Reno report: Drug-testing mandate for masters records?
I kid you not. Under a rule change being considered by USATF, any American record application by a masters athlete would have to include evidence that the record-setter passed a drug test after the event. Item 73 of these proposals at the USATF annual meeting makes no exception for masters track. Yet it’s been a long-standing practice not to conduct dope tests at masters nationals — because the cost would bankrupt our program. All the masters delegates agreed that we can’t possibly obey such a rule. So what to do? Amend the proposal to create a “masters exception”? Add a disclaimer that masters track would waive this rule year-by-year? Or let the rule take effect and just ignore it?
First, here’s the actual wording:
Item 73 – Submitted by Bob Hersh, Rules Committee
Add New Rule 261.3 and New Rule 261.4 as follows and renumber:
3. Each athlete who achieves a National Record shall submit to a doping control at the end of the event, to be conducted in accordance with IAAF Rules and Procedural Guidelines currently in force. In the case of a relay record, all members of the team shall be tested. The sample(s) collected shall be sent for analysis to a WADA-accredited laboratory and the results sent, as indicated in Rule 261.2, to be added to other information required for the ratification of the record. If such testing results in a doping violation, or if such testing is not conducted, USATF will not ratify this record.
4. If an athlete has admitted that, at some time prior to achieving a National Record, the athlete had used or taken advantage of a substance or technique prohibited at that time, then, subject to the advice of the Board of Directors, such record shall not continue to be regarded as a National Record by USATF.
Reason: Conform to IAAF rules. Most major nations now require doping control for national record recognition. Adding this requirement would be consistent with USATF’s commitment to being a leader in the world-wide effort to eliminate doping in our sport.
This eluded my eagle eye when I was summarizing rules ideas a month ago. I didn’t think this could possibly be applied to masters. But yup. The anti-doping brigades are marching on masters.
Sandy Pashkin, the masters track records chairwoman, said USATF “doesn’t want it written down that masters don’t want drug-testing,” so she backed the idea of letting the proposal stay as is — and just ignore it.
Graeme Shirley, the masters rep on the USATF Rules Committee, which will make the final decision, said: “On paper, we will drug-test every time (for masters records).” But he suggested that the Records Committee could allow masters to opt out of the rule when it comes to our age-group records.
Rex Harvey, who is running for president of World Masters Athletics this coming summer, explained that IAAF rep Bob Hersh of the United States “is under international pressure (as others) criticize us for not doing any masters drug-testing. Bob is trying to get us on paper (as mandating tests for masters record-setters).
“Why can’t the U.S. — as rich as (they) are — do drug-testing (of masters)?” is what Rex says other countries think about the United States.
Dave Clingan and Bob Weiner pointed out “the untenable position” the rule would put meet directors in as they studied written requirements for submitting masters track records. Having a rule on the books that requires drug-testing for masters records but then is ignored when records are actually submitted for USATF final approval is a recipe for mass confusion, they argued. Wink-wink just won’t work.
Adding some tension to the room was Dr. Joan Stratton, a drugs expert and thrower, who said out of the blue: “We have a lot of people in our program who are doping.”
Finally, Stephen Cohen of Illinois proposed an amendment that provides an annual masters exception subject to resources and advance notification of members. In other words, masters track goes on record as supporting drug-testing of masters record-setters — but only when we get around to affording it. Which is never.
A dozen or so other rules-change proposals affecting masters also were debated.
One would force meet directors at masters nationals to publish a schedule in the entry book that lists times of events (and not just days of events). Delegates voted to oppose that idea.
Another rule would allow timed finals in the long hurdles and 800 meters at all championships. That bit the dust, too.
And a rule that would allow meets to run finals at the scheduled times of heats (as when only eight people show up for a sprint prelim) was voted down unanimously — despite Dave Clingan pointing out that the 2003 Puerto Rico world masters meet ran a final in the 800 meters when runners were expecting just prelims. Rex Harvey, the WMA vice president for stadia, replied: “We make mistakes all the time,” drawing laughter.
Finally, a rule change proposed by Bob Fine, killed while crossing a street in Reno two days ago, was voted down. Bob wanted to create a club-scoring system for race walkers at masters nationals. The consensus, as voiced by Sandy Pashkin, was: “We don’t have team scoring for the 10K at nationals. . . . . Why should we have it for the racewalk?”
The proposal was opposed with only a couple dissenters, including Clingan.
“I voted for Bob,” he said.
19 Responses
If you have ever been drug tested at a track meet, you know what a complex and detailed procedure it can be. To be valid, someone must accompany the testee continuously from after the race/throw until the test is administered. Nothing can be injested except “official” water to assist you to “go.” The bottle is a high-tech, special locking container, supposedly tamper-proof. The paper work takes about 30 minutes to complete in 6 or 7 copies. Then there is the custody chain, preservation, and record keeping requirements associated with getting the speciman to the lab, whereever that might be. Of course, the chance of all these procedures being carried out perfectly is very remote if they are done by anyone except experienced testers, so a positive test would probably be easily challenged and overturned.
I was tested in Gateshead, and it was quite an ordeal. It was unlike the major open meets where the athletes routinely go from the track to the doping room for testing by experienced WADA testers. The lab fees are significant, but the personnel costs would likely be the biggest impediment to regular testing. I hate to see a rule passed that no one has any intention of following. It might set up a situation where an athlete from another country could successfully challenge a new record if we didn’t follow our own rules. This in the case that a masters national record might also be a masters world record.
In summary, we shouldn’t accept “unfunded mandates.” If this is a USATF requirement, and the USATF thinks it is important to demonstrate to the world that we are serious about doping at all levels, it (USATF) should make allowances in the masters’ budget to satisfy it.
If not, then defeat the requirement as it applies to masters.
Not a specific comment to this blog entry, but a general pat on the back for Ken:
Thanks so much for keeping us up-to-date on all the goings-on in Reno!
While some of us frowned at recent posts on wills and medal-counts, it’s times (and blog entries) like these that remind us what an incredibly valuable tool masterstrack.com is for our community!
Just can’t seem to escape the unfunded mandate.
First NCLB now drug testing in masters track. Sheesh…
Requirement for drug testing would reduce the number of records for more than one reason. Maybe we could do it at Nationals, if some specific funding for this purpose is is provided. Our position should be that we will do drug testing if sufficient funding is provided. We should definitely not give the impression that we request exemption from drug testing because we believe that use of drugs is OK. Not many sponsors want to be associated with an organization that tolerates illegal drug use.
Why can’t the U.S. — as rich as they are — do drug-testing of masters?”
This rule opens up a can of worms. The doping procedures are well defined and more involved than peeing in a cup. . Violating the procedures could nullify any positive tests and result in expensive lawsuits for USATF.
Several athletes were denied records because of procedural considerations (sanctions, etc). If we ignore the rule, WVA could deny any world records set by American athletes. The rule would give WVA a chance to stick it to the USA.
One way we could do this would be to require a drug test by WADA within a week of a record. They have people who do random tests on elite athletes. Perhaps they could also do them on masters record breakers. This will be expensive. I’m sure WADA would charge for the test plus the cost of travel (costs could be $1000 to $2000 per record). Who’s going to pay for this? Asking athletes to pay would be an economic hardship for many of us.
The other alternative is to have doping control at every sanctioned meet. We have trouble funding existing meets. Such are rule, if enforced, would be a deathblow to masters track and field in the US.
The Bush administration has been very vocal about doping and sport. Perhaps they could establish a lame-duck fund to stop doping in old athletes. We should hurry because I don’t think this is a major concern for president-elect Obama.
Don’t make a rule that won’t be enforced.
Why can’t the U.S. — as rich as they are — do drug-testing of masters?”
Master’s track in the USA is funded by individual athletes. We get no government support. Athletes must travel great distances to go to championships, which comes out of our own pockets. American masters are typically middle age people with families or older adults on fixed incomes.
I’m sure that the US government has enough money to fund a masters doping program— if they supported masters sports. They don’t and they won’t.
In the USA, masters track and field is a backwater sport played by a few die-hards. At our national championships, only about 900=-1500 people compete. That isn’t much out of a population of 300 million.
Another troubling question:
How do you compare “clean”records from countries that test with “dirty” records from countries that do not test?
“Adding some tension to the room was Dr. Joan Stratton, a drugs expert and thrower, who said out of the blue: “We have a lot of people in our program who are doping.”
OK … an assertion of supposed fact was made … now she needs to back this “fact” up with cold evidence. Otherwise … keep your mouth shut.
Wish the folks testing me good luck while I’m attempting to pee in a cup when wired up on Mountain Dew and Viagra or 36 hour Cialis! 🙂
Well, one more comment and then I will take a vacation for a couple of weeks (unless Mellow Johnny wants me to respond to something).
Let’s see, Penn Relays is a meet with excellent masters competition (next one will be April 2009). Hmmm…M55 100-dash record is 11.50 (Bill Collins), with an 11.44 pending (also Bill Collins). So…what’s the scenario?
Bill Collins or someone else, let’s predict, runs 11.48 next April at Penn. If the 11.44 is still pending (or if the applicant runs 11.43 if 11.44 has been accepted) he has first to determine which of the officials started his race and somehow get that person to sign his form.
Next he has to chase down the wind-gauge reader and get a signature there. All of this, by the way, is strictly off-limits to athletes, who must leave the field at Penn immediately.
Next, Bill (or someone else who breaks a record) has to push his way past security to get a photo of his race (will never happen, as security will stop him).
After that (per what we are hearing from Ken Stone’s message), he has to somehow convince Penn Relays management that he needs a drug test. I can’t see anyway that they will go ahead with that, but maybe I’m wrong. And what would be the funding?
After the drug test, the applicant would then have to go to the meet referee to have the application form signed, etc. How in the world will our records get accepted? That’s all I have to say until after Christmas (unless there is more discussion about J. Hinton or K. Glynn).
with all this stuff going on about masters records( non sactioning…drug testing…)
i guess we have to “bracket race.” in drag racing, if you dial in a time (seed time ) , and you go faster, you lose.the closest to his or her dialed in time wins it’s going to be harder to do in the throws and jumps, to try and land just millimeters short of the existing records…but with enough coach’s help from the sidelines ” SLOW DOWN !!! YOU”RE AHEAD OF THE RECORD ” the sprints and hurdles should be do-able.the javelin and shot and disc should also include accuracy, and racewalking should be graded on “grace”…did i leave anything out ? albert
Peter, I’ve been training pretty hard lately, pretty much some eastern European and Russian stuff, it’s kind of top secret so I’ll stop there, LOL…not to mention some UFC sparing too…
I only wish I could come close to Aaron’s M40 100m record at Penn and watch them stop me from getting the starter, wind gauge guy/gal, start clerk, finish clerk and the official photographers signatures!!
Lets say they are able to fund drug testing at Nationals. What about all the other meets where a masters might set a record? From previous posts, we seem to have problems with some meets even getting sanctioned, is there going to be a new requirement that each meet where a masters athlete will have to have a USADA crew standing by in case such a thing happens?
I worked about a half dozen masters meets this year, including the Southern California Indoor Meet . . . Outdoors which I host myself. Self serving plug, it will be held again on March 8 at Mater Dei High School in Santa Ana (California). We have had records (potentially) set at almost all the meets I have been at, I’ve been involved in the officiating and paperwork. It is hard enough to get sufficient officials, a proper track with curb, wind gauge, a working Finishlynx, officials measuring every throw or jump, steel tapes etc. (all of the above have been issues just this year). Now we are expected to have a crew with a tent and their special cups standing by somewhere at every little meet? I just don’t see that happening. It will make Sandy Pashkin’s job much easier because no records will ever need to be approved.
I mentioned Mellow Johnny above, but because Simpdog mentioned me in his post I will respond now rather than waiting until after Christmas. Hope that Aaron, Simpdog, or someone else can get under Aaron’s listed mark (which is not as good as his best mark, BTW, but that’s another story) at Penn next April. If I’m there, I will help any recordbreakers with applications.
If I’m not there, do strength training like Simpdog so that you can overpower the three levels of security (contract [daily] security, Univ of Penn Police Dept, City of Philadelphia Police). This will be what is needed to get signatures at a place where the top ticket is $45 and security is heavy.
Of course, in other sports with which I’m familiar (such as golf) they are thrilled with new records. With Oshkosh now just 7 months away, we’re in a Wisconsin frame of mind, so I will use that for an example.
Let’s say someone from Oshkosh, we’ll call him Phil Woods or Arnie Nicklaus, goes up to Appleton for the Wisconsin State Amateur and shoots 65, 64 = 129 for a new record for that tournament. Do you think they would deny him the record because there was some problem with the insurance or because he didn’t get signatures from every official at the event? Not.
So i guess the solution is to just not break a record and you don’t have to worry about it.
This won’t ever be an issue for me (unless I’m above ground and steepling at 95 and by virtue of attrition alone have a shot at a record) but for those of you that are at a level where you can break records, this has to be a funded mandate or it doesn’t hold any water or credibility.
As a schoolteacher, this is much like NCLB on a smaller scale. When that legislation was passed, it should have come with the $700 billion bailout-type pricetag. Thomas Fahey is right that each test is very expensive. Athletes should not be footing the bill for this.
PT: have a good vacay but I am curious about your thoughts on Cleveland hosting 2011 (my guess is that you’re thrilled just as I am) and thoughts on future hosts for 2012 and beyond. What other new locations are good choices? Thanks.
While I support drug testing, I tend to agree with Andrew Heckler, drug testing complicates things greatly. A couple of years ago, we put on a meet in Memphis and someone did set a record. Fortunately, that person let us know in advance of a record attempt and we were able to ensure that the necessary people were there but if we had to also bring in a drug test team, we probably could not have put on the meet. We also need to remember that masters meets are age group events – with potential records available at every age and event, that is a lot of drug testing. Do we test only for records or do random tests to weed out any cheaters? How do we handle the many of us that have to take prescriptions drugs. How many masters competitors would have to put on file what drugs they take and then submitt an ammendment every time their prescriptions change? Who will be responsible for handling that pile of paperwork and where will the money come from for what could be a tremendous amount of drug testing? Perhaps, some random testing is in order for National champs and record holders but we need to be realistic as to what can be accomplished within what is at the moment a relatively small group. Let’s work to make Masters track larger [more people and meets] and we will have more money and influence to get things done.
False alarm!
At this morning’s Masters T&F Committee meeting, Graeme Shirley announced that infamous Item 73 was NEVER INTENDED to apply to masters track. So forget about the doom and gloom. It’s all good now.
Uh, OK.
Here’s a detailed account of this comedy of errors:
http://masterstrack.com/blog/002939.html
Fine if they want to test masters but the current program is a waste of money. It is totally misdirected to test at random. We need specific track and field rules not the same rules for us as the other sports being tested. The number of tests would not increase. In fact limiting to records it would be very usefull. It would verify the whole purpose of the rule book. The record book would also be considered valid. We the athletes deserve to have not only the records maintained but untainted at well. If people are doing drugs ….and they will as the competation rises to such a degree that they see the edge is worth the risk as they have done in the past. The records are considered influenced and athletes are not what I would call orhodox in the old amature ways. Drugs are a part of society to a great extent. We must address them to records to be effective. Not a hit or miss method. Who cares if the person in 40th place was doing anything or not. Winning on the other hand should have a price. So lets not waste our resources on a program that is dysfunctional as it stands.
Leave a Reply