Pete Magill column asks tough question: Can playing field be level?
Pete Magill is red.
About Ken Stone
Ken has followed track as an athlete, writer and web-master since the late 1960s, and saw most sessions of track and field at the 1984 Los Angeles and 1996 Atlanta Olympics. He also attended the 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012 Trials, the last three as a blogger and Patch correspondent. [More...]
Ken Stone
-
35 Responses
Dr. Brown asks: “Is it ethical to give someone something they’re not making?” I guess the answer is that it depends on what that “something” is.
For masters T&F athletes, if the “something” is insulin, the answer is “yes,” it is ethical if the person can demonstrate insulin-dependent diabetes. That’s my interpretation of the rules for Level 2 athletes, which is what masters are. Consult the rules for other drugs, if you wish.
I point this out because the apparent implication of Dr. Brown’s question is that it is unethical in all cases to give someone something they do not make. The answer, as above, is that it ia either ethical or unethical depending on the substance.
I agree with Peter – to suggest that it is unethical to prescribe medications for life threatening medical issues is beyond belief. Diabetics do not make insulin or sufficient amounts to sustain life. Other drugs – well indeed it depends.
And btw – the list of TUE drugs is in constant flux. I filed for TUE for asthma medication for years – and received them. Now the same asthma medications no longer require a TUE. So – was I being given an unethical advantage before 2011 – but now -it is ethical?
There are no easy answers and no easy solutions – and slapping the tag of “ethical” or “unethical” on this issue solves nothing.
I prefer to let the column stand on its own, but I also think I need to defend Dr. Brown here. In no way, shape, or form is he suggesting that anyone – athlete or not – be refused medications for life-threatening medical issues. He’s emphatic that treatment in such cases is the top priority. Beyond that, Dr. Brown has both filled out TUEs and treated some of the very top athletes in our sport.
The quote in question is addressed to the ethics of allowing masters athletes being treated for hormone deficiencies (e.g.–testosterone) to compete. And he isn’t implying that the answer should be “no” or “yes.” That’s for us to answer. His was simply putting our dilemma, as masters, into question form. Trust me, Dr. Brown is a great friend of both masters athletes and our sport. If the column seems to imply the opposite, the fault is with the writing (moi) and not Dr. Brown.
As you know, I don’t make testosterone but neither do I complain that I can’t take it. I’ll do whatever the rules are. That said, testosterone was developed for the elderly. I would like to not be hurt doing just above minor things, but the rules are the rules and I will always comply. Thanks so much for these interesting insights!!
I read Dr. Brown’s article and always find it amusing that somehow the athlete in question put’s the USATF or whatever governing body that suspends them as the bad guy in the whole matter. Craig Shumaker states in the article, “I should not have to ask someone’s permission to do what is best for my health.” Mr. Shumaker is absolutely correct. Nobody is saying he can’t, shouldn’t or ask for permission to take whatever medications that will help his ailment…but…you do have to ask for permission to COMPETE while taking certain meds if they pose a possible physical enhancement that would give one athlete an advantage over another. Permission to COMPETE and as Mr. Shumaker states, “…permission to TAKE WHATEVER MEDICATIONS THAT IS BEST FOR MY HEALTH” are two totally different matters… Competing as a member of the USATF or any other sports organization is a privledge, not a right.
maybe i’m skewed, but i would think that a perfectly healthy masters athlete that has no needs to exist, to live a normal life…takes a banned substance for the sole purpose of cheating, to gain an unfair advantage over his peers…is WRONG. however if a medically needy (asthmatic )athlete is taking a substance to balance his body’s shortfall, to maintain a NORMAL life, then i have no problems with that application..in bubba’s case i can’t believe that anyone in their right mind would feel that, by his taking testosterone to replace his lack of natural production,he would be considered a cheater…..i guess i see it as a type of horseracing…ballast added or reduced depending on the needs of the individual…
Would all agree that “for health reasons” and “quality of life” that the “decision board” must atleast consider what would / should be allowed? [let’s all ignore the cheaters for my question; and let’s ignore the doctors / coaches that allow some to cheat for my question].
I do not have a problem losing to Bubba Sparks.
Thank you Fidel but I never consider any of us losing to another. When I first came forward with my situation it was meant to show the unspoken side; someone who makes no testosterone who physicians say needs it. What I found here is perspective. NO, it does not affect my quality of life and no I do not need testosterone supplementation to “survive”. But I don’t need it to compete either.
It may very well be needed for a quality of life but within the rules that I choose to follow they are not allowed so I refrain. I truly have no issue with this one little bit. I just wanted to let everyone know that some of us actually could rightfully provide evidence that it is in our best interests to take supplementation, as many physicians have told me. But I don’t NEED it to live or train so the rules say I can’t take them. I’m at peace with that. With this perspective I do not think testosterone should be allowed, and this is coming from a person who makes none. I hope everyone has a great season this year.
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, wear fins on your feet but no you cannot compete against swimmers without fins. If you like to bicycle but your legs are weak, use a moped but you can’t compete against non-motorized bicycles in an official race. If you have chronic fatique syndrome then take your stimulants but no you cannot compete against those not taking them. Should runners who use space-age carbon fiber prosthetic limbs get to run against non-amputees? I say no.
Running in a Masters meet against other competitors is NOT a right you were born with or one protected under Federal law. Read that last sentence again. USATF should clearly state that drug testing may be peformed at any meet.
For competitors who feel differently, you are welcome to organize your own series of TF meets in which the brochure states “No testing will be done. Take whatever you like.”
Unfortunately/fortunately, I am a pole vaulter. That is a disease. We MUST do it!! 😉
Is it possible to continue to use the TUE process, just make it more suitable for our (masters) group?
Using insulin as the example – it is banned in younger people because it is a growth hormone, and cheaters can take extra carbs plus insulin to gain an advantage. But certainly a TUE for insulin should be available for masters folks who truly have diabetes?! And I think there are other such examples that can be identified with treatment for hypertension, heart disease, etc. that could be addressed by the TUE process without major changes in a system that for all its imperfections, appears to be better and hopefully more likely to achieve consensus than the alternatives I’ve heard so far.
I don’t see anyone addressing the age issue. Re: testosterone deficiency, I believe the evidence is fairly straightforward (I would appreciate hearing from some MDs on this): After age 75, men no longer produce testosterone. It’s nearly impossible, therefore, to build muscle. If this is the case–and given the value of testosterone to general health, strength, and quality of life–should we allow all males 75 and over to use a testosterone supplement? If all of this group suffers from the same deficiency, no one gains any significant advantage; we acknowledge and respect this natural occurrence; and our sport would continue to have these competitors at our meets.
With all due respect Bubba, how do you know that your low testosterone is not affecting the quality of your life?
A lot of people’s testosterone levels decrease so slowly over a long period of time, they don’t realize how it affectes their life. Once they get on a hormone replacement regime, they can’t believe how many areas of their life improve beyond their original complaint symptoms.
My symptoms were relieved with HRT and I would not be willing to stop treatment just to compete in sanctioned meets. My performances are so far down the performance list, that no one would suspect me of using. I’m not planning on setting any records or getting any medals, and probably won’t ever get flagged in drug tested meets.
And the statement that people taking ‘non-allowed’ MD prescribed medication start their own ‘drug’ federation is ridiculous.
The best solution seems to be let the people that can’t get a TUE compete, but not for official place or medal.
anyone for adopting a new “testosterone-graded” table?…;)
Stephen, I am a doctor – although a pediatrician, so I can’t claim specific expertise. But I’ll take a shot at your question.
Your characterization of low testosterone levels after the age of 75 as a deficiency assumes that anything other than the young adult’s levels is abnormal. As an example, would you characterize the natural decline in growth hormone as a deficiency? Should we all continue to grow taller the longer we live? So a decline in some hormones is natural and healthy. To say that “given the value of testosterone to general health, strength, and quality of life” supplementation to all males over 75 seems like a good idea overlooks the fact that testosterone has significant complications, such as accelerating the growth of prostatic tumors. And I think Bubba Sparks is probably a good example that, except for competing at a world-class level and healing quickly afterwards (which is distinctly abnormal at this age and almost none of us were created to do), general health and quality of life can be good with no testosterone at all.
So I personally think a TUE to allow people who have testosterone levels below the normal range for their age to take enough to reach the lower limit of normal should be acceptable. Everyone should be able to go around with a testosterone level at least at the lower limit of normal for their age. But I do not think general supplementation, or supplementation more than the minimum needed to get to the lower limit of normal is fair or healthy.
Thank you Bob White for addressing Stephen Robbins flawed arguments.
I plan on running until I can’t anymore. Hopefully, that will be shortly before I pass on to the hereafter. The whole point is to do what you can with what you have. I am not afraid of father time. Every day that I am up and able to run is a blessing. I may not be a quick as I once was, but I am happier and having more fun than I ever did when I was younger and faster. So as I age and slow down, I will keep on enjoying running and jumping the best that I can. If I win, that would be cool. But as I look around at the general state of disrepair that most of the people in my age group are in, I think that I will count myself lucky just to be able to run any race from here on out to when I can’t anymore.
Regarding Terry Parks comment #16, AMEN!
Terry–You’re not afraid of father time? You’re 47. I wasn’t afraid when I was 47 either! Try to put yourself in the shoes of someone 69.
Bob: Thanks for your comments. All I know is what I read online and I’ve now read a dozen or more research studies. I agree with you that decline is not synonymous with deficiency. But the evidence is pretty clear on the following:
(1) Low-testosterone levels have serious health symptoms–specifically decreased muscle mass, depression, anxiety, heart disease, low motivation, osteoporosis, and loss of sex drive.
(2) Twenty-five percent of men age 60 are deficient. I have found no figures for men 75.
(3) Testosterone declines with age–between 1 and 1.5 percent per year. It seems reasonable to assume that a sizable portion of men 75 and up are deficient.
Some research studies confirm the negative consequences you mention. But don’t you think most men 75 and up would prefer that risk to the symptoms noted above? Or at least they should have the option and not have to give up masters’ competition?
Stephen, perhaps you and I can meet in the middle on the proposal that a TUE be allowed for men who are truly testosterone deficient, allowing them to take enough testosterone to bring them up to the lower limit of normal. This would give them better health but no competitive advantage.
Perhaps we can also agree that there are other comparable examples (e.g., insulin) for which a TUE should be allowed for health reasons, where at least in the masters group, no competitive advantage could be gained.
So the general principle would be that the TUE process should be adjusted for masters athletes, such that certain substances banned from open competition could be allowed at some level in masters competition, if it was clear that there were health needs and where no competitive advantage could be expected.
This would still leave a number of substances banned because they could be used either for health reasons or for a competitive advantage, and if there is no way to sort that out in an individual athlete, then the substance would have to remain on the banned list. In those cases, I would agree that athletes should be able to self-declare that they are using a banned substance and still compete, but not be eligible for medals – nor have to undergo drug testing. Drug testing would be reserved for those athletes who do not self-declare.
I think those two proposals (improve the TUE process, allow self-declared athletes to compete) would allow for better health than the current situation, without giving anyone a competitive advantage.
I must admit, this discussion bothers me. We are all blessed (or not) with certain attributes right from the beginning -that is, some of us have more natural talent than others. Sorry, but I worked as hard as anyone in my high school and college years during track and cross-country. I was fast but never came close to the level of Jim Ryun. Yes, I do believe that hard work pays off and that hard work can beat talent that is not developed. But, just as a 7′ high schooler is going to have an advantage over a 5’6″ high schooler on the basketball court, certain attributes in runners will also provide an advantage. The aging process is the same. Some of us age better than others -period. Athletic competition in the purest sense provides us all the opportunity to bring the bodies that we were given to their fullest potential -not by enhancements, not by supplements, but through the best training and lifestyle activities that we can adopt. At 57 now and as my testosterone level continues to decline, and my joints stiffen from my generations of family inherited arthritis, I will adapt and do the best that I can. I will try more activities to keep my knee left and leg strength for strong push off (we all know that as muscular strength decreases, so does stride length and hence speed), I will warm up more slowly and gradually and, as I have started to do recently, I will get up and move around for a longer period of time in the morning to let my joints loosen up before my morning run. I will continue to fight the aging process as best as I can with the hope that (as is true with all masters athletes)I can slow my deceleration over the coming years. A few years ago a young man (well over 65) at the Hartshone Master’s Mile once told me, “I may not be able to run as fast as I did 5 years ago, but I can always run faster than I did last year!” Ha ha, that’s my goal -in the purest sense.
Stephen, I have thought about being older and running. Every time I have gone to a big Masters meet, I have met some amazing athletes. I have met some of the famous and not so famous athletes. I have thought about being able to run as I get older plenty of times. I have thought to myself, that if I am lucky I too will be running at the age of 50, 55, 60,65, 70, 75, 80, and 85. And if I get some special miricale, I can chase Ralf Maxwell’s records one day. I train at the College of San Mateo and I have watched a woman in her 70’s doing 300 repeats as she prepares for her next meet. She is amazing and I think that if I Ihave just half of her grace and happiness at that age, I would be satisfied. Indeed, her comments to me as we workout sometimes have made me see how lucky I am to be able to do what I do now and give me hope that I can continue into the future.
I may be only 47, but I have seen things that at times I wish I had not seen in those 47 years. Growing up poor and abandoned in North Carolina taught me to appreciate life. I
do not fear father time because I welcome life and all of its challenges. I have put myself in the shoes of my elder Track and Field role models and those shoes feel pretty good.
Well said Steve Chantry.
Bob–I am 100% with your view that testosterone deficient men be allowed to take enough testosterone to bring them up to the lower limit of normal. That meets my health concerns.
As often discussed on this site, the USATF is run for the benefit of younger athletes–typically 18 to 35. The power-elite in the USATF doesn’t give a rats a– about masters. Not surprisingly, the drug rules were designed for younger athletes. There needs to be different rules for masters’ athletes. I don’t want to compete against anyone who is taking illegal drugs. But I also don’t want to compete against anyone who is jeopardizing his health in order to meet some rule or regulation that was essentially created for 25-year olds.
Stephen, there is way too much smoke in your arguments than there is fire. First, the USATF does care about dopping in Masters Track. Witness the drug testing that we now have. If you don’t believe that Masters taking PED’s is a problem just read the article on this site about Eddy Hellebuyck.
Second, Master athletes already are in a different drug testing category than the elites.
Your stated concern about someone competing without PED’s who is risking there health is not logical. No one is forcing anyone to compete and if it is not healthy for someone to run they shouldn’t. You seem to be stuck in your old argument about a level playing field. Many others have pointed out ad nausum the flaws in your reasoning on this regard, so I will not revisit those arguments here.
The bottom line is that if you want to compete within the rules you can and accept the fact that not everyone is going to age the same.
“Some of us age better than others -period.” Well said.
Terry–Daniel Patrick Moynihan said it best: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” You have a lot of opinions but seem to want to ignore the research evidence. The testosterone-deficiency issue–and that’s the only drug issue I’m discussing–is much more relevant to masters than elite athletes. The evidence clearly demonstrates that. It is a problem for older masters’ athletes and I think it should be addressed. You don’t. I will say again what I’ve said before: no athlete should have to disregard his doctor’s recommendation in order to compete.
BTW, drug TESTING is not the issue. Yes, we now have it at masters’ meets. The issue is: Why do we have to meet STANDARDS set for Olympic athletes? Check your facts. I think you’ll find that any use of a testosterone supplement is illegal, regardless of age.
Stephen,
Like I said you have a lot of smoke but no fire. I am well aware that any use of testosterone is illegal. I attended the anti-doping meeting in Sacramento and I have read many articles about PED’s. I am trained as a lawyer and a scientist, so I am well aware of and equipped to find the facts. I suggest that when you become a medical expert on PED’s, then you can lecture people on the facts. The fact is that testosterone will significantly enhance athletic performance and has and can be abused by all level of athletes – Recreational, Elite, and Masters. What do you propose for people whose testosterone level is above your baseline naturally? Do they have to take some drug to bring them down to a baseline?
Your line about Masters having to meet Olympic athletes standard is another example of your all smoke but not fire kind of argument. This is simply factually incorrect. Olympic athletes and Masters athletes have a different set of testing protocols. TUE’s use is more liberal for Masters and testing requirements less stringent. However, for both sets of athletes the commonality is that drug that are know to increase performance — EPO, Steroids, and testosterone are banned.
Your ideas are simply unsound from a practical and ethical point of view and wittinessed by complete failure of these type of ideas to gain any traction.
If we claim we’re all in this for fun, why do the conversations deteriorate into snarkiness so often? Are we so competitive we have to win the debates at all costs, too? This is too important an issue to lose participants because it gets personal.
Sorry, my previous comment was snarky, too. Hit “submit” too quickly.
Just asking for civility, address the issues not each other’s flaws, let’s find some common ground to move forward on.
Stephen,
You are a Masters hall of famer with oodles of records and tons of memorable races. News flash: everyone gets old. You included. You can talk yourself into justifying the use of testosterone supplementation because you are “deficient”, but I don’t buy it. You are older and slower than you used to be. Who isn’t. Deal with it. Within the rules.
Well written John…Stephen, in this post and others past dealing with this same subject you’ve want to bull doze your opinion to all of us, while not taking our thoughts into consideration. You speak down to us as if this was our first rodeo in track and field as well disregarding other athletes your age who disagree with you. I know some may think you’re an amusing character because of a possible friendship you may have struck with them since you are, or were a professor at San Diego State University, but your Modus operandi is given away in seeing the literature you have published dealing with Organizational Behavior such as conflict, power and politics in organizations, behavioral decision making, and the development of effective interpersonal skills. The latter of those skills seems to have escaped you. Speaking down to others while spewing your facts is not a very effective interpersonal skill. Since you have shown a passionate, strong view on this subject, the next logical step and behavioral decision for you is to try and organize meets in your area with the very people you argue for, that are exempt from any PED tests, so they can have their chance to compete taking any medicines, or drugs they like. Yourself being a member of the Master’s T&F Hall of Fame should help a great deal in this effort. This would be a great time to start organizing these meets in time for Summer and be a pioneer in doing so if it becomes a popular trend. Best of luck to you Sir should you take on this endeavour.
“So I personally think a TUE to allow people who have testosterone levels below the normal range for their age to take enough to reach the lower limit of normal should be acceptable.”
This is precisely what I articulated on this board months ago.
I hope to be able to devote the time to read these comments further, for the biases of the moral relativism crowd need to constantly be revealed and explored, and counterpoints presented if and when appropriate.
Long, rambling post, apologize in advance for inadequacies, insufficient time to edit…
Stephen Robbins comments on this board are unfortunate. I won’t even waste time again detailing the inconsistencies and inadequacies in his thinking, as I’ve done that many times before on this board.
Stephen is an apologist for an era in which a particular aging demographic occupies a uniquely influential position within society–monied, in positions of authority, accustomed to accommodation.
A particular defining characteristic of this demographic is that it has the power, the numbers, and the will to bend social institutions for its accommodation. Prior generations may have had the will (maybe), but not the disproportionate influence that exists now in the form of numbers and money.
Stop and think: why now? Why only now is the issue of PED’s in masters T&F really becoming an issue? The answer is no doubt multi-faceted: more people competing, more drugs available, more people willing to publicly discuss the issue, etc…but the root cause, IMHO, is that only at the present time in history has a demographic had sufficient self-importance to honestly believe that an institution of the state that was organized for purposes entirely unrelated to the desires of that demographic, should change to accommodate those desires–rather than adapting their own behavior to conform to the existing institutional structure.
WHY do the drug advocates believe that USATF should have to accommodate them? Behaviorally, there are options other than participating in USATF-sanctioned events while medicated: participating in USATF-sanctioned events while NOT medicated, participating in unsanctioned events while medicated or not, or participating in any number of completely different activities.
Nobody is saying that people have to stop running.
Nobody is saying that people have to stop competing.
A subset of a generally self-referential generation is advocating change in a social institution to accommodate their particular desires.
In principle, considering the stated mission of the IOC, the USOC, and USATF, I can understand the logical and emotional basis for the belief that such advocacy is appropriate.
I would direct readers to the “Fundamental Principles of Olympism”, as recited in the Olympic Charter, viewable online here: http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf
The broad terms in which this passage is worded could, at first glance, be misconstrued to say that participation in any sport-related event that is sanctioned by a state organization that is a member organization of the national olympic committee, is an unqualified right, in furtherance of the Olympic goals of the peaceful, harmonious, and dignified development of humankind through the balancing of the body, will, and mind. This is certainly not the case, as the member organizations may establish and control the rules of sport, and determine the structure of their organizations, so the “right to practice sport” is qualified.
However, the IOC does articulate that “Any form of discrimination with regard to…a person on grounds of race, religion, politics, gender, or otherwise, is incompatible with…the Olympic Movement.” Although age is not mentioned, presumably it is a generally-prohibited ground of discrimination.
BUT the prohibition on discrimination, even on these enumerated grounds, is clearly not absolute, since many national member Olympic committees discriminate among their participant athletes on the basis of physical ability, selecting only athletes who have demonstrated a certain ability for participation in certain situations, such as the Olympic Games. Such discrimination is entirely acceptable under the general permission granted to national Olympic committees to establish and control the rules of sport, etc..
Discrimination on the basis of ability is a de facto discrimination on the basis of age–neither a 6-year-old nor a 90-year-old will have ability comparable with that of a 20-year-old; thus, member organizations, including the USATF, in fact have the authority to discriminate on the basis of age.
The important question, however, is this: how may that discrimination be manifest, and what are its limits? It could easily be argued that what the Charter says is that all athletes must be given SOME opportunity to participate in an event that is sanctioned by the member organization, should the member organization choose to sanction any events–that is, if a national committee (USOC) undertakes to govern a member organization (USATF), then that organization must provide SOME participatory opportunity to all citizens, regardless of age–which the USATF in fact currently does, as it affords participatory opportunities for master’s athletes, as well as child athletes.
HOWEVER, the USATF clearly has the limited authority to prescribe the conditions under which that participation will be permitted. As I read the Charter, that authority is very broad. There are several tests that could be used to determine what discrimination was acceptable and when, which I won’t go into in detail. IMHO, likely any discrimination that falls short of eliminating all participatory opportunities for any particular class would be acceptable.
An example of this is that it is permissible for a member organization to have women and men compete separately, as long as they are afforded SOME opportunity to compete, but both genders need not be granted equal opportunities to compete, as is evidenced by the fact that the Saudis sending of only men to the Olympic Games has historically been permitted by the IOC (yes, I know they are bowing to international pressure in this regard).
Regarding the banning of certain practices by member organizations, such as the use of certain performance aids, these are permissible limits on the conditions of participation, and when they are applied equally to all athletes, should not run afoul of the prohibition on discrimination. If in practice the application of those practices results in unequal treatment, it must be determined if that unequal treatment amounts to impermissible discrimination.
The “fact” that “everybody over 50 is taking something” on the PED list, if true, would create a distinct class of participant based primarily on the taking of the PED, but by extension able to be characterized as a class based primarily on age…however, the problem with this argument is that NOT everybody over 50 is taking something, and even if they were it is not their age that is the primary basis for the discrimination, and that even if they are taking something, they have the opportunity to secure a TUE as another condition to permit their participation. Discrimination, on the grounds and to the extent that it occurs, is permissible under such a construction.
But arguments made by the baby-boom generation are not without merit, on the basis of what is articulated by the IOC–the problem is the way that they go about trying to further their agenda. I don’t believe that the vast majority of them understand the paradigm in which they exist, and hence exactly what the effects are of their advocacy, and what the effects would be of implementation of their advocated policies.
This belief is predicated upon an almost total lack of evidence of recognition by many posters here of the fundamental concepts underlying this debate–and NOT from the unique perspective of that generation, but from a broader perspective that includes all participants and all generations, past and future included.
The comments of certain posters here, notably Robbins, is disappointingly, but predictably, circumscribed. Robbins is not a statesman, he is an advocate–not surprising, considering that this is a “masters track” forum. I just want everybody to know that there is a broader perspective available, of which a perspective like that of Robbins is but one piece.
I am not at all sympathetic to Robbins. He merely laments the aging process. His argument reduces to “I would be healthier if I did not age, and should be able to take any action to forestall that yet compete against those who choose not to interfere with nature, or do not have the means to do so.”
My case is curious. I found out recently that I have a genetic disease, one symptom being anemia, mild in my case. Being genetic, this condition has been life long, and I competed through high school and college at a disadvantage.
I could argue now that I should be allowed (and should have been allowed) to take EPO to bring my hematocrit to mid-range normal.
It was somewhat accidental that I became aware of the genetic disease (a brother is more afflicted), and I might never have known. The truth is that we are all riddled with genetic mutations. This is what the geneticists call genetic load – the backdrop of recessive deleterious alleles. It is the lucky few with the most fortuitous genes who are the elites.
While it might seem that I have a much better case for EPO than Robbins has for testosterone, the truth is that all of us non-elites (at least those trying to excel) have something holding us back: mutant genes, bad mechanics, hormone deficiencies, etc…. After mulling it over, I feel it is just the card I drew (and I can’t even be sure that the genetic disease was relevant to my high school or college performance – which was pretty decent, just not stellar).
So I am completely unsympathetic to someone who wants to dope just ’cause they are getting older. All those arguments smack of rationalization, and I think deep down you know you are trying to justify something you know is wrong.
Signed,
Mutant maybe, but I’ll be clean when I race you.
Leave a Reply