WMA mulling out-of-competition (at-home) drug testing in 2016

If masters see this at home, many will see red.

If masters see this at home, many will see red.

According to the minutes of the Lyon General Assembly, masters in 2016 may join elites in being drug-tested at their homes. So-called “out of competition” testing is a nuisance for the kiddies, but it would be a holy hassle for masters athletes. All I know is this: “After talking with the IAAF, we will look at out-of-competition testing in the coming year.” That’s what a report said that noted the work of Britain’s Steve Peters — the WMA drug czar (and M60 sprint star). I found the minutes on the Argentine masters track site — not WMA’s. But WMA has minutes from 2013 Porto Alegre, and they’re very interesting, too. (That’s where the General Assembly changed the W60-74 javelin from 400g to 500g.)

How does out-of-competition drug testing work?

For the elites, it involves being ranked among the best in the world. The process is detailed here.

For masters, who knows? But it makes sense that it would involve folks top-rated in mastersrankings.com. But the bureaucracy required to track addresses of athletes and get them to cooperate is daunting. I’d be surprised if it ever came to fruition.

Here’s what Lyon minutes say about doping:

Anti-Doping and medical: Steve Peters (UK) is the chairman of Anti-Doping and is doing a very good job. Steve credited for the help in many sports in the 2012 Olympics. He provides his services to WMA free. After talking with the IAAF we will look at Out of Competition testing in the coming year.

Medical coverage in Lyon was poor but drug tests are being done; we need to provide better services at championships. “Argentina” asked about antidoping costs. We are aware of these costs, and we ask the regions to do testing but we know it is limited. We also know that we need to inform athletes more as many do not understand, so we need more educational programs for the athletes as lots of them just take their medicines and do not consider they can be at risk of Doping. We have to continue to fight for a clean sport.

So if you think WMA doping protocol is a pill, wait till at-home testing starts.

Here’s what USATF says about testing:

You may be subject to both in-competition drug testing and out-of-competition drug testing. In both cases urine and/or blood may be collected and tested.

Out-of-competition

Out-of-competition testing occurs outside competitions and may be conducted by testing representatives from USADA, IAAF and WADA. If you are ranked among the top 50 in the World or one of the top 15 performers in your respective event domestically, you are subject to out-of-competition drug testing. The rankings are provided by the IAAF, Track & Field News and the Road Running Information Center. If you are subject to out-of-competition testing, you may be responsible for keeping USADA, the IAAF and USATF informed of your most current address as well as your daily 60-minute window. Athletes must submit information electronically by emailing update@usada.org or texting text@usada.org and finally athletes may use their unique login to access the USADA system at www.usada.org/athletes to submit their quarterly whereabouts.

Sexual arousal appears not only after the foreplay and sexual stimulation, but also if you just think about sex or look at the beautiful girls in summer clothes. I’m not a quick draw; I prefer doing it long, and last time the stable erection maintained until the http://healthsavy.com/product/cialis/ sweet finale

Under the IAAF out-of-competition drug testing rules, any athlete competing and who is ranked among the top 50 in the World is subject to out-of-competition drug testing by their testing agency, USADA. The IAAF out-of-competition drug testing program is conducted pursuant to the provisions set forth in the IAAF Procedural Guidelines for Doping Control (PDF).

However, regardless of the organization responsible for conducting the out-of-competition program, it is important for athletes to know that out-of-competition drug testing can occur any time and any place–at work, home, the track, the gym, in class, etc.

Print Friendly

November 8, 2015

30 Responses

  1. Tom Sputo - November 8, 2015

    If you keep track of signs of the impending end of civilization, add another one to the tally.

  2. tb - November 8, 2015

    Our little hobby just isn’t that important. Nobody’s going to pony up for year-round testing.

  3. Anthony Treacher - November 9, 2015

    The out of competition drug testing issue is subordnate to this:

    I note in the cited WMA General Assembly Lyon minutes: ‘9.2. IMGA is a potential problem and is supported by the IOC’….’blah… blah…. enigmatic… unfathomable…’

    Huh. As an athlete I cannot for the life of me see the (IMGA) WMG Auckland 2017 offer of a potentially well-run international athletics competition in an exotic location as a ‘problem.’ Quite the contrary. I want to go.

    1. What then is the problem for WMA? Exactly, clearly and succinctly please.

    2. Will WMA soonest give us, its paying masters athletes, a clear and definite ruling on whether or not WMA (and thus its associate members) will recognize results (including records) from WMG Auckland 2017?

  4. Myrle Mensey - November 9, 2015

    If we have the same standards as the elite athletes, why aren’t we getting paid like they are. If the playing field is the same then the getting paid field should be also. That’s what I’m talking about, test and get paid.

  5. E. Grant - November 9, 2015

    I don’t know how well this will work for the masters circuit. Looks like it will be DOA.

  6. Pete Magill - November 9, 2015

    As a distance runner, I’m thrilled that out-of-competition drug testing is being considered for masters runners. It is the only way to catch a masters distance runner using EPO and EPO-derivatives. That’s because EPO leaves the body within two days (within 12 hours for micro-dosing). If it weren’t for out-of-competition testing, Eddy Hellebuyck, tested as an open elite when he was tearing up the masters record book in his early 40s, would never have been caught for EPO. I get that there’s a sense that we masters runners shouldn’t be subjected to the same scrutiny as open runners–that we require medications for health purposes and that we’ve earned the right to privacy. But the reality is that it’s become incredibly easy to cheat with PEDs, and it’s vitally important to the health of the sport that we don’t turn a blind eye to that cheating. If I showed up to masters LDR championship races and the same runners were always being given a 400-800 meter head start–and then were given prize money and props for winning the races–I’d stop going to those races. Anyone who thinks PED use isn’t occurring on the masters level is crazy. Anyone who thinks out-of-competition testing is worse for the sport than having PED users winning championships and claiming records needs to reevaluate their definition of “sport.” No, the results of masters competitions aren’t that important in the grand scheme of things. But yes, competing with integrity and honesty IS vitally important in the scheme of things. It’s about who we are–and the kind of people we want toeing the line alongside us.

  7. Tom Sputo - November 9, 2015

    Pete, I think we are going to have to agree to disagree here. You are concerned with the very top of the masters spectrum here. Plus you mention prize money, something that may be available for LDR, but us throwers would never see. How about looking at it this way. If you want to be considered for $$$, then you consent to being governed by the same rules as open competitors. Otherwise, let the other 95% of us who are doing this purely for recreation and the health benefits work with our licensed health care providers to do what is legal under the laws of our jurisdictions to maintain optimal health.

    Remember that the WADA rules exclude masters unless we choose to include ourselves. I understand that here in the US we bowed to the implied threats of WMA (controlled by the Europeans) to start testing. If the Europeans what to jump off a bridge, I have more common sense than to do that.

  8. Milan jamrich - November 9, 2015

    I agree with Pete Magill

  9. Craig Simmons - November 9, 2015

    “Well this is a pleasant surprise. Thanks for stopping by, how good of you, come on in. What can I get for you, coffee, tea, or pee?”
    ” A cup of pee sounds very nice, thank you.”

  10. Christel Donley - November 9, 2015

    As serious and/or controversial this is, at least I had to laugh out loud about Craig’s “rhyme”.

  11. Bob Lida - November 9, 2015

    With the current cost of drug testing, I cannot conceive there will be many world wide tests. The top 50 in every event, in every age category, for both in men and women, amounts to an astounding pool of athletes subject to testing. This seems more of a “threat” than a significant reality. And speaking of cost, who pays? I assume it will be the people who enter the national and world competitions. We already pay our own way to get to the competitions, and pay an increasingly significant entry fees. Adding more cost will only cut down on participation. Lets keep it like it is — test at the meets themselves. Seems like were catching quite a few.

  12. Weia Reinboud - November 9, 2015

    I agree with Pete. But on the other hand there are high costs. Wouldn’t it be better to do a bit more testing during our championships?
    If they nevertheless would consider out of competition testing, than only a small pool of multiple world record holders or so. I would not mind to be in that pool.

  13. Mike Walker - November 9, 2015

    No doubt intentional cheating is happening and probably more often than we think but current testing is not really stopping the elite athletes and is not likely to curb a determined Masters athlete either. Plus, the cost to test us will be significant. Weia’s suggestion seems reasonable.

  14. Mary Harada - November 10, 2015

    Weia and Mike have sensible responses. We should be concerned about a handful of masters athletes who hold multiple world records and try to find a way to do out of competition drug testing for them.
    As for the rest of us – such drug testing as is done now is a waste of resources in my opinion. Who has been “caught” in the USA of late? A fellow who takes a blood pressure medication and was not aware that it is banned because it is a “masking drug” – not a performance enhancing drug.
    Chalk that up to the lack of understanding of the TUE and how to weave through the multiple clicks needed to find necessary information. It is not easy for someone who does not have a medical degree to figure it out. Most primary care physicians are far too busy to take the time to work with a masters athlete to figure this out.
    So this latest “catch” of a US masters competitor ends up with public humiliation and the taking away of medals for results that were not in the least impacted by his taking his blood pressure medication.
    And now WMA is thinking about “out of competition”drug testing. What I want to know is – with what money? Many countries do not have the resources to drug test at their national competitions never mind chase people around at their homes. Without full compliance by every national masters association it will be a farce. A handful of masters will be tested – maybe once a year – and no one else. No doubt they will catch a handful of folks trying to live healthy lives by taking medication to lower their blood pressure – or some other sort of prescribed medication. Until WADA and USADA change their drug standards to take into account the medical needs of masters athletes this is an idea that should have a very short life.

  15. Rob Jerome - November 10, 2015

    Just when increased media coverage of Masters Athletics is drawing more people to the sport (with the attendant result of increased health benefits for older people), another move comes along to produce a chilling effect.

    Who in their right mind would participate in a hobby that might result in drug testers coming to their place of employment for out-of-competition testing?

    I know PEDs are in the news, but everybody needs to step back, take a deep breath and realize that Masters are not Elites. The hysteria needs to ratchet down. All of this focus on drug testing is moving a sport once known for its camaraderie into a realm of suspicion and witch hunts.

  16. Jason Purcell - November 10, 2015

    I’m with Pete on this one.

  17. Nate Sickerson - November 10, 2015

    This is stupid. I totally agree with Rob. We do this for a hobby. To stay fit, camaraderie, and for competition. I have been tested at the National Championships, that is great, not a problem. It is expected, I am there already go for it. If they show up to my work or home while I am busy I will tell them to get the hell out. We don’t get paid for this and if people cheat that is their own problem, their bodies will pay for it. If I get beat by someone who is cheating, I don’t care enough to be subjected to tests like I am a pro athlete. If my income depended on it, a different story. A lot of people will just quit or run at local track meets not sponsored by anyone.
    So is USADA going to donate to the masters rankings site since this would have the rankings list?

  18. Tom Sputo - November 10, 2015

    Nate, right on buddy. I’m sorry, I can’t get behind the “purity of the sport” movement when this is nothing more than recreational athletics for 95%+ of us. All of our championship meets, up to and including Worlds, are nothing but developmental level meets without qualifying standards. Yes, the level of competition is higher, but if you have the bucks, you compete. My operating mode is this; I take what I am doing seriously, but I don’t take myself seriously. Or in another way, I train and plan hard and smart because anything worth doing is worth doing well, but nothing that any of us do is going to change the earth’s orbit. For the less than 5% who intend on changing the earth’s orbit, go ahead, pee in cups and pretend that this all means something.

  19. Weia Reinboud - November 10, 2015

    Nate wrote “if people cheat that is their own problem”. Not completely. I have done much statistical work lately because we have medal standards on our national championships. This work in fact is designing age gradings and this isn’t a straightforward process although it could have been. Many questions arise, like: which open class world records are clean? Or: which of the masters records of the younger groups are clean? (Think of Podkopyeva, Pozdnyakova and so on.) And: some master record holders in older age groups have been caught for the use of steroids, how much does that influence the idea that our masters world records are the best scientific evidence about ageing? And some of our world records are so outstanding the in this world one automatically thinks: were they clean?
    When a cheater takes a medal, I do not bother much, but when cheaters are setting extraordinary records…?

  20. Mike Walker - November 10, 2015

    Weia made some valid points. When people intentionally cheat, it hurts us in a lot of ways and is not fair to the serious but clean competitors. No doubt, we need a better system of testing but I think that we seem to accept cheating too easily. Peer pressure to stay clean would help discourage those who are tempted.

  21. Rob Jerome - November 10, 2015

    It would be nice if drug testing created a level playing field, but it is important to remember that the playing field in Masters isn’t level to begin with.

    People who compete at Nationals and Worlds do so at their own expense; thus, when some people win, they are not necessarily the “best” in their age groups nationally or internationally.

    They are simply the “best” among those wealthy enough to attend to attend the specific meet. There is no system of preliminary qualifying meets and financial assistance as there is with, say, the Olympics.

    So, to generalize that Masters World Records need to be clean so that scientific conclusions can be drawn about aging is based on flawed sampling. The only thing that Masters World Records can used to show if that persons of a certain economic class age in a certain way.

    Master Athletics is an important way for older people to stay fit and to bond over a common interest. Sure, drugs should not be part of Masters, but over-inflating the importance of the sport by instituting drug testing procedures as draconian as those used for the pros is a sure way to kill participation.

  22. Tom Sputo - November 10, 2015

    Rob Jerome, would you agree with me if I changed your statement to “ILLEGAL drugs should not be a part of Masters.” Why do we deny legitimate treatments under the supervision of a licensed physician to a masters athlete because we might worry about “an uneven playing field.” We have the ability with current medical practices to enhance the quality of life and even the promotion of health, yet we deny this to many of our participating brothers and sisters. WADA and USADA say consistently “use alternate treatments” which may not be as effective or appropriate, or in some cases completely close the door to any effective treatment. Sure, our participation in Masters T&F is purely voluntary, but why the exclusionary attitude? Why did we agree as Masters to accept the WADA prohibited list when the WADA rules exclude masters athletics unless we choose to opt in?

    Why? A bad decision forced on American masters by the European controlled WMA. It is entirely possible for US masters to adopt a modified doping list that would permit more and better treatment protocols that make sense. When competing internationally, the US athlete would be bound by the rules adopted by that region, or as adopted by WMA. Why in the heck do we allow ourselves to be held hostage?

    My proposed solution:
    1. Modified banned list with more generous TUE criteria that recognizes the realities of older masters athletes and current treatment protocols. The modified banned list and TUE criteria should be developed to enhance masters athletics participation, not to force masters to choose between competing or health.
    2. Limited random testing at random meets.
    3. Develop and nurture a culture of honor, which already exists for most of us.
    4. For the purists, if you want to compete for financial gain (money), then you fall into the same testing pools as open athletes. For the rest of us, sanity.

  23. Rob Jerome - November 10, 2015

    Yes, Tom, I would agree with you if you changed my statement in
    #21 to “ILLEGAL drugs should not be part of Masters”. That was the intent behind my statement.

    Your proposed solution has a lot of merit. I would further suggest that, for financial and “sanity” reasons, there be a cut-off age…probably 75…after which no drug testing is done.

    One W75 competitor I know has been tested twice. Does that really make any sense?

  24. Anthony Treacher - November 10, 2015

    Forget out-of-competition drug testing for masters. It is too expensive and impractical.

    Increase in-competition testing. I suspect there is too little in-competition testing. How many athletes were tested at WMA Lyon 2015, anyone know?

    Continue drug testing at all ages, even after 75. It certainly makes sense. If athletes need medicines on the WADA list, then they simply should not compete in athletics. There are countless alternative active life-enhancing experiences out there. And most are more attractive than running around in circles.

  25. Neni Lewis - November 11, 2015

    Since drug testing started for masters at the National meets, quite a number of athletes have disappeared from competition.

    When I oompeted in the 80’s, drug use was a big problem, I welcomed random drug testing. Many athletes still took a chance and doped and got away with it. They worked with labs to see if they would fail a test and not compete if they were not clean. The biggest annoyance of the random testing was trying to figure out where you would be the next month and if your schedule changed and having to update your whereabouts but with the technology out now, it would be much easier to handle.

    Perhaps for masters setting American & World records, they should be randomly tested so there would be no question as to whether their records are tainted.

  26. Milan jamrich - November 11, 2015

    Don’t worry; out of competition drug testing will not happen. Too expensive. It is true that masters competitions are not as serious as elite competition, but I do not enjoy playing any game where people are cheating. It would be a great progress if we would test at least at the Nationals. There is a lot of resistance even to that.

  27. Bob Hewitt - November 12, 2015

    I vote to random test the record setters and forget the out of competition drug testing. The records are important not only for establishing top performance but for establishing performance standards (All-American) and multi-event scoring. Let’s make sure the best are clean.

  28. Terry Parks - November 13, 2015

    I think that some sort of testing is required as people will cheat. I liked Neni’s observation of how some people disappeared from National meets once drug testing started. That tells me that the testing was having some effect.

    I believe that random sanctioned meet testing would be more effective and less costly. I think the point of testing should be to discourage drug use, but not hamper the sport.

  29. Sid Murthy - November 16, 2015

    I’d be flattered if I got tested with out-of-competition testing. But ‘cheating’ is relative. I work way over 40 hours per week and have to get training in – sometimes – at 5 am. Tracksters who are retired from their other careers or are pros (as Masters?) are cheating by getting extra naps/recovery/etc.. that come with a less stress-filled life. That could be considered a performance benefit – no?

  30. Pam Immelman - October 29, 2016

    Could one question the validity of a WR of an athlete’s performance,who achieves 2x world records in the same event in one week at 2 locally organised meetings (sanctioned?), but does not compete in his national,regional or world championships in the same year. When such a record application/s are submitted to WMA for approval and ratification, does the NGB have to submit a drug testing report, or is the integrity of the athlete, LOC and NGB not questioned?

    Just asking ? Otherwise WRs become a joke !

Leave a Reply