “oopsies!” excuse, either, it’s too convenient.
If I have my facts straight, currently when you are tested for a banned substance you are checked for two things: The presence of the substance and wether or not yours levels are within the normal range for said substance. If a violation is found in either case, your done. What if they did away with the”presence” part of it and just monitored acceptable levels. This way you could lets say take Testosterone all you want as long as you stayed within the pre-determined range for your age group. Younger age groups = lower levels, older age groups = higher levels etc. Of course these levels would have to be pre-determined and agreed upon but wouldn’t that simplify things??
In looking at the USADA website, I see nowhere in the drug-testing procedures any provisions that allow the organization to issue a press release about an athlete’s banned status. I see only provisions for contacting the athlete and relevant governing bodies about an adverse testing result.
Yet, on the USADA website, there is a section for “Media”, with press releases obviously designed to humiliate offending athletes.
Banning someone for illegal drug use is one thing, but issuing a press release smacks of invasion of privacy.
Where in the USADA procedures does it say that the organization not only has the right to ban someone from competition but also to jeopardize that person’s job, social standing, etc., by publicizing the drug test result?
Entering a Masters competition should not be tantamount to allowing the USADA to publicly destroy your reputation should they find a drug you didn’t get a TUE for.
This is a comment I posted on the original story of Craig Shumaker’s suspension on Masterstrack.com that may help some of those throwers out there on HRT that still may want to throw and compete, but in a different venue…”I’m writing this for Craig Shumaker and any other throwers who feel they have a legitamate need to use hormone replacement therapy for health reasons. The Scottish Highland Games Association has just review this same problem with their athletes and though they do see concerns of abuse, they have approved the use of HRT prescribed by a doctor. This is the site to read more about their ruling, http://www.scottishmasters.org/HRT_Policy.html This way if thrower has a true need to be on HRT and still has the desire to compete in throwing events, though slightly different from T&F, they don’t have to retire or call it quits as Craig stated he will do in his letter, while keeping the throwers that are not taking any banned substances in track and field happy competing in a drug free, or at least drug approved enviroment. Hope this helps some of you out there.”
#34 Bob. Good one. Every masters athlete should realise that entering a Masters competition is tantamount to allowing your governing body to destroy your reputation.
And not only for taking medicines. Your Athletics Federation is free to ban you according to Rules of Competition – Bringing the Sport into Disrepute – for otherwise legitimate criticism expressed later months after and thousands of miles away from the Masters competition in question.
In fact you could be banned from athletics for what you post here. That, compared to drugs, affects us all. It is thus worth a separate topic.
I’m with MaxSpeed. What we need is some kind of test that actually can be performed (i.e. simple measurable rules) and used to weed out actual drug cheats and embrace those who are doing things to help them stay alive. In between is the big grey area of those doing things in an attempt to be healthy and have a high quality of life that might, just might improve their athletic performance. That’s the hard part. I think we should err on the side of letting the grey area in so that we don’t ostracize those who MUST take a banned drug.
Here’s a non-steroid example. Someone has kidney disease, which makes them anemic because they do not produce enough EPO. They can replace that missing EPO with synthetic supplements. The anemia clears up, they get their life back! Part of life is the joy and thrill you can get from competing in masters track, which is an inclusive supportive friendly community. Great! I’m all for it. Keep that person. Welcome them. Cheer them on.
But then…this person *could* take extra EPO before competition to give them an edge, and it works. Super endurance. They kick my butt… I’m against that. Not fair. Throw the bum out.
MaxSpeed’s test or something similar would allow the former, and nab the latter.
In fact it might be that current rules would let this form of cheating slip through, if the person can get a TUE.
I’m tired of Masters and Open athletes claiming AFTER they are caught by drug tests that they “didn’t know” their substance was off limits. There is a list of banned substances on the internet. It’s not complicated. If your med is on the list because it’s considered a PED AND you still want to compete in a meet where you’ve been warned testing will be done, DON’T take the med or don’t enter the race.
By the way competition isn’t for everyone. Only one person wins. If you can’t handle getting beat by others in a race, do someting else.
Good comments, Dave Albo. I find this to be a very complex issue, and it will get more difficult in the future. Just one reason is the advent of “personalized medicine”: to the extent possible, the idea here is to treat the patient as an individual rather than generically (e.g., “a 55-year-old woman with borderline hypertension”).
Does this hypothetical 55-year-old woman have an elevated risk of breast cancer, colon cancer, stroke, type 2 diabetes, some other important problem? To the extent possible, physicians in the future will try to individualize (“personalize”) her risk rather than treat her generically.
Now here is where we get in trouble with drug testing. If she is at greatly elevated risk of breast cancer her physician might prescribe raloxifene or tamoxifen to try to prevent this dreaded disease.
A quick look at the list shows that both drugs are banned. What should she do? Can she get a TUE? If she is turned down for one, what is her recourse? Will athletes who get TUEs even be permitted to compete in the future?
Now for additional trouble. The actual language is as follows:
Selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs) including, but not limited to: raloxifene, tamoxifen, toremifine.
The words “but not limited to” kill me. How many other “SERMs” are out there? Two? Ten? Fifteen? One hundred? I have no idea. Ask a woman who is expecting to compete in Lisle next year: “Are you taking a SERM?” Do we expect her to know?
The combination of personalized medicine, the desire to prevent major problems before they occur, and the fact that the list of banned substances is very much incomplete, relying heavily on language such as “but not limited to,” gives me pause. Again, I do not think it is as easy as some suggest.
Peter, again, what if the mere presence of a banned substance did not constitute a violation but the level of a substance did, then your hypothetical woman could take all the Raloxifene she wanted as long as it did not not exceed a pre-determined level. Is this approach seams a lot easier to me than what is done now although I realise it does not fully address your final comments.
Yes, Max Speed, I think your idea has some merit. Of course, I am a bit in the dark here, as I am not sure where we are now for the various drugs. In short, I do not know what the status quo is.
In 2011, how much raloxifene is too much (i.e., how much triggers a result that will have you in violation)? How much insulin is too much? How much of a given diuretic is too much? Is it mere presence, or is there a threshold?
By the way, an obvious complicating factor that I did not mention is that the drugs are listed generically, not by their brand names. For example, I found that tamoxifen has the brand names Nolvadex, Nolvadex-D, Nova-Tamoxifen, Tamofen, and Soltamox.
A woman taking Nolvadex or Soltamox may not even know she is taking a banned drug, as the list says “tamoxifen.” Another factor to consider is that a physician may prefer a banned drug (a diuretic) to a permissible drug. There is also the matter of cost (diuretics are generally cheaper than the alternative).
There is so much to be weighed, Max, but one thing I do not expect is for physicians to make their clinical decisions based on a list of drugs that are banned for T&F athletes.
Sorry that I missed your point, Max. You do say in post no. 34 that you believe they test for both presence and level. But I believe that for certain drugs it is simply presence.
I am waiting for the first masters athlete to be busted for hyperinsulinemia. After all, if insulin is a banned drug, shouldn’t hyperinsulinemia, which is quite common, get you 2 years?
Peter, I totally get what you are saying. This issue is so complex I’m beginning to doubt if it will ever satisfy everyone’s needs.
I wonder whether the complexity of the issues involved in drug-testing older athletes is one of the reasons USATF may cut Masters loose (see Ken’s latest story).
Could be USATF is afraid of potential lawsuits from a drug-testing program the applicability of which to Masters Athletes is questionable at best.
Interesting point, Rob, and I appreciate your earlier points about liability. I hesitate to comment again, but I need to show how someone who is reasonably well informed (I’m talking about myself) can be totally in the dark (this responds to Max Speed, no. 44).
Let’s take just ONE banned drug: insulin. Is everyone with type 1 diabetes, which means they are dependent on insulin, supposed to file for a TUE? I have no idea. Could any of them be in danger of “failing” if they take their insulin shot very close to the time of testing? Search me.
What about those with type 2 diabetes? They make insulin, but their body doesn’t use it well, and eventually drugs and diet are not enough for many of them. They start taking insulin, which means they are both making insulin (probably reduced amounts, I am guessing) and taking insulin. Will they get busted? Should they have gotten a TUE or at least applied for one? I have no clue.
Now, what about those with hyperinsulinemia? They haven’t been diagnosed with anything, but they sure have a lot of insulin in their blood and, presumably, in their urine. Are we going to bust them?
Here’s a thought: Were there athletes at Berea who failed but were not reported because the drug was not of interest (such as testosterone)? In other words, report the big news but ignore the minor stories. Don’t know.
Millions of adult Americans have diabetes; I hope we can serve them well.
I reckon the rules are fine as they are and I’ll support that with an other-end-of-the-spectrum example.
At age 13, some boys are still children and some are essentially men. Would you advocate giving supplemental testosterone to the late maturing boys so they can compete with the those with advanced maturation? I doubt anyone would advocate that (except perhaps some hyper-competitive parents). Its normal for 13 y.o.s to have a wide range of testosterone levels.
On the aging end of the scale, some men maintain high testosterone late in life and others don’t. To me, age group competition is all about seeing who’s still “got it” at any given age. I’m willing to go to the line with the hand I was dealt and I don’t want to line up against guys with medically altered hormonal profiles. If those guys want to supplement to improve quality of life then, by all means, have at it. But they should not compete with their altered hormone levels.
You may be interested to know that this topic comes up pretty regularly on a very active triathlon forum called slowtwitch.com and the range of responses tends to match almost exactly the responses here.
Cheers,
Jim
Good point. Well said Jim.
#47, Young/Old Man,
Thank you!
JP.
#47-your logic is so ridiculous I had to comment. Hypogonadism is a recognized medical condition. Increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes is associated with this condition, not to mention the common symptoms of fatigue, loss of focus, and depression, which affect the everyday life of the sufferer. The treatment for this condition is usually andro gels, which is a steroid. Your doctor will monitor your levels until a dosage is reached that gets you back to a low-normal or normal level. From reading many of the inane comments to this article, many people seem to think that taking any steroid instantly changes you into a super athlete. Abusing steroids will create that super human athlete, but only when driving normal or high-normal levels well beyond the norm. Getting an older athlete’s levels back to normal or less does not give them any unfair advantage, but allows them to function and train with the majority that have normal testosterone levels.
Max Speed had the right idea of allowing treatment for abnormally low levels, but not boosting those levels beyond the norm. Unfortunately the urine test only detects the presence of steroid, you need a blood test to determine the level. Those of us with the condition still want to compete, will be glad to apply for TUE’s, if the criteria was adjusted to take into account age factors, not treating us like we are 20 somethings.
Pete, you wrote:
“Sorry that I missed your point, Max. You do say in post no. 34 that you believe they test for both presence and level. But I believe that for certain drugs it is simply presence.”
For many drugs, it’s not the level but the signature that it is synthetic rather than naturally produced.
I know of at least one elite female master whose testosterone is so low that it’s at the noise floor of the measurement and sometimes ever registers negative. This is not healthy, even for a woman, and her doctor is urging her to at least bring it up to the low end of the range for a “normal” female of her age. This level would be acceptable in a drug test, but the newer tests that search for the signature of the synthetic drug would raise an alarm.
She is considering not competing so that she can get other aspects of her life back to normal. This is a tough decision, but it really is a consequence of the potential for others to abuse any relaxation of the drug restrictions.
Thanks, Scott. I see that this is even more complicated than I had thought, as you are describing an issue — synthetic vs. natural — that I had not heard about. I won’t even try to figure out how this will play out in years to come.
One of the possible consequences that has been raised is decreased attendance at nationals. Already, masters outdoor nationals are not particularly popular if one measures popularity by attendance alone. How much will drug testing drive down the numbers? Surely, such testing will not elevate the turnout.
I have on my lap issue no. 181 of National Masters News (Sept 1993), and it lists the number of entries as follows for outdoor championships:
1989 1450 (San Diego)
1990 1090 (Indianapolis)
1991 not mentioned
1992 1085 (Spokane)
1993 993 (Provo)
The following year, in Eugene, the entries were in the 1400s, and in 1995 East Lansing had 1287, I think. Contrast those numbers with the reported 1030 for Berea this year, about 973 for Spokane in 2008, and somewhere in the upper 900s or perhaps 1000 (claimed by meet management) for Oshkosh in 2009. Sacramento was apparently in the 1400s in 2010.
Are the numbers seen in Spokane, Oshkosh, and Berea going to go even lower in future years as people consider drug testing and the possibility of being shamed nationally? I want the abusers out (those who load up on the “strength drugs”), but I do not want everyday folk who rely on prescription medications to stay away as well.
Based on the one case we have heard about, I can’t make any predictions at all about how things will play out.
Scott, for clarification I need to point out that users of prescription drugs:
1. Might not get a TUE in time, especially if they have recently switched to a drug.
2. Might not translate the brand name of their drug to the generic name on the list.
3. Might not want to go through the TUE process at all.
4. Might not want to be designated as a “TUE athlete” and thus of a status different from “regular athletes” (this concern is tied to the possibility of separating the two groups in the future).
The only thing I know for sure is that in the United States, people aged 60 and over take a lot of drugs.
The headline of this topic is a bit misleading, it is something like ‘Guilty of wanting to compete and not telling your colleagues how you prepare.’
Leave a Reply