M40 middle-distancer Fred Kieser gets 8-month drug suspension
Latest victim of USADA and USATF dragnet: “USADA announced [Oct. 27] that Frederic Kieser of Cleveland, OH, an athlete in the sport of track and field, has tested positive for a prohibited substance and accepted a suspension for his doping offense. Kieser, 40, tested positive for methylhexaneamine, a stimulant, as a result of a sample collected at the USA Masters Track & Field Championships, in Berea, OH on July 28, 2011. Stimulants are prohibited under the USADA Protocol for Olympic and Paralympic Movement Testing and the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) anti-doping rules, both of which have adopted the World Anti-Doping Code and the World Anti-Doping Agency Prohibited List.
The USADA press release continues:
Methylhexaneamine is classified as a Specified Substance, and therefore the presence of that substance in an athlete’s sample can result in a reduced sanction.
Kieser accepted an eight-month period of ineligibility, which began on September 22, 2011, the day he voluntarily withdrew from scheduled competitions pending the resolution of this matter. Â As a result of the sanction, Kieser is also disqualified from all results obtained during the USA Masters Track & Field Championships, which began on July 28, 2011, as well as any other competitive results obtained subsequent to July 28, 2011, including forfeiture of any medals, points, and prizes.
In an effort to aid athletes, as well as all support team members such as parents and coaches, in understanding the rules applicable to them, USADA provides comprehensive instruction on its website on the testing process and prohibited substances, how to obtain permission to use a necessary medication, and the risks and dangers of taking supplements as well as performance-enhancing and recreational drugs.
In addition, the agency manages a drug reference hotline, Drug Reference Online (www.GlobalDRO.com), conducts educational sessions with National Governing Bodies and their athletes, and proactively distributes a multitude of educational materials, such as the Prohibited List, easy-reference wallet cards, periodic newsletters, and protocol and policy reference documentation.
Fred ran in several Olympic Trials as a marathoner, and was interviewed in 2008.
33 Responses
Thanks for posting this, Ken. Fred Kieser was a “local favorite” at Berea, winning the 5000 (M40) in brilliant fashion to cries of “Fred, Fred.” Apparently he is a coach in the Berea area. I believe he has run as low as 2:17 in the marathon.
Also at Berea, Fred engaged in quite a duel with Nick Berra in the 1500 before Nick outkicked him.
I hope you will follow up on this story, Ken, as you have the others, and try to get a bit more information. Hard to imagine that this will be the “end of the story” as far as masters athletes getting suspended goes.
In case you are as confused as I am – look at this http://drugfreesportrec.blogspot.com/2011/03/methylhexaneamine-1-3-dimethylamylamine.html (or do a google search for methylhexaneamine)
It appears to be a weak stimulant found in some supplements used by athletes for energy and recovery, and as the article at the above website points out – it is very difficult to know what is in some of the supplements out there The website lists a number of products that may contain the above ingredient – and warns that there have been positive drug tests.
The dietary supplement industry is not regulated by the FDA so it is very difficult to know what is in some of the stuff on the market.
Everything you say is true Mary. This past year before worlds, I stayed away from everything that could of had the potential to have a banned substance in it. Paranoid? I guess I was, but better safe then sorry.
Great point Mary!! I think the whole drug testing thing goes away if for masters they did “level” testing. If you fall within normal limits you are fine. The problem is that today’s testing detects that the drugs are not naturally produced. For example, normal testosterone for my age is 552 yet my measurements are so low the machines just say <20. If I tested at 250 I would still be very low but legal under a "level" testing; but illegal today because a foreign substance was found. That's why I have ignored several physician recommendations to use hormone therapy.
In general masters athletes take many types of drugs to maintain a normal life function. If the levels are in normal range then no advantage is gained. "Level" testing is also cheaper than the more sophisticated testing. It used to be that "Test #1" was to find excessive levels and "Test #2" was the more sophisticated test for detail. If you're above the norm then you're out. For example, I was told by a tester at a clinic that 1,200 was considered out of range for an elite athlete yet me at <20 faces the same penalty if a foreign substance is present. That's just not right but that's the way it is so I live with it.
Even though no one knows for sure how Mr. Kieser used (nasal spray) or ingested (protein powders ect.)the methylhexaneamine here are a few warnings from the USADA on it,” Many products sold as dietary supplements openly list this substance on their label, such as Jack3d (USP Labs), Lipo-6-Black and Hemo-Rage Black (Nutrex), Spriodex (Gaspari Nutrition), F-10 (Advanced Genetics), Clear Shot (E-Pharm), 1.M.R. (BPI Sports) and others.”…”Athletes are also advised to exercise good judgment and avoid products with suspicious and exaggerated claims or names, which include marketing performance terms such as “stacked,” “muscle,” “mass,” “tren,” “bol,” “anabolic” or “legal steroid,” “power,” “blast,” “energy,” “stimulant” and similar terms. The product may in fact be a designer steroid or contain a prohibited substance, such as the prohibited stimulant methylhexaneamine.” If you’re interested in reading more on methylhexaneamine, go to- http://www.usada.org/default.asp?uid=3423 Hope this helps some of you out there.
One last thing, after reading this story the best bet for all is to just eat a well balanced diet and get your nutritional needs for food products themselves to avoid any problems in the future… and by food I don’t mean protein bars ect., because they may contain who knows what in them. I mean REAL FOOD like meats, eggs, fish, fruit, pasta potatoes, ect… and maybe stay away from anyone who made a batch of “special” brownies or poppy seed products to be sure as well. ;~)
Bubba–There has to be something wrong with our current system when athletes like yourself have to ignore “several physician recommendations to use hormone therapy.” No one should have to ignore their doctor’s recommendations in order to participate in major masters’ competitions. Part of the value of masters is to IMPROVE our health and our quality of life. I like your idea about “level” testing.
I posted this on another thread this morning. Jack3d made by USP Labs is a pre and post workout drink. From the container:”Ultra intense Muscle-gorging strength, eneregy, power and endurance” Warnings about over-mixing the drink is all over the package. My nephew works as a sales/destributor for USP Labs. I’ve tried this stuff and it will certainly get you “jacked-up”. It is NOT a mild stimulant. I gave my sample to trash man. What is not on the container is the disclaimer that I found on the company’s website for the product:
“It’s mandatory that athletes or anyone subject to testing check with their governing body before using this product. Read the entire label, including directions, precautions & warnings. While this product contains compounds & constituents that are found in nature, tested athletes make up the extreme minority of the American public and have to follow strict rules on what they can and cannot use in competition. For example, compounds such as caffeine, creatine & 1,3 dimethylamylamine (also known as methylhexanamine, 2-amino-4-methylhexane & 1,3-dimethylpentylamine – a natural constituent of the geranium flower) may not be allowed by your specific sports organization. It’s completely up to the user to get this and any dietary supplement cleared by their organization before using.”
It is more than just a couple cups of black coffee.
I’ve written to Fred care of his workplace. Hope to hear details on his case. Stay tuned.
Supplements? Unnecessary.
Everglades « AnnettesBLOGseite - October 30, 2011
[…] bei diesen nationalen Meisterschaften bislang drei positive Tests festgestellt wurden (hier der letzte), sprengt doch ein wenig den Rahmen des Vorgestellten. Dazu ein positiver Fall bei der WM in […]
#6 Milton… what about “tainted meat” a.k.a. Alberto Contador? Nothing is absolutely safe I guess.
I’m being a little facetious. In fact, it seems none or at least very few of the masters who have failed tests are denying taking the drug and instead throwing out some bizarre excuse. This is a good thing.
Response to #4 Bubbba–
Bubba, 3 points:
1) “In general masters athletes take many types of drugs to maintain a normal life function.”
Bubba, precisely what is your evidence for this assertion?
2) Mary’s stated point in post #2 was that “it is very difficult to know what is in some of the stuff on the market.” It’s not a “great” point, as you suggest, but an “obvious” point.
You seem to be reading into her post, rightly or wrongly, a sort of apology on behalf of those found with methylhexaneamine in their system–which is decidedly NOT a “good” point.
As George stated in post #3, no apology should be required, as methylhexaneamine is easy enough to avoid by abstaining from supplementation. In particular, that chemical is found in so-called “energy drinks” and “recovery drinks”, products of unverified chemical composition, and of unverified effect. Not only is there good reason to NOT take these things, there is very little basis on which to TAKE them. Given that imbalance, the choice not to take them is obvious–although for some, apparently not easy.
3) I wish to preface this second point by stating that I know nothing about measured testosterone levels in humans, and will use only your provided numbers in making this point:
how would it be equitable to the un-medicated athlete competing at a natural level of less than 250 but still in the normal range, when you would be permitted to compete at an unnaturally-achieved level of 250?
I don’t know what the range of numbers in testosterone actually translates to in terms of performance, and I make the assumption here that an athlete at the very bottom of the normal range will have inferior performance to one at the very top of the normal range, all other things being equal. I don’t know where the bottom of the range lies numerically, but I similarly assume that you at 250 would have an advantage over somebody at, say, 200.
Why should the natural athlete have to do anything to preserve his competitiveness against your unnatural relative advantage?
Consider that you could supplement all the way up to at least 552 and be eligible under your proposed flat-testing system–how would that be equitable to anybody naturally below, say, 500? It wouldn’t be. If the difference was natural, then that would be what separates us naturally as individuals. If the variation was unnatural, then that would be what separates us unnaturally as drug-takers.
The whole point of Test #2 is to account for this effect, and the resulting potential inequity. The whole point of testosterone testing is, IMHO, not to determine the testosterone level, but HOW one achieved that level, because only therein lies the fairness.
There would be nothing stopping you under your system from supplementing to the top of the acceptable normal range–say, 700 (I have no idea what the actual number is). How is that equitable to the athlete with a natural level of 300? It isn’t, and it shouldn’t be allowed.
If you want supplementation to be allowed, under a flat-testing regime, then supplementation should only be allowed to the very bottom of the normal range, which would necessitate high-quality establishment of those ranges for the various compounds of interest. I’m sure high-quality ranges for some of them exist, but unsure that they exist for all compounds in all age and gender groups. What I do know is that any missing ranges would be pricey to establish.
Response to #7 Stephen–
“No one should have to ignore their doctor’s recommendations in order to participate in major masters’ competitions.”
Wow, Stephen, you just can’t resist riding your hobby-horse, can you?
First of all, nobody HAS TO ignore their doctor’s recommendations to participate–they CHOOSE to ignore them, as participation itself is a voluntary decision.
Second, why shouldn’t they?
Stephen, you are conflating the goals of nationally-sanctioned athletics competition, and health-oriented activity and therapy.
The goals of health-oriented activity and therapy are self-evident.
The goals of state sanction of athletics competition are entirely different–in fact, one could argue convincingly that they are not at all geared to good general health.
Given the 2 disparate sets of goals, why shouldn’t they be made to choose between the 2 options?
Each endeavor comes with limits that are designed to further its goals, and which when exceeded, no longer contribute to the achievement of those goals, as adjudged by the relevant regulatory authorities.
If you want to use drugs and compete, fine–just don’t compete against those of who are aren’t using drugs. If you want to do one or the other, choose which–either drugs or open competition. The choice is simple, and nobody is forcing you to do either.
Stephen, you obviously have an abiding interest in this. I’d actually enjoy speaking directly with you about it, if you would entertain my company. Maybe someday, if the stars line up. You will know who I am.
LOL, Dave I hear you, but cycling is a whole other story. They have so many cheats… riders, teams, and sponsors that they’ll do and say anything to keep one of their riders innocent of scandal since it’s so popular in Europe and who knows who is in whos pocket. Can you imagine if Lance Armstrong said that someone must have fed him a Dianabol tainted Big Mac by accident and that’s why he failed a drug test. They’d crucify him… I don’t buy the steriod beef B.S. at all unless they injected the raw beef with the steroids and Contador ate the raw beef immediately after. As far as bizarre excuses, yes and no. They’re nothing really bizzare but they’re still poor excuses. Testing officals were rude so athlete decideds to take a 2 year suspension instead of the test?… Taking a banned substance for health reasons, doesn’t pursue a TUE because in his own words says, ” It would never have been approved.”, yet still competes anyway? Then the least egregious in my opinion was the, thought I was OK with my meds that were legal in the past and they recently changed the status of them and I didn’t check the banned list to be sure. I’m still waiting for the one found to be using a PED to say, “Oh well, You got me! If you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t trying…” Boy, do I hate that saying!! LOL!!!
I agree with Steve something is wrong with our system,When we have to ignore our’s doctor recommendations.a good friend of mine prior to going to Sacramento stopped taking his high blood medication,and went off his inhaler because they were on the banned list.Perhaps he could have asked for a tue.I think he would have been denied.
Response to #16 Sam–
What in the world is going on here?
Sam, WHO “has to ignore their doctor’s recommendations”?
Your friend didn’t HAVE TO go off his meds, he CHOSE to go off his meds, ultimately because he believed, in his wisdom, that the net benefits of competing in a sanctioned event were greater than the net benefits of maintaining his medication.
That’s a personal decision that NOBODY is “forcing” him to make.
He doesn’t have to compete in sanctioned events OR take his meds.
I would hope that, in his individual case, he made what for him was the right decision, one which both permitted him to compete AND not to meaningfully risk his health–but ultimately the decision was his, and his alone.
I’ve already stated my reasons for believing that the imposition upon him of a requirement to choose between one or the other is eminently equitable and fair not just to all competitors, but to him personally–IF indeed he even had to choose at all because he otherwise would have been denied a TUE, which is something you have NOT established.
Regarding the tainted meat, the majority of teams and players at the recent U-17 World Cup in Mexico tested positive for clenbuterol. 109 out of 208 tested. Why? They ate the local meat. Apparently, clenbuterol is in widespread use in China, Mexico, Spain, and southern France.
So, take care on your vacations, too, and at the supermarket. Good luck!
I thought Masters Runner had threatened (or promised) not to post on this site again.
I wasn’t going to post any more if any of my posts were deleted, but it turns out that all were in fact posted.
However, I’ve made my point, and will curtail my posting.
A few more posts that I already submitted some time ago should, however, still appear.
A note to Ken Stone: How about making it mandatory for bloggers to identify themselves to access your site? There is something wrong with a dialogue where one of the parties hides behind a pseudonym. I think we could have more intelligent discussions on this site if everyone were required to say who they are and stand behind their comments. “A Masters’ Runner” seems to enjoy throwing bombs as long as no one knows who he/she is.
I believe “A Master’s Runner” is ignoring many of the health and emotional benefits that training for competition bring about for older athletes. Without the ability to compete in masters (and open) meets, I would not have the same drive to train as I now have. I’m sure many masters athletes feel the same way, even those who take insulin for diabetes or diuretics for hypertension.
Maybe you’d call me (or those like me) weak-willed or weak-minded, “A Master’s Runner”, but I feel it’s far more important to encourage older people to exercise than discourage them by removing their opportunities to compete.
Response to #22 Greg–
Thank-you Greg for a post of substance.
I will lump your 2 dimensions of health–physical and emotional–together into one category of “health”, for purposes of convenience.
I should re-state at the outset that I can live with the existing anti-doping regime, masters post-event TUE’s and all–but for reasons that I’ve stated, absolutely no TUE’s would be the gold standard, and only pre-event TUE’s would be the silver standard.
Since you didn’t make it clear, I will assume that you are referring to those who compete with the aid of PED’s, whether pursuant to a TUE or not.
I agree with your basic premise that training can have net health benefits, if done appropriately–if not, it will lead to more injury than benefit…but let’s agree that it’s a good thing.
However, I question the assumption you seem to be making that training for competition is somehow better for your health than just training. I agree with you that it may impart more “drive” to training, but I’m not sure that would equate to added health benefits on the whole–the harder you go, the better conditioning stimulus you can get, but the more likely you are to sustain injury–especially in the sprints/jumps/throws.
So I’m not disagreeing with you on that point, but I’m not agreeing either. What is needed is evidence, one way or another. Do you have any?
And even if we were to accept the assumption that training for competition is better for your health than just training, you also seem to suggest that training for competition in sanctioned events has superior health benefits to training for competition in non-sanctioned events…again, I’m not agreeing or disagreeing, I’m saying that you need to produce some evidence to make this believable.
In individual cases, maybe in your case, I can see how sanctioned competitions might be the only competitions reasonably available, and that IF training for competition was better than mere training, allowing competition in sanctioned events would be better than not, in terms of health–but there is that big “IF”.
And even if we were to accept the above as true, it ignores a possibility that I have been attempting to argue–that the goals of the USOC and by extension of the USATF have little to nothing to do with “health”, especially geriatric health. Training for and competing in intense athletics, aimed at maximizing performance, is very often injurious to health rather than beneficial, both in the short- and long-term.
Those of us who competed in our prime know all about traumatic injuries; there are also overuse injuries and chronic conditions that can result from intense training, which some of you might now be experiencing later in life. I myself know people who, later in life, have impingement syndrome, rotator cuff tendinitis, and olecranon bursitis from high-level throws training when younger, not to mention achilles tendinosis, IT-band syndrome, recurring plantar fasciitis, etc. from running hard when younger.
On the whole, I think it would be difficult to make out the case that training in furtherance of the goals of the USOC and the USATF were more conducive to long-term health than not.
And Greg, EVEN IF it WAS more conducive to long-term health than not, this question would then need to be asked: Is it the best way, given the various options, to achieve those long-term health benefits?
Your post was written from the perspective of the individual, and did not consider the effect of an enhanced athlete’s participation on unenhanced athletes. I went through that on another thread. Government is involved to, in part, protect the legitimate interests of those other athletes, which interests include fair competition, which necessitates an attempt at a level playing field, which necessitates a code of conduct and uniform adherence thereto. As long as enhanced athletes compete alongside unenhanced athletes, there is no protection of the legitimate interest in fair competition, unless ranges can be agreed-upon, and enhancement allowed only up to the very lowest end of the agreed-upon range–a situation that does not currently exist, and that is not likely to exist anytime soon due to expense and complexity.
Even at that point, it must be considered if participation in sanctioned events is the best way for the enhanced individual to experience health benefits–what about other avenues? Organizing local races? Local and regional community center-based events? Local and regional club/gym/YMCA/etc. events? Larger state-wide games? Dedicated senior’s games?
ALL of these things exist. An individual may have easier or more difficult access to those that already exist, but the point is that anybody can try to create their own race or event–but that requires work and effort.
It seems to me that masters athletes want somebody else to do the heavy lifting for them–they want to avail themselves of a system with existing organizational structure, that was conceived for a different purpose, and convert at least part of it to their own use.
Let me say unequivocally that there is absolutely nothing intrinsically wrong with this attitude, especially given demographic shifts and resulting shifts in public policy in favor of addressing the needs of that aging population through social policy.
Want to change the nature of USATF? GO FOR IT, BUT DON’T EXPECT THAT YOUR EFFORT WILL NOT BE OPPOSED, EVEN BY OTHER MASTERS ATHLETES.
There ARE people, even other masters athletes, with interests that do not align with your own–myself among them. Remember that masters starts at 35 or 40, and that there are world-class athletes who qualify as “masters”, including the current world 100m men’s bronze medalist Kim Collins.
Take a look at Troy Douglas. Take a look at Merlene Ottey. There are many other elites who technically qualify as “masters”, and many more who are sub-elite and who train and compete with better performance as the only goal, and who only consider their general health insofar as it will permit them to continue to train hard and to peak at the right time.
Although I’m good in my age-group, I wouldn’t call myself sub-elite–maybe sub-sub-sub-elite–but I personally train as does an elite. Yes, I go through an injury cycle every year–big deal. Lucky for me, I’m also in great health–something that as all masters know is only partly related to training–maybe. The point is that I have totally different goals for my involvement than does somebody primarily concerned with health benefits, and I will oppose your efforts to change the USATF in any way that either directly or indirectly affect the ability of the USATF to permit me to further those goals.
Finally, like I said before, maybe if a dedicated source of funding can be found, which is totally independent of and unrelated to USATF’s funding, USATF can be used to administer those funds for the sole benefit of those whose primary goal is the maintenance or enhancement of personal health through participation in particular events.
just let me know when we HAVE to take PEDs
Response to #21 Stephen–
Stephen,
Let me say at the outset that I regret having to express this disapprobation, and that anybody who doesn’t wish to be exposed to it should stop reading at this point–but it is in response to your own of me. I will make an honest attempt to do it, in your own words, in an “intelligent” way that furthers “dialogue”.
Your “calling-out” of me as pseudonymous is in no way intimidating, although that was apparently the intended effect–the implication being that you could, and would, respond differently to my posts if you knew my identity, and that I would therefore be fearful of, or inhibited from, continuing to express myself in the manner in which I already have. Your playground-level psychology is old news to me Stephen, and is something I find disappointing and even to some extent pitiable. Suffice it to say that your tactics are ineffective on me because I recognize your behavior and understand the things underlying that behavior, and that I am most certainly not intimidated.
Note that I’m not implying that you consciously intended any such effect.
So with that said, let’s show why that is the case by addressing some substance–precisely WHAT is “wrong” with a dialogue where one party uses a pseudonym, and how would it be “corrected” if a real name was required?
This is not self-evident, as you assume it to be.
You believe that we could have more “intelligent” discussions if people were required to use their real name. Do you have any evidence to support this belief? Can you point to a lack of “intelligence” in a specific discussion involving a pseudonymous commenter? You haven’t even defined precisely what it is that you mean by “intelligent”.
That is also not self-evident, as you assume it to be.
As far as dropping bombs goes, I would respectfully ask you to consider that it is YOU yourself who “dropped bombs”. My posts are considered, methodical, comprehensive, and responsive to the content posted by other commenters. They contain some fact, some argument, and analysis of both their own contents and the contents of the posts of others. They expand upon the acknowledged limitations of other posts, to the extent that I can fill in some missing facts. They even acknowledge their own limitations and deficiencies, to the extent that I have been able to identify and articulate them.
Your posts, on the other hand, tend to be unsupported, haphazard, limited, and expressive of only your ideas, and unresponsive to content posted by others, by myself in particular. They contain little fact, little argument, and almost entirely conclusory statements with very little analysis, if any, of either their own contents or the contents of the posts of others, of myself in particular. Your posts do not contain any information aimed at assisting other posters in filling-in some of the blanks in their personal knowledge, to the extent that you could do that. Finally, in my admittedly imperfect memory, your posts do not at all acknowledge their own limitations and deficiencies.
That, Stephen, is the “dropping of a bomb”, as you put it.
It is nowhere better-illustrated than by comparing this very post, to your post to which it responds.
The essence is that I’m trying to engage in a dialogue, but you seem to be aiming for either dominance, by making conclusory statements and expecting that everybody will at least not analyze them if not agree with them totally, or conflict by not responding to substantive criticism of the content you post.
In doing so, you attempt to arrogate the rights of other masters athletes to express not only their criticism of your position, but also to express their own analyses and conclusions.
To the credit of Ken and the other moderators, they seem to have taken the time to have gone through my posts and decided independently that they further the dialogue in a meaningful way. I should note that I have no influence whatsoever on the moderators outside what is in my posts.
Finally Stephen, I stand behind what I say. The proof of that is in the content of my posts.
If you want to actually engage in meaningful dialogue with me in particular, I would welcome the opportunity–but as long as you keep up the tough-guy act and “drop bombs”, as you said, you contribute exactly nothing substantive to the discussion of the original issue.
To “A Master’s Runner”….may I call you AMR for short? I hope that’s ok.
I don’t think it’s ever been established that insulin is a PED for a diabetic, and it has been accepted that diuretics are not PEDs. Diuretics are considered masking agents, and when prescribed by a doctor, it would be assumed that they are not required to mask anything. Does this mean that 100% of masters athletes who take diuretics prescribed by a doctor are NOT using them as masking agents? Of course not. But I would believe that in 99.99+ of cases, they are for a true medical need, especially when discussing older athletes. Where you state “PED” in your response, I would substitute “medication requiring TUE” in its place. And mainly the class of medication only requiring a post-testing TUE for masters athletes.
To your points:
AMR stated:
***
However, I question the assumption you seem to be making that training for competition is somehow better for your health than just training. I agree with you that it may impart more “drive” to training, but I’m not sure that would equate to added health benefits on the whole–the harder you go, the better conditioning stimulus you can get, but the more likely you are to sustain injury–especially in the sprints/jumps/throws.
So I’m not disagreeing with you on that point, but I’m not agreeing either. What is needed is evidence, one way or another. Do you have any?
***
I have a sample size of exactly one….me. I know that I wouldn’t have begun training without the availability of masters track meets. I am guessing there are more out there like me. But more importantly, I was attempting to state that we should never cut out a potential means to could get someone excercising again. In my case that was finding masters track in 1998.
AMR stated:
***
And even if we were to accept the assumption that training for competition is better for your health than just training, you also seem to suggest that training for competition in sanctioned events has superior health benefits to training for competition in non-sanctioned events…again, I’m not agreeing or disagreeing, I’m saying that you need to produce some evidence to make this believable.
In individual cases, maybe in your case, I can see how sanctioned competitions might be the only competitions reasonably available, and that IF training for competition was better than mere training, allowing competition in sanctioned events would be better than not, in terms of health–but there is that big “IF”.
***
I agree with you; sanctioned, unsanctioned, all comers, whatever might be meaningful for the athlete in question. But taking sanctioned away from the pool of events removes potential. In my case the meet I found in 1998 was sanctioned. Without that, I may not have started training again.
AMR stated:
***
Your post was written from the perspective of the individual, and did not consider the effect of an enhanced athlete’s participation on unenhanced athletes.
***
Very true. I personally do not care whether others are taking PEDs or not, with TUEs or not. I know I do not take any PEDs, unless coffee and Red Bull fall into that definition. (Maybe Red Bull does?) I have had my ass kicked several times in meets by athletes that are definitely NOT enhanced by any means. I train and compete to be the best I can be.
AMR stated:
***
Even at that point, it must be considered if participation in sanctioned events is the best way for the enhanced individual to experience health benefits–what about other avenues? Organizing local races? Local and regional community center-based events? Local and regional club/gym/YMCA/etc. events? Larger state-wide games? Dedicated senior’s games?
ALL of these things exist. An individual may have easier or more difficult access to those that already exist, but the point is that anybody can try to create their own race or event–but that requires work and effort.
***
Agreed. I actually host unsanctioned competitions myself. They were mostly a means for the high school athletes I coached to compete in events (hammer and weight throw) that are not contested in my area at that level. But it grew to include many open and masters athletes as well. Now that all the high schoolers I coached have moved on to college and beyond, my local meets mainly consist of open newcomers and experienced masters.
AMR stated:
***
Although I’m good in my age-group, I wouldn’t call myself sub-elite–maybe sub-sub-sub-elite–but I personally train as does an elite. Yes, I go through an injury cycle every year–big deal. Lucky for me, I’m also in great health–something that as all masters know is only partly related to training–maybe. The point is that I have totally different goals for my involvement than does somebody primarily concerned with health benefits, and I will oppose your efforts to change the USATF in any way that either directly or indirectly affect the ability of the USATF to permit me to further those goals.
***
I can likely be described similarly to you from an athletic standpoint, though I started with recreational athlete as the goal. As years passed, consistent training (and aging!) has made me more competitive with my peers. A few setbacks encouraged me to look into alternative training methods, including some that are used by elite athletes. As a result, I’m almost as good as I was at my peak….keeping in mind that my peak was as an 18 year old that originally gave up the sport one month prior to my 19th birthday.
That said, I will make no (and probably never will make any) efforts to change anything within USATF. I will provide no stance for you to oppose. I compete in open and collegiate meets, along with my own local meets and USATF-sanctioned competition. As a hammer thrower, my opportunities to compete in senior games will be limited when I turn 50 in 2 years, but that will be an option too.
In closing I would like to state that I merely attempted to show another benefit of masters track, and masters athletics in general. I understand you, and many others, can and will disagree.
Greg
Poster#3 said it best when he “…stayed away from everything that could or had the potential to have a banned substance in it…” Problem solved. It’s not complicated to stay away from any energizing drink, cream, supplement, vitamin etc.
Too many enablers on this site!!!
Response to #13 A Master’s Runner
I find myself in a similar physical and medical situation to Bubba. Because of various health issues that have arisen over the last several years I am being monitored quarterly by my doctor. Three years ago my doctor started monitoring my testosterone levels after I complained of physical and mental energy problems. He had the records of my past physicals, and the new data showed a larger than expected drop in my testosterone levels from the 300 range to the 60-75 range. As stated in previous posts, normal range is 200-800. Levels decline with age, but I’d guess that most masters athletes are in the 300-500 range. I’d be curious to know if any studies have been undertaken to support my guess.
After consultation with my doctor I started using an androgen gel. My testosterone levels have risen from the 60-75 range to the 250-300 range. I’ve gone from abnormal low to low-normal. I am monitored quarterly and the dosage is adjusted to maintain my current level. My performance at work has improved, and my training is back to similar levels before I had the hormone deficiency.
I have competed at the masters national level with some success in the past. I am usually a contender for a placement, but not an automatic. However, I have not competed on the national level since I’ve been taking the androgen gel, but have limited my competitions to some local meets. Even though my training level has improved, my performances have continued to decline, even more so than I would have expected with the natural aging process. I have not seen any evidence that raising my hormone levels to low-normal has given me any competitive edge, but if anything, still allows me to participate in the sport I enjoy.
In your post you state, “how would it be equitable to the un-medicated athlete competing at a natural level of less than 250 but still in the normal range, when you would be permitted to compete at an unnaturally-achieved level of 250?” I would argue that this is a totally equitable situation. Because of superior genetics, the un-medicated athlete has a natural advantage over the hormone deficient athlete. If my hormone levels are raised to a low normal level, the genetic playing field has be equalized, and the person with the better training and more drive will likely be victorious.
You also spoke about assumption that an athlete with higher levels of testosterone will perform better than an athlete with lower levels. You can make the same argument in daily life that someone with a superior intellect should out perform someone with a lower intellect. I think we can see in our everyday lives that this is not always the case. There are other factors such as drive, dedication, and access to education, among other things, that determine how successful each person becomes. If someone with high hormone levels is lazy, and doesn’t train, someone with a high drive, but lower hormone levels will usually beat this individual every time.
I don’t want to put Bubba on the spot but let’s look at his situation. He has an obvious hormone deficiency. In spite of this, he works hard at his event, and is very successful. I believe if he was able to take levels of androgen gel, to get his testosterone levels to a low normal level, he’d be less prone to injury, and at the same time, his performance level wouldn’t sky rocket. If he abused the steroids, and drove his levels into the 600-800 level, then I think we would see increased performance levels.
What I don’t think the USADA rules take into account are the accepted medical use of steroids versus the abuse of steroids by healthy younger athletes. For decades open level athletes have abused steroids by illegally obtaining them, using the steroids to boost natural levels way beyond the norm, in order to boost strength and recovery. Abnormally low testosterone levels in aging adults is a recognized medical condition that can be treated with low doses on androgen gel. Some one like myself is being treated by a doctor, obtains the drugs with a legal prescription, and is being monitored to ensure my levels don’t get out of control. If the avenue was opened to me to get a TUE, and I could easily document that my levels for the past 2 years have been between 100-300, I would relish the chance to compete again, even as a HSA, as suggested by George Mathews.
As it stands now I either have to continue to stay away from national competitions, or stop taking the medication that allows me to function fairly normally again. My own hope is that between the USATF and the USADA, rules can be ammended so that conditions affecting the aging athletes can be taken into account, and what should be an avenue of excellent exercise and competition, is not restricted to just the genetically superior individuals.
Greg–
Thank-you very much for your excellent post.
Where you and I differ is that while you don’t care, I would like to be able to run in races that are entirely drug-free as a gold standard and medicated with TUE as a silver standard, for some substances and sources only. I don’t care very much at all for the post-event TUE, unless there are mitigating circumstances such as diminished capacity (of which mere age above 35 is not evidence). I think that it is within USATF’s legitimate authority, or even mandate, to offer such opportunities.
I can live with the fact that you personally don’t care, and I applaud you not only for competing in whatever type of competition you can find, but also for starting your own. I have done the same in the past.
I’m not going to try to convince you that you SHOULD care, either. It sounds like you work hard, compete according to the rules, and accept those rules as workable given a small investment in time on your part, and good for you. Good for all of us.
It would be my distinct honor to get my ass kicked by you in a hammer event some day.
Response to #28 Anonymous
Wow, another great post–and, I would note, from an anonymous commenter.
Anon–
First off, I feel for you with your health issues, and I’m glad that the hormone therapy is aiding your performance on and off the job.
As a preliminary matter, I think your suggestion that competition without amendments to the rules is restricted to “genetically superior individuals” mischaracterizes the situation. Currently, individuals with all sorts of genetics can compete. Even somebody whose genetic expressions are totally unfavorable for their event, but who complies with the rules, is eligible to compete. Competition is most certainly not currently limited to the “genetically superior”, and I think we must be careful not to characterize the situation in such a potentially inflammatory manner.
Endogenous testosterone level in particular can be influenced by things other than genetics–in particular, in can be influenced by training. I have no first-hand knowledge about testosterone levels, including what the “average” would be for masters athletes–but I do know 2 things: 1)elevated testosterone levels are considered by athletics authorities to permit elevated training and improved athletic performance, and 2) you yourself have acknowledged an increase in training level after hormone therapy, and have attributed it to an increase in your own testosterone level.
Anon, is not your self-described increase in training level in fact “evidence that raising [your] hormone levels to low-normal has given [you] [a] competitive edge”?
In fact, it has given you a competitive edge relative to both yourself before the hormone therapy, and as against any other competitor whose testosterone level lies somewhere between your old, and your new, testosterone level, all other things being equal.
Now, I’m not reducing athletic performance to testosterone level–you misunderstood what I said when you said that “You also spoke about assumption that an athlete with higher levels of testosterone will perform better than an athlete with lower levels.” What I actually said was that “I make the assumption here that an athlete at the very bottom of the normal range will have inferior performance to one at the very top of the normal range, all other things being equal.”, all other things being equal being the important point.
I agree with your suggestion that training is important, but I don’t immediately agree with your assertion that “If someone with high hormone levels is lazy, and doesn’t train, someone with a high drive, but lower hormone levels will usually beat this individual every time.” I’ve seen too many lazy young guys with high testosterone wipe the floor with well-trained older athletes to believe that without more evidence.
All other things being equal, your hormone therapy has absolutely given you a certain competitive edge. Even when your point that it merely enables you to compete is considered, that ability to compete, that competitive possibility, is easy to view as a competitive advantage, especially over those who genuinely cannot compete at any particular time, perhaps due to a fluctuating condition.
Your having this unnatural competitive edge is in fact inequitable to certain natural athletes, as mentioned, from the point of view that the natural athlete should in no way be made to consider any unnatural intervention in order to remain competitive–after all, the whole point is that they are natural, and for someone who is natural to consider doing something unnatural in response to externally-applied conditions, like your competitive advantage, is inequitable.
In other words, competing on anything other than a training- and genetically-determined basis is inequitable, as everyone is automatically in possession of their individual genetics, and the playing field is thus perfectly level in terms of opportunity to succeed.
Yours is an interesting case for me, as you supplement only to the bottom of what you say is the accepted normal range. In your particular situation, I would argue that although you derive a competitive advantage from your hormone use, any such advantage is NOT NECESSARILY UNFAIR to any other competitor, as any normal competitor would have at least the same testosterone count, and there is nothing officially barring any testosterone-deficient competitor from employing their own hormone therapy to equal your own testosterone level.
Yours is an example of the compromise-oriented nature of my position. In my pure world, I would have no hormone therapy whatsoever, and if you can’t compete, you can’t compete, if you’re fast you’re fast, and if you’re slow, you’re slow. A level playing field in terms of opportunity to succeed, on genetic- and training-bases alone.
However, if it’s not unwieldy, I think we should all be prepared to allow supplementation up to the bottom of a normal range (with some variability, of course), as a sort of “silver standard” compromise. This might be workable with testosterone levels.
Because you currently are ineligible to compete in sanctioned events as a result of your hormone therapy, I assume that the governing bodies have determined that such a system is either unwieldy with testosterone levels, or that testosterone level is singularly and directly related to athletic performance in so linear a way that its manipulation through pharmacology results in an unacceptable inequity.
Remember that the medically “normal” range of testosterone is just that–the population that falls between 2 points on what is probably akin to a normal distribution. The single fact that one lies below a certain level should not be considered sufficient to warrant the status of a diagnosis of a disease state.
On the other hand, if it could be shown to be causally associated with adverse outcomes, such as increased actual incidence of injury, etc., that would provide a more compelling case that it actually was a disease state and therefore worthy of medical intervention.
I don’t know what the exact situation is with respect to testosterone–but if low testosterone is a legitimate disease state and is amenable to pharmacologic therapy, then it should be treated the same as any other disease state that can be corrected, or ameliorated, through pharmacologic therapy using other appropriate compounds.
I suspect, although I admit I don’t know, that there just might be some evidence of low-testosterone-related effects that manifest increasingly on a sort of sliding scale with decreasing testosterone level, which when below a certain level legitimately qualifies as a “disease state”. But with what appears to be the current medical fetish of characterizing the normal aging process as a disease state, we must be careful to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Cases like yours would represent wheat for me if a legitimate medical necessity for therapy in order to restore normal function could be demonstrated.
If you believe that testosterone supplementation enhances your overall quality of life, terrific–the decision to use it is yours. You may perform better at work, you may sleep better, you may be less prone to injury–but athletic competition in sanctioned events is, again, NOT primarily about health, or quality of life. There are plenty of venues available for the expression of those values, or the attainment and maintenance of those goals.
If low-testosterone was a legitimate disease state and if supplementation was restricted to that level required to acceptably lower the adverse effects resulting from low-testosterone, your “enhanced” participation would not, in my mind, significantly detract from the values expressed through the anti-doping policy of the governing bodies.
Because you cannot currently compete, I conclude that the governing bodies have considered the issue and determined, in their wisdom and within the limits of their ability to act for the benefit of everybody involved, that your participation would in fact not reflect the relevant values or further the relevant goals of officially-sanctioned T&F competition.
I know I’m giving them a lot of credit. I’m willing to hear why their decision is wrong, and how a different system could be economically implemented.
“My own hope is that between the USATF and the USADA, rules can be ammended so that conditions affecting the aging athletes can be taken into account…”
MY own hope is that, to the extent that it preserves the values and goals underlying the public policies that are responsible for the very existence of the organizations, the USATF and USADA rules reflect appropriate accommodation for any legitimate DISEASE STATE affecting ANY athlete.
I continue reading these posts, even the pretentious, self important, and imperious tone of some, in part, to develop a better understanding of the issues. I guess, solely from my point of view I want a system where I can be assured of not competing against intentional cheats but also not getting burned myself for chugging “energy drinks” driving from Ft. Lauderdale to Sacramento to compete. As I’m only 50 I also don’t want to judge the older athletes whose shoes I haven’t been in yet, so the different perspectives posted on this board are very interesting.
I agree with Stephen Robbins that at least one anonymous poster should have to identify himself if only so that we will never have to read another sentence like the last one in post 14, “Maybe someday, if the stars line up. You will know who I am.”………Really?!….really?!
busted for using geranium oil?
really?
WADA banning a stimulant that has been shown to cause kidney damage is just too much of an injustice for older athletes! LOL!
http://drugfreesportrec.blogspot.com/2011/03/methylhexaneamine-1-3-dimethylamylamine.html
Leave a Reply