Rex Harvey of Ohio, a world age-group record holder in the decathlon, was one of several international masters officials to reply to my doping questionnaire. Rex is vice president-stadia for World Masters Athletics, the world governing body of masters track. Although he speaks for himself in the Q&A, his remarks typify the stands of many in masters leadership.

Rex’s replies to my questions:
1. It’s well-known that only a few international masters events do drug-testing, along with a few nationals in Europe. But even these dope tests are skimpy — usually fewer than 50 in a field of 5,000. Is drug-testing of masters fair under these conditions? Is it worth doing?
The only thing that would not be fair would be if there was no drug testing done. It certainly is worth doing, even at the minimal level that we can afford. Otherwise, even more people will just throw up their hands and walk away from the sport in frustration of never having a chance to win against dopers and looking at the records in disbelief. The threat of testing is always more effective than the testing itself. There are more people that slow down on the road from seeing a patrol car than people who slow down by being fined.
2. What would it cost to drug-test a majority of masters at WMA world meets or USATF nationals?
An impossible amount. I don’t know how much drug testing costs as that is not my area of expertise, but think it is something like $200 each for reasonable tests, much more for full tests.
3. Do the waiver rules in WMA work? How many athletes avail themselves of the waiver to compete while taking “banned” drugs?
Again, I don’t know about those things as it is not in my mandate. If I understand the waivers though, they are not for anything substantially performance enhancing, but only for things around the edges, inhalers, etc. Unless I am wrong, there would never be a waiver given for substantial doping no matter if it was life sustaining.
4. WMA supposedly has an appeals process for drug-testing. Has this process ever been used? If so, what were the upshots?
I am not aware of any appeal other than Kathy Jager, but its not my area and I do not pry into it.
5. If a vote were taken on whether masters organizations should do extensive drug-testing — and add a surcharge to meet entry fees — how would the vote go?
It would lose because of the extreme cost. However, I continually bring up to the WMA Council and anyone else that will listen to me, that we should permit people to pay for their own drug testing at anytime they wish. It would be a way for them to say “hey, my performances are the result of my hard work, not doping.
6. Since suspensions last only two years usually, banned athletes can still resume competition in another age group down the line. So suspensions have little bite. Should drug rules be stiffened for masters?
Yes, I personally think they should be stiffened up to the USATF level, lifetime ban. As some people have pointed out, but not many, once someone dopes, it strenghtens them, not only temporarily, but also delays the loss of strength that occurs with natural aging making them, even 20 years later, not really 65, but 63 or 60 or so in a physiological sense.
My personal views are radical, but I think that even convicted dopers should be allowed to compete, but think it should be a lifetime ban from winning titles and and setting records. Kind of like a “guest” competitor is treated. I know there would be a lot of whining from the person who didn’t make the final because of the “guest”, but not much more than what we get from our current guest competitor program.
That way, if I, or anyone else, truly needed performance enhancing doping for medical reasons, then I could still compete for all those physical and phsycological benefits that competiton provides. I just could not win titles and set records, except personally, which would be acceptable to me. After all, it is not my fault that I require performance enhancing doping for my medical condition.