What about the promise of a TUE after testing positive for PEDs?
Bob Weiner
Sez Bob, a former White House Drug Policy spokesman who helped create USADA and WADA:
I am trying to clarify, as a member of the MTF anti-doping committee, whether the [Jager] suspension was for a positive test whose positive result could not be justified regardless of before-or-after competition, and whether the release is wrong (or else badly worded) that an MTF athlete may not obtain a post-competion TUE.
We were briefed by USADA several times in the open briefings before we launched the testing program that MTF athletes, though advised strongly to get pre-competition TUE’s, are not required to do so and may get post-test TUE’s because we are not Olympic-level elite athletes who are required to get pre-competition TUE’s.
Other top MTF officials also remember what I do from the briefings that there is a differentiation in the requirement between elite and MTF athletes — and I asked and clarified the question in asking it myself at the briefings. We were informed in the briefings that MTF and youth athletes fall into a different (non-A) group who can get post-test TUE’s.
The other question is, if this is true, was the athlete … informed that she could in fact get a post-competition TUE? If not, it’s a bit like not having your Miranda rights read. Again, however, if the TUE is a con-job excuse for using a banned substance, then the bust and suspension should hold regardless, whether a TUE request is pre-or post… and it’s USADA’s job to ascertain the veracity.
We just don’t know if all these procedures were followed, or if the person writing the USADA statement knew the difference (or if the person adjudging the specific case knew the difference). We’d really like to know.
23 Responses
Maybe Bob can also approach USADA with the question of why press releases have to be issued by USADA when a Masters Athlete tests positive (especially when the medication is under the direction of a physician and the ban is largely due to a failure to obtain a TUE).
Doing a Google search, I counted 14 articles in publications across the country on Kathy’s ban. This kind of negative publicity hurts Masters in general, not just Kathy.
When was the last time 14 supportive articles on Masters Athletics appeared in the national press? But let an older athlete test positive for a banned substance and the press goes wild. And every time ones of those articles appears, its hurts the sport in general.
I can understand why the USADA might want issue a press release when an elite athlete tests positive (we start getting in money and role model issues here).
But what is the function of issuing a press release about a nearly 70-year-old woman who failed to get a TUE?
The ban is enough punishment. Public humiliation through press releases seems beyond cruel.
I suspect that public humiliation is the point of the press release – hoping that if they hang a few masters out to dry – the rest of us will be so scared we will all stop taking anything other than distilled water or stop competing so they do not have to spend time and money drug testing a bunch of old farts.
I had hoped to enter a meet, but sprained my ankle, so I had it taped so that I could run without a limp. I planned to enter a meet, but was told that the ability to run and jump normally like the other athletes while using tape was an unfair advantage.
no, no, no, no ,no!!!! what is wrong with you people!?! is this website advocating not admitting use of illegal drugs after you have tested positive??? oh great! i am so disgusted, and severely disappointed. i welcome the public humiliation of athletes who flunk drug testing. many of which it seems fail to follow the regulations of informing the testers before they are tested.
Both Craig Shumaker and Kathy Jager tell me in email that USADA didn’t tell them about post-event TUE option. They didn’t apply for TUE after testing positive at Berea, but they’re exploring their rights now. Stay tuned.
If it turns out Berea officials bungled the drug testing procedures, the USADA should contact every newspaper that ran a story on Craig or Kathy as a result of those USADA press releases and admit the error.
And if it doesn’t make public the error, I guess it’s time for a story on the USADA and its treatment of Masters Athletes.
It seems odd that a program as serious as drug testing has apparently been rolled out with procedural ambiguities.
Is there no document that clearly says whether or not Craig and Kathy could have pursued post-event TUES?
It should take two seconds to resolve this issue by referring to clearly written rules.
Relying on what was said orally during briefings invites confusion, which is apparently what has happened.
If Berea was a maiden voyage to test drug-testing procedures in a Masters environment, that’s okay. But Craig and Kathy shouldn’t be guinea pigs.
If the rules are so vague that even the officials didn’t understand what they were supposed to do (i.e., tell them they could pursue post-event TUES), then Craig and Kathy should get off with a warning and their bans be dropped.
Let Berea be an experiment that everyone (athletes and officials alike) learns from and let the next Nationals be the real deal.
I’m wondering if the rules are being applied as advertised. I’d argue that more people at the meets are on beta blockers than are on steroids. Or lets say at least half as many. My thinking is: If you look around at a national meet, there are a lot of older people. Both my parents later in life got high blood pressure even with a healthy lifestyle, and both eventually went on beta blockers, which are on the PED list. I am guessing this is common problem (high blood pressure) and perhaps the only viable solution (beta blockers). Of course I could be wrong. But supposing I’m more or less correct.
Meanwhile, in every single case of a 2 year ban, media attention, and all of that, the drug appears to be some kind of steroid. If things were truly random and truly tested for everything, a beta blocker case should have come up by now.
This suggests one of 3 things:
1. The testing is not actually random.
2. The testing is only for one class of drug, not everything on the list.
3. Everyone on beta blockers is quietly getting their TUE.
If 1. then some of the concerns about profiling based on body composition or on event (throwers) might be valid, or maybe some age discrimination is going on.
If 2. then all my concerns about valid non-performance enhancing medical use have been pretty much for naught. Also, isn’t that unethical to advertise one list and then test only part of it? Should the list be changed?
If 3. then I’m in the dark. I’ve not heard of anyone who got a TUE, I understand privacy concerns. I do know of 3 TUE rejections, including Bubba Sparks who said so in this forum. Who makes such decisions anyway? How do they decide?
Anyway, something seems not quite right to me. Anybody out there who got a TUE and wants to go public?
How on earth can we even be discussing a post-event TUE procedure?
Anthony, I believe the rules for Masters allow for it, but only for certain class medications. Diuretics, for example falls into this. Other classes of medications, not so much.
Thanks Greg. Appreciated. I guessed that. But it is truly a terrible legal abberation that undermines the whole TUE system. Why should an athlete apply for a TUE pre-event, if he knows he can apply post-event? Abolish post-event TUEs.
Post event TUEs should be called “if I get caught TUEs”.
Beta blockers are forbidden in some sports, not in all, as I remember well. And I suppose that in t&f it is easy to get a TUE for them.
@David “I do know of 3 TUE rejections”, those three are all muscle building steroids.
Weia, you’re right. I haven’t checked all beta blockers, but the one I am familiar with (atenolol) is not banned for track & field. It is banned for sports such archery, in which a lower heart rate can be an advantage. We can all check the status of our favorite drugs at http://www.globaldro.org/.
Apparently there are many people who do not believe in TUEs at all (I am not one of them)). According to this position, if the person needs a banned drug, they should either: A. Not compete at nationals, or B. Abandon the drug and sign up.
I don’t believe in that approach and will bring up something from the Web site for the Bloomington indoor nationals (2012). Under “athlete information” there are two items:
ADA Accommodations
Drug Testing
ADA means “Americans with Disabilities Act.” Some people with diabetes, for example, may qualify as disabled and still be able to compete. To me, it is logical to assume that a blanket prohibition against TUEs for insulin (a banned drug) may actually be illegal.
If I’m a lawyer and someone with diabetes says to me that there is an absolute prohibition against giving out TUEs for insulin, I think they will get my attention very quickly. Sounds like discrimination.
I don’t know how many people with diabetes competed at Berea (2011), Sacramento (2010), Oshkosh (2009), or previous nationals. If they did, let me say that I am proud of you — your life is hard enough as it is. And if you send an application for a TUE for insulin to me I will approve it.
Of course, it would do you no good, as I have no authority in this area. Still, I wonder why so many people want to deny insulin-dependent women and men a chance to compete in our meets.
I will suggest, as noted, that the provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act may need to be considered here (for those who are adamant about barring people who take insulin from competing at our championships).
I looked on the site of my national Dutch Doping agency. Around TUE’s they explicitly mention medicines against asthma, insulin for diebetics, diuretics and beta blockers for several sports. They also mention that for all except the elites it is possible to ask for a TUE after a test.
It would be nice for us masters discussing these issues to have a long list of groups of PED’s with an explanation why they are PED and for which medical issues they could be a medicine. Without such knowledge I really do not know what to think about it, with an exception maybe of androgen anaboles and EPO.
Obviously the ageing process varies on an individual basis. Runners I used to beat now spank me (and vice versa, but not so much!). If age group masters racing is a relative measure of performance as our bodies get older,
medications that seek to reverse or compensate a by-product of ageing is interference in the competitive process.
If a masters athlete can race 1500m in 4:15 without any medications (or TUE’s) surely that is a superior achievement to the same age athlete that is dependent on a pharmacalogical product that is offsetting some physical age related impediment?
I am not suggesting that we shrink the pool of competing athletes to a small band of super humans, rather that those who compete while using a prohibited substance should not medal in National and International competitions. These wins can be recognized and celebrated but not on the same basis as unmedicated runners.
I fully accept that my perspective is that of a runner who has not yet experienced an issue that would require medication that would require a TUE and if so, it would almost certainly influence my thinking.
Per the drug testing information listed for Bloominton (see link & info), USADA typically tests place finishers and random athletes.
Based on the fact that the Berea positives were medalists, which are place finishers, it appears that the testing was more than just random.
http://www.usatf.org/events/2012/USAMastersIndoorTFChampionships/athleteInfo/drugTesting.asp
BE AWARE – Testing may take place at any time or after any round – preliminary, qualifying, or final – USADA typically selects place finishers and random athletes. Athletes have 60 minutes from the time they are notified of being selected for testing to arrive at the Doping Control Station and will be accompanied by a chaperone during that time.
Where in the drug testing rules are procedures for post-event TUES for Masters? Can’t find anything on that topic.
Geez – This stuff is ready made for TV. You’ve got a bunch of hyped-up wrinkled geriatrics in exercise shorts; old broads on anabolic steroids and old guys on boner pills – all running round a rubber track in an attempt to win a piece of metal in an attempt to prove – something. And nobody really cares. I’d love to see what South Park would make of this.
How can anyone care about it? There is no formal selecton process or endorsments or millions of dollars in deals in masters track. You can have enjoyment and fun with it, but really – caring? If Masters qualifing was run in the exact same manner as the open Olympic Trials and World Championships, ie: several qualifying competitions, times and standards, and then formal team selection, so the best of the best show up on the day – then – yes it becomes more interesting. But it isn’t. The first rule of winning any Masters World and National title is just to Be There. It just highlights the fact that anyone can become a world champion if they choose an obscure enough race and have the time and money to be there. Being the brightest talent and the fastest athlete are not necessarily necessary. So -you’ve got to take it all with a jello-shot. How can anyone care? Drug testing should be across the board for each race, targeted for all places and records, bar none. Any cups left over can be randomly handed out. And any win/place or record achieved with a TUE should have an asterisk next to it meaning: “Drug induced”. That’s about all we can do. You can’t ban or bar medically necessary medications -you can only incorporate them into the field- and why shouldn’t people still perform their sport? It’s just a race for heaven’s sake. At least keep it fun.
Can you get a TUE after refusing?
http://www.usada.org/media/sanction-duhon
Beta blockers are in demand these days because there are so many hypertensive people around the world. Beta blockers have so many side effects though. ,.:`.
Best regards http://www.foodsupplementdigest.com“>
Leave a Reply