Rex Harvey on masters doping: Penalties should be even tougher

Rex Harvey takes on doping issue.

During research for my MyNewsLA.com story on Liz Palmer, I wrote to Rex Harvey and Robert Thomas — the announced candidates to replace Gary Snyder as national masters T&F chair. Robert hasn’t responded, but Rex sent me a long note Friday. He’s in the tough-love camp, but also told me: “I would be more favorable to an age limit for doping testing. Something like 80, or whatever, after the matter is studied.” He accepts Liz’s explanation for how she tested positive (via a contaminated supplement). I appreciate his thoughts, which might not appeal to everyone. I’ll post Robert’s reply if/when it comes.

Rex writes:

Thanks for bringing this up. There is no doubt in my mind that our sport loses all credibility if it is not conducted in a strictly evenhanded and fair manner. I am too proud of the sport to let that happen. My general feeling on the matter of doping is that it gives an unfair advantage to those who do it, purposefully or inadvertently.

In fact, I could be fairly easily convinced that convicted dopers should lose not only some time out of competition as now but also any records that they hold, even those before the conviction. The reason being that “If you can’t trust them now, why should they have been trusted before?”

I know the lawyers would never allow that as the athletes “might have been clean” at the time of previous records, which is true, but not very credible to my thinking. So I don’t think anything that radical will happen in that regard. What might be effective is to require an asterisk to be placed next to any record set by a convicted doper (current and previous records).

The current system of convicted dopers being given a certain period of suspension from competition does not serve masters athletes well at all. It is well-known that aging beyond a certain age results in a loss of muscle mass at an ever increasing rate.The Age Grading tables (Sheahen style not Repenning style) show this very clearly.

So if I dope and increase my muscle mass at any point in my life, I have not only an immediate increase in strength but also a bump-up in my normal aging muscle mass curve. And even if I then completely stop doping for the rest of my life and start the normal muscle loss curve again, I am starting at a higher muscle mass and therefore remain at a relatively higher muscle mass than someone who never doped. And this effect I feel is longer termed than most imagine. It is almost like “once a strength doper, always a strength doper.”

I would certainly listen to an argument that there should be an unregulated class of competition where doping would not be prohibited. But I don’t see now how that could be done in a practical manner. And I fear for the overall, long-term health of dopers.

I would be more favorable to an age limit for doping testing. Something like 80, or whatever, after the matter is studied.

Ken, you mention that there might be a need for different rules for “recreational” masters athletes. I thought we all were recreational masters athletes. We pay our own time and money to compete and any master would have to be a real fool to try to make a living from track & field (with the possible exceptions of Bernard Lagat and his likes, and some road runners).

You mention possible lighter penalties for doping offenses. I feel they already are light. Doping is breaking the rules, just like stepping on the lane line in an oval-laned race. It is shorting the distance that you run in relation to the others in the race and therefore is unfair and makes a joke of the competition.

If you step on, or over, the line, you are disqualified, out of that race, forgotten about, nada, with no recourse. But you get another chance and can run the next event right away. The long-term effects of doping are such that it is not fair to merely cancel the current event and then immediately allow competition again.

Are the 2- and 4-year penalties appropriate? I don’t think they are long enough to dissipate the advantage gained.

In the matter of Liz Palmer, she seems to have already beaten herself up more than anyone else could. I believe her story; there are several good reasons to believe it. This includes the fact that Dianabol is the crudest doping anyone could do on purpose and no one with any sense would do it.

The fact that she was injured during this period is another reason to believe her. My understanding is that you do not get the full benefit of strength doping unless you work harder than you ever have while taking it. In fact, many say that some of the main effects of strength doping is that it kills the pain, allowing you to work harder than ever and reduce the recovery time between workouts.

But the fact remains that she received the unfair benefit of the doping even if it was not on purpose. She admits that she was foolish to take supplements that “might” contain banned substances, and we all should take that to heart.

There is an upside in that she had already said that this was her last masters competitive year. It just ended up a little early and in a bad way. It seems to just be some of the bad luck that we all occasionally have.

As to the medals from Albuquerque, of course she should return them. And as to the relay, of course they have to be disqualified and also asked to return the medals. So in this case, the “bad luck” also extends to them, even though they are probably completely innocent of doping.

As to getting a TUE after her suspension, that is silly. First of all, there will never be a TUE issued for Dianabol, and second, she does not need a TUE, or anything else, if she has retired from competing.

She knows the facts of the case and should not feel bad about what happened. Her peers can see the circumstances and should not blame her personally for what happened. She has been an outstanding athlete for a long time and certainly had no need for one or two more wins or medals. I’m sure those ego things were satisfied long ago.

Putting myself in her shoes, I would not feel bad about what happened in the least way — unlucky but not bad, and I think her fellow athletes feel the same way.

Print Friendly

August 6, 2016

42 Responses

  1. Weia Reinboud - August 7, 2016

    Interesting, and I like this. Most interesting is this: “And even if I then completely stop doping for the rest of my life and start the normal muscle loss curve again, I am starting at a higher muscle mass and therefore remain at a relatively higher muscle mass than someone who never doped.”
    Has this been studied? The effect of drugs is that you can work harder and extra work leads to extra strength. Stopping the extra work leads to loss of strength, Rex’s thought is that the normal decline sets in from the top of the bump, but it could also be that after some years decline goes as if there has never been a bump.

  2. ventsi - August 7, 2016

    Very reasonable, and and straight-to-the-point, thoughts on doping in masters athletics.
    Once a (U.S.?) coach of professional athletes (I don’t remember his name) said that if an athlete takes doping at the age of 18, and that leads to increase in his (her) muscle mass and strength, he may benefit from that increased mass/strength even 10 years later, i.e. at the age of 28, even if he has never ever taken doping after the age of 18 (let’s say, he was absolutely “clean” after the age of 19).
    Absolutely the same as what Rex Harvey says above.
    So, Weia (No.1 commentator) has no reason for doubts.
    That is why MANY people are against the participation of Justin Gatlin in major competitions. If he beats Usain Bolt in Rio next Sunday, will that be a “clean” victory?
    When Val Barnwell was caught with doping at WMACS 2009 in Lahti, he said: “We, older athletes, need stuff” (he said this about viagra?, or…?).
    Age is not an excuse. Cheating is cheating at any age.
    Most normal athletes take permitted supplements: proteins, amino-acids, vitamins, minerals, Omega-3 and fish oil, energy boosters (to “wake up” during competitions), maybe some joint (arthro-)-protectors (glucosamine, chondroitine)… Isn’t that enough for an average “recreational” master athlete, free of sick ambitions to set records?
    The age-related loss of muscle mass is natural; why should we go against Mother Nature? We can slow down the process by more strength exercises, and that’s all.
    A very good idea of Rex is to place an asterisk next to each record set by an athlete caught (even many years later) with doping. This is a must. This will force former record-holders to abstain from cheating.

  3. Randy Harris - August 7, 2016

    I hate to bring up my past, but reading these so called experts on how a performance enhancing drug gives you an advantage years later after you stop taking it is ridiculous to say the least. When I was in my mid twenties, and stupid, I was one of those clowns that wanted to be big at all costs like my WWE wrestler idles whom most of are now dead from steroid abuse. I was able to obtain dianabol from the boys at the gym. What did it do for me? When I began my 6 week cycle, I weighed 200 lbs,and my max bench press was 275 from about 2 years of weight lifting. After 6 weeks of the juice, I weighed 220 and my max bench was 330! I was thrilled, but I wanted to stop the drugs and keep what I gained from it. I ate like mad, ingested 200 grams of protein per day, and worked out hard 3 days a week. No matter, I continued to get weaker every workout until My weight had fallen back to 200, and my max bench actually went down to 265 which was 10 lbs lower than my starting max! This was mentally depressing to know that I would have to continue to juice if I wanted to be bigger and stronger. Anyway, I mentally got over it, and that was the last of my experiment with roids. Even when I lifted that 330, I knew in my mind that this was not really me, but the effect of the drug. I continued lifting and stayed clean. I remember guys who would get off their cycle , and take 3 or 4 weeks off, and come back to the gym. Some of them lost so much mass, I hardly recognized them. Anyway, as far I am concerned, there is no way that someone will benefit years down the road from doping. Take from someone who has experienced the effects and after effects. Once that crap is out of your system that is it. Of course long term abuse has a negative effect on you. Just look at all those wrestlers from my day that did not make 50 years old.

  4. Anthony Treacher - August 7, 2016

    No performance-enhancing drugs ever. Not even for 80+.

  5. Bert Bergen - August 7, 2016

    Very gracious of Mr. Harvey to state the other members of Liz Palmer’s relay ” are probably innocent of doping”.Who does he think he is ? For the record Kathy Bergen was tested in Albuquerque . Apologies are in order for these three athletes . I doubt this very self important individual will ever get around to it .

  6. Tom Sputo - August 7, 2016

    Double on Bert’s (5) comment. Also, I’m not impressed with the stance that Mr. Harvey takes in general. I would not support him.

  7. Milan Jamrich - August 7, 2016

    I do not know how credible this is, but have a look (yes, I do know that we are not mice). http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/body/effects-performance-enhancing-drugs-may-last-decades/

  8. joe johnston - August 7, 2016

    Bert, (comment #5)
    I’m confused by your comments. . . appears to me that Mr. Harvey is simply giving the other three relay members the benefit of the doubt??

  9. Tom Sputo - August 7, 2016

    Joe (8), the words used by Mr. Harvey were not unequivocal. They leave open the possibility, in Mr. Harvey’s mind, that they could have not been clean. Better that he have kept his mouth shut and not said anything. He stuck his foot into it. Actually his leg up to his knee.

    He is putting up a condition where you would have to prove that something didn’t happen, which is usually quite impossible. “Prove that you were not at the scene of the crime at that time.” “Well, I was at home alone, asleep.” Do you me?

  10. The dude - August 7, 2016

    “Probably” is appropriate. Stored samples from 2012 Olympics were recenty retested and several results were overturned.

    Who knows? There’s a possibility that they could be victims of tainted supplements. A year ago anyone who said Liz Palmer was absolutely clean was absolutely wrong.

  11. With friends like this - August 7, 2016

    I back up Rex Harvey’s thinking regarding harsher suspensions for deliberate doping. Masters athletics world-wide is seen as a small, tight knit community, to the world on the outside.
    Two relatively “big name” athletes..those who have medaled at the National Championships have been recently caught and prosecuted for taking illegal or banned substances. The publicity from this tarnishes every single person who competes in masters track and field. Most of the general public is uneducated about why or even how “older folks” still compete in track.
    The more frequently these incidents occur, the more the general public will be convinced that “doping” is how it’s done. What gets publicized becomes the norm…even though we know it isn’t true at all…but that is how bad publicity often works.
    I do not buy for one second the argument that someone does not know steroids, Human Growth Hormone or artificial testosterone is not allowed in competitive sports. Name one person who does not know, for example that Lance Armstrong has been BANNED FOREVER from his sport and lost his livelihood due to the testosterone he took…so how can someone in our sport use that argument that they weren’t specifically told? Well now at least, I guess that nobody else will be able to use that one again.
    Taking a supplement that is proven to contain an illegal ingredient that was not on the label? One year max suspension….Taking a steroid deliberately or using HgH (when you are not treating dwarfism) and then competing for medals in the National or World’s? Lifetime suspension. That is an act of malice not only against your sport but your fellow competitors. Like it or not, good publicity we get such as when 100 year olds break sprint records or negative publicity like someone deliberately caught cheating…we are all “masters athletes”. It reflects on the sport itself. Look at what happened to cycling after Lance! It is still suffering years later from the connotation that everyone cheats.
    I also agree like Rex says, if you set records prior to cheating, you lose them because it is assumed that you just never got caught. Same with medals, in my opinion. I am talking about the deliberate dopers…we all have a responsibility to ourselves and our fellow athetes in the sport to educate ourselves so we don’t do anything stupid…..like going to the Nationals, a tested meet when you are taking steroids.

  12. Cyber Horse - August 7, 2016

    “A year ago anyone who said Liz Palmer was absolutely clean was absolutely wrong??” What proof do you have of that?? Her test was in March, about 5 months ago. She said she began taking the supplement in January, not last year. Tossing around unproven accusations as if they were facts is at best irresponsible, and at worst, libelous.

    And “probably” is definitely NOT appropriate for the other ladies. Shall we accuse you of doping as well? Why not? It seems we have the same amount of proof of doping for you.

    “I hereby accuse The Dude of being a doper.” How does that taste?

    While I may not agree with Rex’s point of view regarding doping suspensions I find his analysis of the Palmer case level-headed and non-accusatory which is much more than can be said of most commenters.

  13. The dude - August 7, 2016

    Cyber horse, I’m perfectly ok with someone saying I’m probably not a doper. If you don’t see the difference between that and you throwing blind accusations , you’re either too emotionsly involved to be rational or functionally illiterate. Since I don’t know you I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

  14. tn - August 7, 2016

    We’re all suspects. It’s nothing personal.

  15. ventsi - August 8, 2016

    Thank you for the link, Milan Jamrich (No.7)! It should close the discussion (with No.3 on the other side).
    So, “Once a doper, always a doper” remains valid.
    In my opinion, Rex Harvey’s comments regarding Liz Palmer are polite, diplomatic, and full of understanding and compassion. Even the comment about the other relay members (“probably completely innocent”) seems polite and correct (it is impossible to say “innocent with certainty”), and does not suggest anything wrong.
    The “political correctness” hysteria in the USA is not very understandable for people living on other continents. A word like “probably” may threaten elections chances… What a world!

  16. Bert Bergen - August 8, 2016

    #8 So Joe he is giving the other three members of the relay team the benefit of the doubt . Of course, it is his statement that created the doubt in the first place . And are you not at all uncomfortable with his probably remark since one of the three was tested and declared clean at that very meet ?
    I have to ask again what is it with the funny little titles instead of real names .The Dude , Cyber Horse
    Really

  17. Randy Harris - August 8, 2016

    Ventsi – So, “Once a doper, always a doper” remains valid. I assume since my post was brought up, I must be included in your always a doper category. Gee, I also used recreational drugs as a teenager, but even though I am now 60, I must still be a doper huh? And, I guess I should quit high jumping , because I must have an unfair advantage due to the 6 weeks of roids I did 35 years ago! Right? I mean if the mouse experiment says so, then it must 100% accurate on Humans. I do not advocate drugs in sports but brought this up to shed some light on what really happens when you take them and stop them. When I did this I was a young and foolish kid who was not competing for anything. I did it, and saw first hand what it’s effects are on others, and if you want to go by some hair brained mouse experiment then do so. I would have no problem competing against someone who was proven totally clean for more than even 6 months, because unlike you I don’t buy into the mouse guessing game.

  18. Tom Sputo - August 8, 2016

    Bert (16) we should talk. Ken Stone should have my email address.

  19. ventsi - August 8, 2016

    No.17, let’s not be such nitpickers.
    35 years is definitely too much. But within a period of 5 years, or even 10 years, one may benefit from taking doping.
    Even as a youngster I was NEVER tempted to use any PED’s. And I did a lot of sports, starting from age 10-11 till age 25-26 (athletics – between 14-25).
    Once a coach told me: “Without doping you have the potential to jump (long jump) 7.30m, with doping – 8.50m (of course, too exaggerated)”. I was not tempted. So, I did not become a professional athlete (and I do not regret about this).
    I started training as a master athlete in 2008.
    I am an ectomorph (with thin, slim body) which is a great minus for explosive events (imagine jumps and sprints without power). A colleague told me about a guy like me who started taking anabolic steroids (when young), and after only 2 months he was a mountain of muscles. The hint was: “If you have problems, you may do the same”. But the temptation did not work – again.
    During these almost 20 years of training athletics (track and field) in my life I have never seen (what about using?) any kind of PED’s. And I don’t understand the mentality of people who use them, and use all possible excuses: “Everyone uses them” (which is not true), TUE’s (very doubtful), “It’s impossible to be competitive without PED’s”, and all kinds of this “Bla-bla”.
    No dignity. Nasty.
    So, I prefer to be a mediocre athlete, and train and compete for fun, for the love of the sport. And when I win a competition (it happens sometimes on local level), and look in the mirror, I want to be proud of myself, not ashamed.
    Everyone decides for himself. But I don’t feel any respect toward any champions and record-holders, who have become such with the help of banned (prohibited) substances.

  20. Randy Harris - August 8, 2016

    No.19, well, my mentality when I was young was just that I was a immature punk who wanted to have big muscles as most of those guys are. I have been jumping in Masters since 2012, and to be honest , I was shocked when I found out that usage is so rampant. I was a dumb kid, but I thought by the time folks got over 50 that they would change their ways. I almost can understand an NFL lineman taking them , because if you don’t the guy on the other side of the line is going to shove you all over the place. But old guys like use taking drugs just to win a medal? As I said, it was an eye opener.

  21. Mr.X - August 8, 2016

    First off, let me say I couldn’t pick Liz Palmer out of a lineup. I’m also, having been beaten as a young athlete by sophisticated drug cheats, very anti-drug. My concern here though, is addressing the thoughts of someone who is a candidate for National Masters T&F Chair “If you can’t trust them now, why should they have been trusted before.” uhhhh….what?! Does Rex have any devil’s advocates or contrarians in his circle of associates that he could have talked this thru before writing his thoughts? Trust them not to have been the victim of contamination? Hell, let’s put an asterisks by every record where an athlete wasn’t tested or at a meet where there was no chance of testing.
    Also, So is the thought process supposed to be ‘if you got burned by supplements it’s your own fault’ and now that we’ve decided that, we can go ahead and tighten up our sanctions accordingly.’ It seems pretty clear that the reason this is so hard to solve is there is a pretty strong ‘Yeah,but…’ to every solution. The Doping controversy didn’t start with Masters Track but these comment sections are filled with points that already been discussed in other forums for years.
    Mr Harvey also goes on to discuss how his views don’t really impact the Palmer case which conveniently gives him a pass for cases that don’t have the unusual specifics ie. announced retirement etc. of hers. None of his “shouldn’t feel bad” and “I’m sure those ego things were satisfied long ago” and “just some bad luck we all occasionally have.” comments would survive a casual challenge over beers in a bar.
    Finally, I realize that there is a vocal percentage of people who think the solution is just to never take supplements. I get where you’re coming from and that’s exactly what I did for months leading up to Nationals. Equating taking supplements with foolishness is convenient but I think not quite right, and for a sport that, at least at the national level is already somewhat of a ‘Country Club Sport’, the idea that everyone has the time and money to run down to their Dr. and get a TUE for whatever they legitimately need or can bamboozle is OK, but for the dirtbag like me who can’t afford Salmon and fresh vegetables deserves whatever they get if their theoretically Kosher supplements turn out to be bad doesn’t help. What’s gonna happen is you’re gonna catch the unintentional and bad cheaters and not the connected and sophisticated. Problem Solved?!… not so much.

  22. With friends like this - August 8, 2016

    Let’s hear from experts in probability on this subject: Suppose that in your entire life, driving a car, you never exceeded the speed limit ever…but the first time you did, you got pulled over. By the same token, let’s say that you never in your life ever took a supplement that had any illegal substances in it nor ever took a performance enhancing drug but the first time you ever did…you got tested. What is the probability of that happening? Knowing that very few ever get tested in their entire careers?

  23. Michael D Walker - August 8, 2016

    Re # 22, For years, there was almost zero testing of masters athletes and I think that people just assumed that they would never get caught. Now that testing is starting to happen they are having problems. I do recognize that this is a complex issue and even some over the counter cold medicines may contain substances that will cause you to fail but at the same time, with all of the information out there, we cannot pretend that we didn’t know,.

  24. A. Lorraine Tucker - August 8, 2016

    **Regarding ladies on the relay team: I didn’t interpret Rex Harvey’s comments as negative. Hopefully, we can work together to save masters track & field.

    **Ditto on the point: We are all recreational athletes. The recreational aspect if masters sports is what sustains it.

    From conversations with many masters, some don’t understand that anti-doping regulatory boards do NOT certify supplements of any kind.

    In the end, “we are all” responsible for what we put into are systems.”

  25. Weia Reinboud - August 9, 2016

    #22: statistics says that a very rare event can happen tomorrow. The very first time I entered an international masters championship, Gateshead 1999, I got tested. So I thought that testing wasn’t rare. But I have never tested again, so it is rare. 😉

  26. Dexter McCloud - August 9, 2016

    Understandably, Liz will have to return her medals. However, the athletes who were on the relay team should not lose theirs.

    A precedent has already been set when the 4X100 team who ran in the Olympic Games with Marion Jones, successfully presented their case to CAS (Council for Arbitration in Sports) which is the world governing body for Olympic sports

  27. With friends like this - August 9, 2016

    #25…the question was…the first time a person ever took an illegal drug and then got tested. Not just if someone got tested. The odds of this are more than 100,000 to 1. To visualize this, if you walked into an NFL football stadium packed with people and one person was taking PED’s in the crowd…and you closed your eyes and pointed them out. The odds of that are like 100,000 to 1.

  28. Stefan Waltermann - August 9, 2016

    I don’t really know if I can fully support Mr. Harvey’s statement. As many of you know, I voluntarily retired from competition after I was diagnosed with an extremely low testosterone level. Since I had cognitive and memory problems combined with debilitating fatigue, my family doctor demanded an immediate testosterone treatment. Now he makes sure my level stays within the low end of the spectrum normally found in men my age. Naturally, this is considered doping and I withdrew from competition. But does being at the low end of ‘normal’ with the help of a synthetic forbidden substance give me forever an advantage over my luckier peers with a naturally higher level of testosterone than my medically achieved level? Should I be banned for life? Once I recover (if ever), should I be excluded to shake hands with Rex Harvey who I greatly admire because my hands are dirty? I will not cheat. I will carry my head high should I ever return. But if peers like Rex Harvey already judge me dirty for life, it may be better to stay away, not wanting to suffer indignities on top of my illness.
    Oh, I’ll still follow your triumphs and defeats. I still watch our sport die due to demographic changes and with it decline in participation, to me a much higher danger to our beloved sport than the few true cheaters. I still like you, well, most of you. Rex Harvey included.

  29. Bert Bergen - August 9, 2016

    My final words on the subject . There was absolutely no reason to bring the members of Liz Palmer’s relay team into his long winded discussion on doping and I don’t care how he worded it . Finally I am surprised how many people seem to really enjoy kicking an individual when she is down

  30. Don Schaefer - August 9, 2016

    Stefan: #28.. I want you to know you are not alone. I am in precisely the same boat.the lower level of normal. with HRT. Would love to compete but don’t even want to be drug thru the mud as a so called doper.. I continue to say….Soon only the genetic perfect few will be having their championships…enjoy that…

  31. R. Walters - August 10, 2016

    It is truly unfortunate that the thought of being tested is keeping people from participating in our sport; which at its core is about competing against yourself as much as it is about competing against your opponent. If I run a PR and I am beaten by someone who is taking a medically necessary treatment I am alright with that. It seem only those competing at the very highest are affected by any sort of testing. A person finishing 3rd in a State meet is not going to be tested under almost any circumstances. We need to drive participation not scare people away for fear of being labeled a “doper”.

  32. Michael D Walker - August 10, 2016

    Re # 31. I’m a little confused by your response. I am all for participation but the question here really is what is truly medically necessary to maintain good health vs what is taken with the goal of enhanced performance and then claimed to be necessary for health?

  33. anonymous - August 10, 2016

    Rex has announced his candidacy for Masters Chair and has shared his views. Where is Robert Thomas on these issues? He has announced he is running for Chair. What about it Ken. Anything from Robert?

  34. Tom Sputo - August 10, 2016

    Michael (32) as you see in the responses from some individuals who sling stones without actually engaging brain and analyzing the inforamtion, there is a witch hunt mentality out there. Is the glucosamine that I take for joint health (and with the support of my MD who does likewise) somehow contaminated. Another OTC supplement that I take is at the direction of my MD, in response to a TIA that I had a few years ago. Perhaps contaminated like the Palmer case? Who wants to see their reputation publicly damaged? Michael, you need to think a little broader beyond assuming that anyone who swallows an OTC pill or capsule is doing so for performance enhancement. In my case, I’m happy to just be out there with my throwing buddies, and finishing 7th out of 6 is fine with me.

  35. Michael D Walker - August 10, 2016

    Tom, what are you trying to say? Where in my post did I accuse you of anything?

  36. tb - August 10, 2016

    Apples and oranges going on here, Tom.

    You’re not at risk for contamination because you’re not supplementing in the sense that we’re talking about.

    Even if you were straight-up doping, nobody’s going to believe that your glucosamine was contaminated. Because of the economics.

  37. anonymous - August 10, 2016

    #22 “With Friends Like This” – here’s another example. Let’s say that as an attorney you received a Public Reprimand regarding a conflict of interest for soliciting a substantial gift from a client. What’s the probability here?

  38. PED - August 10, 2016

    Broken record dept: as I said re Greg Pizza and Liz Palmer stories, just let everyone who needs/wants to dope, do so. No shame, no stigmas – TUE, more energy/vitality, medal chase, AR/WR goals, whatever reason. Anything goes, HGH, meldonium, steroids, stimulants.

    Just have separate races and medals and AA standards for dopers and non dopers. Everyone gets to keep medals and keep competing.

  39. Ed Baskauskas - August 10, 2016

    Except for the part where dopers get to have their own races, isn’t PED’s proposal pretty much what we already have? I mean, even if there were a doper division and a nondoper division, wouldn’t some dopers who finish down the list be tempted to sneak into the nondoper division, where they could take advantage of whatever advantage they get from doping?

  40. Milan Jamrich - August 11, 2016

    Ed,
    for politically correct reasons we should not call them dopers. I suggest: “artificially enhanced individuals” 🙂

  41. Milan Jamrich - August 11, 2016

    I do not know Liz Palmer and I do not accuse her of anything, but not all drugs are equal. Dianabol and HGH are different than some blood pressure medications…

  42. Simon Martin - August 23, 2016

    1. Ken (or Liz, or someone), can you identify the supplement that caused the positive?
    Liz’s statement says: “One parent company that supplied my products is based outside of the U.S. and uses raw materials sourced overseas. Their website specifically mentioned a partnership with a location in China, which is a popular source for Dianabol production.
    “The company also had two situations involving athletes (one a U.S. bobsledder, one an NFL player) who had positive drug tests. Both athletes used products produced by the company and testing by an independent lab proved the products were contaminated with an anabolic steroid. ”
    (http://masterstrack.com/star-hurdler-liz-palmer-given-3-12-year-usada-doping-suspension/)

    If all that info is out there, why so coy? Name the brand and product, please.

    2. Rex Harvey: “once a strength doper, always a strength doper.” This appears to be “true” despite Randy’s personal experience (3). No, we’re not mice as Milan (7) said, and.but the study he quoted is only the latest in this area and builds on previous research – notably the 2008 study on (human) powerlifters. The researchers found that “several years after anabolic steroid withdrawal, and with no or low current strength-training, the muscle fiber area intensity, the number of nuclei per fiber in the quadriceps was still comparable to that of athletes that were currently performing high intensity strength-training”.

    Lead researcher Dr Anders Eriksson conclouded: ”It is possible that the high number of nuclei we found in the muscle might be beneficial for an athlete who continues or resumes strength training, because increased myonuclei opens up the possibility of increasing protein synthesis, which can lead to muscle mass.” He added, “Based on the characteristics between doped and non-doped power lifters, we conclude that a period of anabolic steroid usage is an advantage for a power lifter in competition, even several years after they stop taking a doping drug.” Note that they say “several years”; the mouse researchers estimated the effects could persist for ten years.

    3. Rex Harvey: “I would certainly listen to an argument that there should be an unregulated class of competition where doping would not be prohibited. But I don’t see now how that could be done in a practical manner.” Agreed. This would mean that self-declared “non-dopers” would bear the brunt of repeated testing – which doesn’t work. Lance Armstrong was tested around 275 times and never returned a positive. (http://velonews.competitor.com/2012/10/analysis/no-armstrong-never-tested-positive-but-how_261616)

    Anyone who watched the Rio Olympics with a critical eye would see “obviously” dope-assisted athletes winning medals. The system can be gamed. So-called “natural” bodybuilding has this problem. It is just too tempting for the self-declared “anything goes” competitors who are STILL getting beaten out of medals to come off their drugs for a few months and compete in “clean-only” events.

    4. Rex Harvey: “Doping is breaking the rules, just like stepping on the lane line in an oval-laned race. It is shorting the distance that you run in relation to the others in the race and therefore is unfair and makes a joke of the competition.” Black and white thinking at its worst. NOT the kind of mental approach we need in highly-nuanced situations.

    As we saw in Rio: a reigning OIlympic champion was disqualified (on protest from the get-a-medal-at-any-costs French team), for putting one foot over the line a MILE out from the finish line…on a “line” by the way that was lacking its edge because the Rio organisers were prioritising a field event over a track event. Harvey’s “rules is rules” mentality is nonsensical. The joke is that ANYONE would believe that inadvertently gaining – what? two inches – in a race you then win by a street is somehow “unfair” to the competition.

    5. This black/white attitude is what caused Liz’s ban.
    She makes an important point in her statement:
    “The level of the metabolite in my urine was labeled by the lab as “low” — 2 nanograms per milliliter is the level per WADA standards that can trigger a “low” adverse result. To put this in perspective, a nanogram per milliliter is a “part per billion.” So the threshold for a “low” result is 2 parts per billion.

    “One part per billion is equivalent to one drop of water in an average backyard swimming pool. The average cell in the human body weighs a single nanogram. That illustrates the minuscule amount of metabolite that was in my system, yet WADA’s strict liability policy gives no latitude for levels of detection – it’s only a binary result, positive or negative.”

    Toe over the line a mile from the finish: disqualified.
    A TRACE of PED metabolite in the system: banned.

    Rules applied by robots. Let’s bring a human factor back, shall we?

    6. Despite the Rex Harveys of this world, it is OBVIOUS that masters athletes should NOT be held to the same standards as elite, professional athletes making millions of dollars a year from their sports and able to hire legions of medical/scientific (and PR) advisors to keep them out of trouble.

    The rules on PEDS and TUEs for masters need to be lightened up, as SO many have said here before, so that we can, for instance, be allowed to use medically-prescribed hormone replacement (seems to be a favourite beef on here). The testosterone thing is another nuance: “most” masters athletes surely want to use this for health reasons and need supplementation/replacement purely to bring them up to “normal” levels. Armstrong and co use it for recovery/performance enhancement. We are not those guys.

    Two additions…

    First, get rid of Harvey-style knee-jerk “binary” (as Liz calls it) judgements that might as well be applied by computers. Take into account the amount of a banned substance found in the athlete’s system. Look at half-life and past performances. Engage human brains before banning.

    Second, TUEs are declared and athletes with TUEs are asterisked on entry forms and in results. We don’t need to know what they are issued for, so no medical confidentiality issues.

Leave a Reply