Offer your advice to W55 athlete on hormone replacements
OK, folks. Now comes the hard part in the doping debate. How do you answer the lady who posted a question on the entry telling Gary Snyderâs plans for USATF masters drug-testing at nationals? The anonymous commenter wrote: âI am a w55 competitor who has been on doctor prescribed hormone replacement therapy for over 10 years. The medication I take has eliminated severe symptoms of migraines, bipolar mood swings, and other debilitating problems. I love competing, have made many friends and am not a cheater. What am I to do?â Of course, some hormone replacements might be kosher. Others, like the stuff Kathy Jager was taking in 1999, contain banned substances. So now letâs get real. What do you tell âw55 competitorâ?
Would a TUE (therapeutic-use exemption) be sufficient?
Maybe yes, maybe no.
Check out what happened to a British thrower four years ago:
Official âarbitral awardâ in Neil Griffin doping case
The key section in the arbitration panelâs findings:
However, Mr. Griffin had applied for two TUEs by Standard Application Forms, dated March 10, 2006, one for testosterone, one for Indapamida, which were received by the competent WMA Anti-Doping officer only upon his return to Helsinki after the closing of the Linz Championships. The requested TUEs were never granted to Mr. Griffin.
In reply to a March 8, 2006 written question of Mr. Griffin whether he was able to compete in Linz, in an e-mail of March 12, 2006 Mr. Massin (WMA Secretary General) informed Mr. Griffin that âWMA hereby consents to you competing in Linz. However, please bear in mind that this consent is granted entirely without prejudice to the rights of IAAF, WMA and BMAF to deal with your case in accordance with the IAAF Anti-Doping Rules in the event that the IAAF or the WMA Anti-Doping and Medical Committee do not accept the explanation given by you for the presence of one or more prohibited substances found in your urine sample.â
At the beginning of treatment, most patients experience drowsiness after taking the medicine. During this time, you canât drive vehicles. It is recommended to be especially cautious when crossing the road and in other situations that require special attention. Patients taking this drug say that it makes it hard to focus. Read more about the drug on https://www.therapyheals.ca/xanax-1mg/.
So a TUE application is no guarantee of avoiding a doping suspension.
43 Responses
The treatment Kathy Jaeger got contained some testosteronlike steroids. In my country that treatment doesn’t exist as far as I know. Treatments here are all without those steroids and should not give problems in competetive sports.
Because any answers we would give here would be pure speculation, Gary needs to establish a mechanism whereby people can have their questions “officially” answered before such a draconian measure as drug testing is implemented.
Perhaps Gary can provide his email address or telephone number so that the membership can send their questions to him or call him directly. He then needs to publish all the questions and all the answers.
When you go the USATF website and click on the link to the “Prohibited Substances” section of WADA’s website, you get the 2005 list of Prohibited Substances. This list has been updated 5 times since its inclusion as a link on the USATF website, so it is incomplete at best and misleading at worse. Thus, the USATF website is of little use in getting questions accurately answered.
When I was actually able to find the 2010 list somewhere, I noticed that “dihydrotestosterone” was a banned substance.
Dihydrotestosterone is what testosterone converts to naturally in aging men. It is what enlarges your prostate and causes you to go bald. If you are on Proscar or Avodart, it is because you have an excess of dihydrotestosterone that has caused your prostate to enlarge. Similarly, if you take Propecia for baldness, you have an excess of dihydrotestosterone.
My question is: can Gary’s proposed drug test distinguish between naturally produced dihydrotesterone versus injected (and banned) dihydrotesterone?
If not, then a lot of chrome domes are going to get kicked out of Masters Track and Field.
Testing for dihydrotesterone in younger athletes isn’t a problem because young men do not normally naturally produce an excess of dihydrotestosterone. If they show an excess, then a reasonable conclusion is that they have juiced.
This dihydrotestosterone example is only one of many that suggests that the same doping tests administered to younger athletes may not be appropriate for older athletes.
I think Masters need a full disclosure of the testing procedures (as well as all their questions answered) before the Board rushes to institute testing.
Just FYI:
WMA has helpfully posted a “findex” of banned substances:
http://www.promasters-la.de/html/findex.phtml?lang=en
Here’s what I wrote about this two years ago:
http://masterstrack.com/2008/04/2555/
First, please donât label or associate me with what I am saying as I am just the âmessengerâ. From what I’m reading from these posters and others before, I think, is that in many cases hormone replacement patients know that their substances are banned, but their levels will appear in the “normal” level range if tested. Seems like the question is, “does the test pick op synthetic hormones” and does that create a “positive” even if the levels produced are normal?
If you remember, I work with physicians and therapists and was told of a physician in another state who works with masters in another sport where this is common. My docs had not heard of this. His athletes are checked by him monthly to make sure their levels fall in the center of the normal range. STILL, maybe they test “positive” anyway, even though they are just using hormones under an MD’s supervision just to be “normal”.
Steroids were started in large part to help the elderly. High levels SHOULD and MUST produce a positive test and sanctions must be public and swift. But if the levels that are produced are normal, then they are taking a medication for what a true medical condition and gaining no edge.
BTW â hereâs the link to âNormalâ as sent to me by a physician I know – http://www.mens-hormonal-health.com/normal-testosterone-levels-in-men.html
Thanks, Ken, for the links.
Interesting to see how the authorities flipflop on various banned substances. A few years ago, Proscar, the prostate-shrinking drug that I mentioned above, was a banned substance; now it is not.
Woe be to us middle-aged men if it is ever banned again.
We will be faced with the existential dilemma: do I want to compete in Masters or do I want to be able to urinate?
At least if we stopped taking Proscar in order to compete, we wouldn’t have to give urine samples for testing…because we wouldn’t be able to pee even if we wanted to.
The answer is simple to the anonymous “caller’s” question : “What am I to do?” in reference to hormone replacement substances.
If the substances that you (she) is taking for hormone replacement are banned substances (AKA PED’s), then you would not qualify for USATF or WAF events. It would give you an unfair advantage for your age category. Again, the competitors are simply seeking a level playing field. That is all.
There are literally hundreds of other competitive track and field events each year which do not restrict or test for substance use. It’s not like a person is being shut out of competition entirely.
On the subject of drug detection, the devil is in the details. There will always be an ebb and flow of permitted vs disallowed substances. However, we will hopefully get to a point where there is general agreement among the experts as to which substances materially enhance performance as opposed to those substances which are benign.
Rob: Thank you for each of your postings which focus on the legal nightmare which drug testing of old people will create.
Ken: Thank you for creating this forum and for citing the chaotic state of drug testing of athletes.
Gary: Please oppose all drug testing of masters athletes over XX years of age.
Don: Good luck with your hope that a fixed set of banned drugs can be established. New drugs are being concocted legally and illegally every day. You are correct that the devils in the details of drug detection are often the people conducting the drug tests, lab employees testing the samples and the bureaucrats who publicize the results.
Let us accept the reality that wonder drugs were introduced many decades ago and are now a part of daily life. The process of allowing some athletes to compete based on a doctor’s note creates another pandora’s box subject to favoritism and discrimination.
The volcano on the Big Island is erupting and spewing ash. Athsma is common in Hawaii. Athsma is treated with drugs containing a form of steroid. I gather the hard nosed comments from purists suggest that anyone with athsma or a variety of other conditions should simply give up on competing at national and international track and field championships.
Pete Taylor: Please give your comments on proposals to discourage anyone taking a possibly banned drug from competing at National Masters T+F Championships. You want numbers at championships to increase significantly. It would seem logical that you would take a stand against those who advocate telling anyone taking a possibly banned drug or who does not trust the drug testing system to just stay home.
The paranoia included in some of the comments in support drug testing has many implications. If an athlete who performs well at meets where drug testing is not conducted does not show up at a national or international championship, will they be assumed to have taken a banned drug?
I feel very sorry for those who have destroyed their bodies by taking steroids. I have known superior track and other sports athletes who died way to early in life. The story of Lyle Alzedo is classic. However, the risks of false positives, flawed drug testing, rumors/slander, non-random samples and lawsuits far outweigh the benefits of singling out a few people who may have tested positive for a changing list of banned substances.
Well, Jack Karbens, I will respond in a very limited and guarded way. My biggest concern is that the world of drugs used for therapeutic purposes seems to be expanding quite rapidly. I don’t have the statistics in front of me, but I would guess that the average no. of drugs taken by reasonably healthy Americans aged 50 to 100+ is quite high indeed.
Healthy people who are competing in our meets may be taking as many as 5 to 8 drugs or more, not to enhance their performance but because a physician prescribed them in the interest of either treating current conditions or preventing future ones. Thus, I have concerns about how well all of this will work. I think that testing will have a negative (albeit minor) effect on our numbers at nationals. But I know little in this area and have very little to say.
P. Taylor
Its nice to see logic applied to this matter. It is
indeed a Pandora’s box and requires much more thought than just “Oh let’s do testing! Well said gentlemen.
Charlie Roll, M63 with all my hair!
By the way, I still think Neil Griffin got a raw deal
and this it was scares me most about this whole topic.
Well, Jack Karbens, I have thought some more on the matter and still have little to add (will be brief here). Am thinking about trends in medical care, including the use of genetic testing, individualized treatment of patients, the use of drugs to forestall diseases, and so forth.
For example, a competitive, very healthy 45-year-old woman might have prediabetes, be at greatly heightened risk for breast cancer (based on genetic testing and family history), and have a history of ischemic stroke in her family. To prevent her from developing full-scale type 2 diabetes, to prevent the breast cancer, or to reduce the risk of future stroke, the physician might prescribe a variety of drugs. She high jumps and does the hurdles and is in wonderful shape generally. How will testing work for her?
As physicians consider more and more variables in their treatment plans for particular patients in an attempt to individualize care I cannot see drug testing getting any simpler. Or perhaps I am wrong.
P. Taylor
Peter,
Your example of a woman taking preventative medication prescribed by a doctor is a very good one in illustrating the complexity of drug testing and suggests yet another possible negative ramification of testing.
What if the woman were to stop her regimen in order to compete and then went on to develop one of the diseases the drugs were designed to prevent?
While of course the USATF could not be charged with negligence since it was the woman’s choice to stop treatment, the court of public opinion is often more harsh than courts of law.
In addition to the tragedy of the situation, a newspaper story about an older athlete stopping treatment in order to compete in a Master’s competition and then becoming ill as a result certainly isn’t the type of publicity that Masters Track and Field needs…even if stopping treatment were the woman’s own choice.
It would suggest that Masters T&F doesn’t understand the medical realities of the population it is supposed to serve.
Wow, eleven posts and no one wants to talk about why we might want to do drug testing. I have followed track closely for 60 years (I was a one or two meets a weekend kid from the time I was four). From the time performance-enhancing drugs really got a foothold in the U.S.after the 1952 Olympics, the use of drugs has been widespread in the strength events and gradually spread to a wide variety of sports as the appreciation for the effects these drugs could produce increased.
I have had conversations with people over the years who wanted to minimize the numbers of athletes using or even deny the use in various sports. Baseball, as one of the last to embrace these drugs over earlier drugs of choice, is only the latest sport to be revealed. Sports like golf, hockey and others will follow. There is widespread use that is barely dented by most testing programs. Recent developments like the BALCO bust that was only possible because a disgruntled coach provided a sample of the hot drug helping the testers avoid the needle-in-the-haystack search, like holding samples for subsequent tests until newer substances can be detected, and the added expense that users must endure to keep up with the newer procedures and testing have had some effect.
While the adverse effects suffered by celebrities like Lyle Alzado (which resulted in his premature death) and others are regrettable, as long as they have good information on which to base their decision to use or not use, I feel no responsibility to police their life choices.
I do care about knowing that if I want to participate in masters track and field without taking substances I believe are unhealthful, I will have to allow many of my fellow participants an advantage. Most of the abstract discussions previously posted deal with the what-ifs of positives from legitimate sources. There is some misinformation in those posts. For example, there are two types of steroids: cortico- and anabolic. They have different effects and there are cortico-steroids that are acceptable if properly prescribed and documented. Olympic athletes are not being asked to forego asthma medication. Now that drug testing has been around awhile, how many actual, documented cases can be cited where an athlete was grievously mistreated because of legitimate drug use where they followed the procedures? There must be some because perfection is hard to achieve in this world. On the other hand, how many documented cases are there where an athlete denied use and screamed mistreatment, evidence later emerged that substantiated drug use, an apology was issued, a two year ban (or even lifetime) was issued and now they are back participating?
Let me wrap this up by saying that I am sure that there will be imperfections in any testing protocol, but the chances for mistakes are dwarfed by the widespread drug use that always seems to surprise everyone when it is actually revealed. A fellow participant once told me: “Drug use is not illegal for masters.” I said: “Actually, it is illegal.” He then said: “I guess you are right,technically. But from a practical standpoint, it really isn’t illegal if we don’t test.” Amen, brother.
Ken you asked the question
“Would a TUE (therapeutic-use exemption) be sufficient?”, report the case of Neil Griffin, and then get to a conclusion that doesn’t follow:
“So a TUE application is no guarantee of avoiding a doping suspension.”
Of COURSE a TUE application is no guarantee of avoiding a suspension – the TUE~has to be GRANTED.
Where’s the story here?
And to repeat my original answer to our troubled W55: if you are taking hormones that are on the banned list because they are deemed performance-enhancing, then you get an exemption â a TUE. Then you are âlegalâ.
And you only need to do that if you want to compete at meets where there are drug tests, like world- or national-class competitions. To compete in 90% of races, like at your local track meets and road races, you donât need to bother, you can just carry on.
Peter Taylor said: “Healthy people who are competing in our meets may be taking as many as 5 to 8 drugs or more…” As no one else has queried the absurdity of this, I guess I am in a minority.
I don’t regard myself as hard core, but really.. healthy people don’t take drugs. If you are taking drugs, you’re not healthy. It doesn’t mean you are a bad person or that you are a cheat; prescribed drugs are for sick people, OK? PEDs are another matter.
I asked it before and I’ll ask it again: are we really that bedazzled by pharmaceutical industry marketing?
There are many well-reasoned arguments on both sides of the issue reflected in these posts and the 42 other comments made in a related thread.
But of course we are just pissing in the wind here.
Before we start pissing in cups, could Gary or some other power-that-be at least provide some mechanism for folks to get their questions and concerns “officially” addressed? Is that too much to ask?
Rob,
You keep asking:
“Before we start pissing in cups, could Gary or some other power-that-be at least provide some mechanism for folks to get their questions and concerns âofficiallyâ addressed? Is that too much to ask?”
Yes, at this stage it IS too much to ask. Read Gary’s statement carefully down to the end:
“Iâll be working with the Masters T&F Executive Committee and the USATF National Office specifically Melissa Beasley the Associate Director, Elite Athlete Relations, to begin shaping the USATF Masters T&F Anti-Doping Program.”
In other words, there is no program now. There is an intention to establish a program over the next year or two. While implementation of the program will be in the hands of USADA (not USATF or USATF Masters), we, through the Executive Committee and ultimately, I presume, the Masters Committee at the Convention will be (note, will be) establishing the program.
So, how can we have a mechanism for “officially” answering questions and concerns when there are no answers to them yet?
Let the process play out. Everything in due time.
Really, Simon Martin, “…healthy people don’t take drugs.”? Well, Simon, it took me about 1 minute to find this from the National Cancer Institute:
“Tamoxifen has been used for almost 10 years to reduce the risk of breast cancer in women who are at increased risk of breast cancer.”
I don’t know how to be clearer; these are women who do not have breast cancer but are taking a drug to reduce their chances of getting it. In the modern world, with the use of genetic testing, individualized treatment, molecularly based therapies, and so forth this is what is going on. The notion that “prescribed drugs are for sick people” went out many years ago.
Hi Everybody,
Since my name keeps coming up in various posts let me respond:
As Rob points out, there is no program. It will be developed very carefully and thoughtfully over the coming months and fully discussed before and during the Annual Meeting.
See you in Boston
Gary Snyder
National Chair
USATF Masters T&F
Thanks, Jerry
Hopefully progress in the establishment of the testing program will be reported regularly to Ken so that he can report it here and members can react to various proposals before the entire program is dropped on the membership.
Good to hear from Gary. Hopefully, the comments on Ken’s blog have been helpful and provide a good starting point for deliberations.
Peter,
Yes really. Healthy people don’t take drugs and, guess what, healthy people don’t get cancer, either.
If people want to take drugs for “prevention”, this is a medical treatment being supervised by a physician. This is so far removed from being in, or pursuing, a state of health that I don’t know where to start. Drugs are not vitamins and minerals. Your body does not suffer from a deficiency of pharmaceuticals and healthy people do not need to take drugs to interfere with their biochemistry and physiology.
That said, it is obvious that this discussion is way too complex to pursue here, so I’m going to sign off on it and suggest we just agree to disagree, OK?
Simon, are you a doctor? If so, I’m glad I’m not one of your patients.
If not, who are you to judge anyone’s level of health?
And even if you are a doctor, it would be pretty difficult to gauge a level of health only knowing what medication(s) someone takes.
That’s a classic! You REALLY don’t get it, do you? hahahahahahahaha
I’ll ignore your laughter….just once. I do not provide second chances.
Have you even considered, Simon, that there are “unhealthy” athletes (using your definition) that are performing better than you in masters T&F? Possibly even putting up world class and world record performances?
Do you believe that there are other factors that can be used in determining health, such as body composition, resistance to illness, strength levels, etc.?
Does anyone that receives a flu vaccination qualify as “unhealthy” to you?
Not responding would be much better than laughing at me….again.
Simon:
You are right in questioning Peter’s statement that many Masters competitors are taking “5 to 8 drugs” as a regular thing. Or should I say “regimen”. Holy —-!!!! That has to be absolutely wrong.
Such high ingestion of drug cocktails would be a prescription for heart attack city when combined with exercise. This is not evidenced in the results from Masters track and field events.
The easiest way to get the facts of prescription and non-prescription drug use would be to ask the atheletes. Simple. Each of the competitors fills out a form at the National events (indoor and outdoor) and indicate what they are taking so that we would have a data base of factual information. This could be a quick check the box form which can be scanned into a computer with the results confidential as to athelete identity.
Make that “athlete”
Don Baumrucker:
You have one good idea and one that is not so good. As a baseline we should definitely ask every athlete at nationals to list every drug they are currently taking, and it should be confidential, as you indicate.
Let’s see, on your other idea about the “”5 to 8.” I said “May be taking as many as 5 to 8.” No doubt some are taking more, most others less. The key point is that masters are 35 to 100+ in age, and people in this age range in the U.S. take a lot of drugs.
Let’s see, if I’m a 65-year-old man and my prostate is enlarged, my physician may prescribe a drug. Osteoarthritis? Maybe another drug. Hypercholesterolemia or the threat of hypercholesterolemia, another drug or two? Hypertension or borderline hypertension? Another one. The list goes on and on. These are healthy people (athletes) I am describing and they take drugs as prescribed by their physician.
What complicate matters, as I indicated, is that medical care is changing. More and more, drugs will be taken to prevent illness.
As for the notion advanced by Simon Martin that only unhealthy people get cancer, that is an extreme position that is not supported by the facts. Examine these two corollaries closely:
* Only unhealthy women develop breast cancer.
* Only unhealthy men develop prostate cancer.
These extreme positions make me cringe even as I write them. They are not supported scientifically and should not be promulgated on this forum.
Some of these comments here have deteriorated into utter nonsense. Let us not get our knickers in a twist until the protocol for USATF masters drug testing is known. There is drug testing at the WMA and WMG meets. There is plenty of information available online about USADA anti-doping and WMA anti-doping. Some of the comments make it sound as if this is new – it is not new.
As for USATF masters compiling a “confidential list” of all self-reported drug taking by athletes at meets – good lord – if you think it will happen, be honest, and remain confidential – please mail me your bank account number as I have 500 million dollars waiting for you in a Nigerian bank left to me by my late uncle’s grand niece who is related to the King of Thailand.
For advice about what drugs you are taking for whatever reason – including hormones for post menopausal relief or enlarged prostates – consult the USADA website and have a discussion with your physician. I suggest you NOT look for definitive information on this blog.
As far as I am concerned, it is weird to watch people on drugs celebrating their victories over people that do not take anything. There is no question that we would all do better on steroids and growth hormones. By accepting doping, we are discouraging honest people from competing. Yes, there are small problems with testing that need to be worked out, but some testing would introduce an element of fairness. It would not completely even the field, as it is known that if you took some muscle building drugs you have advantage for years to come even if you stop taking the drugs. For years the system was rigged in favor of cheaters. It would not hurt to give some support to honest people for change. Europeans can live with it, maybe we can too.
Mary:
Welcome!
Smile on your latest. đ Except I’m getting emails lately from Hong Kong asking for my bank info.
You are already giving your name and your bank info when you submit your entry fee to USATF, assuming check. Credit card is not much better.
Data card is given to each competitor with no name attached. Only numerical control which is NOT attached to competitor name. That is the way it is done. It is a “source anonymous” system. Confidential was a bad word choice.
Yes, we need information so that people can be informed about all this drug inuendo and so that USATF/WMA can make informed decisions.
Let’s try out this idea:
“Hormone replacement therapy” is a euphemism for “let’s increase your hormone levels above what they NATURALLY are — which is lower than they used to be due to aging — because we think it will confer some type of IMPROVEMENT.”
Until the Baby Boomers began bemoaning the aging process, hormone replacement was given to people who produced little to none of the hormone in question. My nephew is on HgH… because he produces NONE of it.
The idea that there’s some “normal” range that you should be in invalidates the very idea of normal! In other words, to come up with a “normal” range, they sample a population (ideally) and come up with a mean level and then the standard deviations from the mean. “Normal” = 2-3 standard deviations from the mean… but there are people in the sample who are outside of that range as their NORMAL level.
So “normal” is just a statistical term and NOT in any way indicative of where YOU should fall on the curve.
A diagnosis of “lower than normal” levels of a hormone is NOT a medical diagnosis. It’s an opinion based on numbers.
My wife, for example, has a pituitary problem and doesn’t produce certain hormones very well. Some of the doctors she sees “treat by the numbers” and want her to get various levels higher. Others say to her, “Well, are you having any SYMPTOMS that are consistent with lacking that hormone? No? Then you don’t need it… you NORMALLY produce a small amount.”
And even if you were exhibiting symptoms of “lower levels” of some hormone, where did we suddenly get the idea that you have some illness that needs treating instead of recognizing the evolutionary phenomenon that, well, some people don’t age as well as others.
And, really, if we’re talking about performance, we’re talking about evolutionary issues as much as we are talking about training. The person who, for whatever genetic reasons, is able to maintain strength, speed, and recovery abilities — who trains to maximize those factors — is the one who will beat those with poorer genetics or training (or who has a bad day that day).
I mean, let’s call a spade a spade. Messing with our biochemistry, for ANY reason, is not “normal”, it’s rigging the system.
Now, does that mean you should/shouldn’t participate in masters athletics? Well, that’s a whole different question. But shall we not pretend that someone’s desire to change their biochemistry for “medical reasons” is somehow different than someone who hasn’t taken the time to find a doctor to agree that they have a “medical reason.”
(BTW, this is an admitted diatribe. I felt the urge to vent. I don’t have any plans to come back and defend my rant against any critics.)
VANCOUVER, British Columbia (AP) — A Swedish curler at the Paralympics has been banned for two years after failing a doping test.
Wheelchair curling fourth Glenn Ikonen says he didnât know the blood pressure medication he was taking was on the banned list.
Ikonen, who was to throw the rocks in Fridayâs match against Italy, told a news conference he was disappointed his doctor gave him medication that was on the banned list.
He said heâd been taking it for three years, but wasnât tested prior to the 2009 world championship, where Sweden won silver.
The team manager said he didnât believe there was any performance boost that could be attributed to the drug.
The Swedes beat Italy 6-5 and went on to earn bronze by topping the United States 7-5 Saturday.
http://www.universalsports.com/news/article/newsid=462305.html#swedish+curler+fails+doping+test+paralympics
The plot thickens!
Steven:
Nice piece. Venting is a good thing and the purpose of the blog. Normalcy can sometimes lie in the eye of the beholder and there is no doubt that some of our fellow competitors are “several standard deviations from the mean” at best. đ
However, I wasn’t able to discern your position on this whole question of “What am I to do?” Are you in favor or opposed to drug testing? Are you in favor of TUE for this person?
The original question was about hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and as an OB/GYN I think I can shed some light on this subject. Most women are treated with a combination of estrogen and progesterone for there symptoms. All the estrogen and progestone are in the Not Prohibited category. So HRT like Premarin, Prempro, Femhrt, Combipatch, estradiol, norethisterone are fine. Estratest, now a very uncommon treatment, does contain testosterone and is prohibited. Most women can get relief from their symptoms without testosterone. Allowing use of testosterone could give women an unfair advantage and I think it should be prohibited.
Tamoxifen is a trickier drug. Since it is an anti estrogen you can raise your levels of testosterone while on the drug. It does have a true need in breast cancer patients but can also be found in use by body builders. I think a TUE should be granted for use of Tamoxifen in breast cancer with continued documentation that a women’s testosterone level is normal (which should be part of her routine blood work anyways).
The bottom line is that if USATF is not careful regulating drugs some will find an excuse to use them to enhance performance. On the other hand, you must allow legitimate use in which an alternative non prohibited drug is not available. So unfortunately a few athletes with legitimate uses of some drugs will have to do some work.
The athlete should first check themselves if the drug is on a prohibited list. This can be done at http://www.globaldro.com/us-en/default.aspx. The athlete should discuss with their physician any drug that is on the prohibited list to see if there is an alternative. If the physician thinks it is the best drug for the patient the athlete would have to do a TUE with documentation. The athlete would have to do the work keep the TUE up to date with lab work and physician recommendations.
We have all know athletes who have cheated and how many times do they have an excuse. Almost always.
Cheryl,
Thanks for the most comprehensive reply.
Can a comparative ‘response’ be outlined for men’s Testosterone Replacement Therapy?
If your HRT drugs –or any others– are not on the prohibited list, then compete all you want, but be sure to follow the USATF rules and, if required, request a TUE.
I have read in several places that HRT has resulted in increased cancer rates over the past 10 – 15 years and that HRT is now only prescribed in the most extreme cases.
Most of us are not doctors, but most of us do have common sense and follow science on some level. My common sense and basic knowledge of science tells me that as we age our andrgenic hormones drop naturally, and if we try to keep our hormones at the high levels that we had in our youth, then we will probably increase our chances for cancer and other ailments.
On another note for the masses, Biosante is currently advertising on televison to recruit test subjects with low sex drive to try female viagra. For those of you that don’t know, female viagra is low dose testosterone.
Well said Cheryl.
Many older athletes do not use any medicine.
Many older american athletes do use a bit more.
Most medicines are not on the list.
A few are on the list, so see if you can get a TUE.
Very very few will not get a TUE, so be it, enjoy life, there is more than masters records and masters medals.
isn’t there a huge difference between someone who is medicated for genuine reasons , and someone who is medicated for the sole purpose of cheating ? i shudder to think that there are those that are… i guess the huge problem is differentiating between the two….where is king solomon when we need him ?
It seems like some of you are quite outspoken on your anti-all drugs position. I hope you never need HRT.
During my ‘submaster’ years, I developed symptoms of lethargy, inability to lose bodyfat despite eating well and exercise, and I required long periods of recovery time between exercise sessions (about four times as long as previously).
My MD tested me for a bunch of things including testosterone levels. Mine was lower than the ‘normal range’. The lowest prescribable dose took me into the low end of the normal range. I lost 3 inches on my waist in three months with no changes in diet or exercise, and my bodyweight stayed the same. I have better (not 100% better) energy and can make (small) progress again in my workouts. I feel pretty much ‘back to normal’.
I don’t know exactly where I fit into this new drug testing policy yet. I’m definitely not taking HRT for increased performance. And it’s no choice between my health and a little medal.
I’d really like to participate in the big national drug-tested meets. It would be great to go up against more and better competition. Especially in some events, like high hurdles, that don’t get many masters athletes at the all-comers I go to.
I almost certainly won’t be taking medals away from anyone.
I support TUES – there are individuals among us with serious conditions and they should not be excluded from competition.
I also support drug testing at National/World events. That being said, one is naive to believe someone serious about doping cannot avoid detection at two or three events per year. (Particularly with the prevalence of undetectable PEDS.) Any athlete who tests positive in masters sports is a) reckless, b) not very bright, or c) false positive.
I (or you) could readily obtain (from Drs or the street) PEDS to enhance training and results. What is the point? To climb up a few rungs on the rankings or get a medal – at the risk of side effects, crashing physically, and future health problems? C’mon people – this is amateur athletics. It is a shame as “mature” adults we even have to discuss this.
I agree that there are some issues for post-menopausal women as far as the hormone replacement therapy is concerned, but I do not see why a 250 lbs shot putter has to take a medication for muscle weakness…
I have been off HRT since 2005 on the advice of my doctor, yet it was still my choice because I have a history of breast cancer in my family.
I suffered for a couple of months with hot flushes, mood swings and so much pain in my legs at night that I could not sleep.
Then I discovered a product (not sure if I may mention the name). It contains Red Clover, Black Cohash and Vitamin B6 and has worked wonders for me – no hot flushes or sweats and no more throbbing legs at night. It was not a quick fix, but I persevered and after about the 2nd course, all my symptoms gradually disappeared – and I had no side effects. I have been using it for about 4 or 5 years !
Pam Immelman
South Africa
Leave a Reply