So I'm not saying your incorrect. What I'm going to say is that what you are asking is a logistical nightmare within the legalities of the process/protocol.

So you are saying you want a "rigorous testing panel". How would that be setup, who would be on that?

Would there only be 3 doctors in the US setup in that panel? Would there be regional panels? Panels in each state?


So reality is, very few people actual can do as you suggest, simply prescribe yourself PED's and get a free TUE for that. Far more often people take the PED's dont get the TUE than get the TUE with false pretenses.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I thought that the TUE is held to much higher standard than the RX and is an additional process. So even if a person writes themselves a RX there is no greater chance of getting a TUE than someone getting one from their doctor.

And if the Doc prescribes it (and has the Labs for it), you are almost assured a TUE.

--------

You think this is the case based on what? I dont think that's the case at all. I also don't think people want to go through the actual process. It's complex and very detailed.




ETA: And you being a doctor and giving yourself PED's, is easily going to raise red flags during the TUE process. Simply because a doc prescribes is not an auto TUE if applied for. Not even close.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Can you provide an example of an actual case where a TUE recipient acted as their own medical doctor on the TUE form?

That's a good idea, and exactly how TUEs are reviewed, at least on paper. By an independent panel of medical physcians without any interest in your performance. I suggest you read the applicable documents. Here and here. They define the committee of trained medical personnel who make the decisions on TUEs. They are required to be free of conflicts of interest. They must also follow guidelines for medical conditions. For example, in making a decision on asthma, this is the document defining what criteria must be met.

I can't imagine that a TUEC, having these documents in hand, and then getting a TUE application, where you, Thebigturtle, prescribed yourself albuterol, wouldn't immediately "round file" it.

Of course I said "on paper," because I understand that systems are gamed. (putting on my flamesuit for Doughtie). That's why I asked for an example of a self-prescribed Rx being allowed on a TUE form.

But if you don't have one, I think you're mostly talking hypotheticals.

I don't think people understand just how complex the TUE process is when applying. It's damn thorough as hell and detailed as hell....they find out EVERYTHING with your medical history basically. I also think these professional million dollar pros and teams that "game" the system in gaining TUE's (when they shouldnt be applying for it in the 1st place) extremely skew the perception of the process.


Far more people don't even apply for the process (whether they don't know they are suppose to or don't care too). And it's very very hard to actually get a TUE even with a medical justification.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I recall reading a thread here maybe two years ago that talked about prescriptions and TUE's, and just how nearly impossible it is to get a TUE. As I recall, the post I read was about an athlete who had testicular cancer, and had one of the boys removed. Thus he then had a very low T count, and even with all the records of cancer treatment and surgery, he was denied a TUE.

Again, this is what I seem to remember reading, so don't quote me. I will try to look back and see if I can find the old thread and post.

---

Team Zoot-Texas, and Pickle Juice

I looked back through some posts and found someone had posted this link that explains the process:

http://www.usada.org/uploads/guidancetestosterone.pdf

---

Team Zoot-Texas, and Pickle Juice

Testosterone is a controlled substance. If you are a doc and prescribe for yourself you can get in big trouble with your professional college. As a doc prescribing for yourself generally frowned on by professional colleges. As a mere convenience like an antibiotic because you have an infection unlikely to be a problem. But stuff like T and HGH and other stuff like that playing with fire. I once had a fellow emerg doc ask me to authorize his testosterone. I said no as I was not his doctor. Six months later the guy attempted suicide. He had a drug problem.

---

They constantly try to escape from the darkness outside and within
Dreaming of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good T.S. Eliot

This. Specific rules vary state by state, but in general you can only self prescribe controlled substances in an emergency. If a doctor was prescribing chronic testosterone for themselves the pharmacy he tried filling it at would likely get the state medical board involved and his listened could be in jeopardy.

---

Matt

That might be true for asthma medicine. It's absolutely not true for T. Getting a TUE for T is almost impossible. Even the new "Recreational TUE" for T is difficult to get and has some pretty signficant limitations on it.

I'm confused...your the one making the claims that it's easy and I'm asking you to back it up. It's simple. You said if you have a doctor prescribed med, your all but assured to get a TUE. You then say the process is not that hard and tough to meet.


So I'm asking where are you seeing these cases that backs up your belief that this is the case? Because that's not the reality I have seen and heard.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I didn't say that, someone else did, fyi.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

As I mentioned in an above post, the pharmacist/pharmacy where he filled it would highly likely report him to the state board (at least in the US, I'm not familiar with rules outside the country).

---

Matt

Sebi's comments show that he should stick to what he does best. Being a professional triathlete not making an argument about the ethics associated with TUEs.

I gathered from his response to some of the comments from diabetics and on diabetes that he implied that diabetics shouldn't be able to compete professionally because they took insulin, which is a banned substance. Insulin allows diabetics to live. So if living is a performance enhancement, then there are many other things which 'enhance performance' also.

I'll keep this secret between you and me as long as you get me in on that Rx. 'roid bros for life, doc.

---

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm

I've made this analogy before too. Clearly, exogenous insulin is going to confer a FAR greater performance enhancement to the IDDM athlete than exogenous testosterone will ever confer to any athlete, regardless of whether their endogenous testosterone is low, normal or high. So to me, saying that a competitor with legitimately low testosterone shouldn't be able to compete, if they require exogenous testosterone, is utter nonsense. The debate has definitely been contaminated by the endless examples of doping jerks that are simply looking for an edge, but if you verifiably require something to function at the capacity of a normal human, I don't understand all the sour feelings and presumptions of guilt.

---

---------------------------------------------------------------

https://connect.garmin.com/modern/profile/domingjm

In the case of Testosterone, isn't it true TUEs are basically not approved, unless the patient has a severe conition like a lost testicle? That is, no TUEs for low-T due to ageing.

---

29 years and counting

Sigh. I'm not trying to win, but rather clarify for those reading this thread who don't understand this stuff so that misinformation doesn't catch like wildfire. *This poster holds a PharmD. While I currently work in acute care, I worked in retail during my summers while in pharmacy school and I'm an affiliate faculty member at WSU and ISU. Scenarios like this are covered in our law and ethics classes.

Could you find a pharmacist/pharmacy that would fill a script? Probably. But I'd say the majority of pharmacist I've known over the years would choose not to fill a self prescribed controlled substance. Controlled substances are tracked more closely. Scripts have to be kept for at least two years depending on the state and during that time you'll likely get audited by either the state board of pharmacy or the DEA. The rules and implications are not black and white on these things, but for most pharmacists it's no going to worth to potential problems to venture into the gray are and fill it. Not to mention that in the mundane work of a retail pharmacist, 'catching/reporting' someone who is practicing in a dubious manner is close up there with busting someone for a fake prescription on potential highlights for their day.

Now if the doctor was writing himself a prescription for albuterol or a corticosteroid, it would get filled by the without someone thinking twice.

---

Matt

Maybe moats can go to med school