What I said was there is a difference between people that take therapeutic doses of medications for legitimate health concerns VS people that take insanely high doses for the purpose of improving performance.

This is the fuzzy area and probably those competing in endurance sports that are supposed to be clean are not going to be on insanely high doses like those who have no such rules in some bodybuilding federations. Being that I was one of those I have a better understanding of the psychology of this than many. I lived it for over 10 years and I was in deep on the dark side of it even for a bodybuilder.

When we administered mild anabolics to women it was amazing how little of a dose was required compared to men. In a similar way this is true for males over 45. Most of the guys that I have seen on HRT or T past 40 have a very good positive effect on a small dose. It is a big advantage over a clean 45+ male and that is why it is enticing and somewhat mentally addicting once a aging dad gets on a small dose. IMO - even if a some get approval to use it they will likely have an advantage. Most males beyond 45 could get approved for prescription T or hormones if they find the right doctor.

IMO - guys over 40 that truly need HRT for legit low T should consider the fairness to the guys over 40 that have decided to age naturally and to compete naturally with low T.

I was tested and have low T around the age of 48. I was prescribed various forms of test like Androgel and an oil based injectable. I did not use any of it because I would be a hypocrite to the guys that approach me about this subject. My low T is potentially from years of using very high doses combined with my age. However, I train drug-free at a serious level in both strength and endurance. Training and competing can be done within the rules and with fairness to other guys. It is easy for me to not be enticed by using even though I could use it. I don't compete at all and will never compete again, but I love the challenge training naturally with the odds against me. Managing the training stress, nutrition and life stress is an interesting puzzle to me now and I enjoy trying (key word) to solve this puzzle.

In summary how does the sports federation determine who has a legitimate issue or who is like that Kevin Moats guy that had intention to cheat to win? Even if WADA were to have an open class like in bodybuilding where those who use can use I can tell you it becomes a race to use more than the other user. In other words if male 50 somethings all started using a "therapeutic dose" than those like Kevin Moats would up the dosage because those like him do this to have an advantage and are not interested in a level playing field. With more use comes more attempted justification, deception, doctors like those in the hormone clinics and those like Lance's helper, Dr. Michele Ferrari who aided a lot of other competitors to gain an advantage.

It is a fuzzy place and again my opinion is that the federations have to be tough. Otherwise that fuzzy line competitive fairness will just keep moving.

Of course all of my post is opinion based on real past and personal experience. I get to talk to guys at my gym on HRT and point out some of the negatives. Does it help? Not usually because they are on it and while they are on it they love the change in body composition, gain in strength and faster recovery time even if it is low dosage.

I agree that the fuzzy line between a therapeutic medication and something taken for performance effects is the crux of the issue and appreciate your insider knowledge on the topic.

I question three of your assertions:

• "Most of the guys that I have seen on HRT or T past 40 have a very good positive effect on a small dose"

There just isn't the science to back this up right now. Most, if not all, of what we know about how testosterone impacts performance is studies done at very high doses and then extrapolated to small doses for it's effect.

• "age naturally and to compete naturally with low T"

Low testosterone isn't natural. There is a wide body of science showing how our environment impacts not only how much testosterone we will have but that also clearly links exposure to environmental chemicals with lowering T levels. This has resulted in T levels for today's male between a fraction of what they were decades ago. There is tons of research on this. I would post reference articles but every time I do that someone reads one and debunks it for x or y. (Every study may be marginally flawed, we are looking for an overwhelming majority of the research to confirm the same study)


The medical science on this is changing...and fast. There simply aren't many negative impacts from testosterone supplementation. Quite the opposite, there are serious health consequences from having low testosterone. I am not supporting doping or testosterone. I simply want to follow the science. And if the science says low testosterone is unhealthy and that we have an environmental issue thats causing low testosterone, then we are going to see more and more men taking it for health. My concern is how can the sport of triathlon work with that instead of just writing off a large segment of participants?

I agree that the fuzzy line between a therapeutic medication and something taken for performance effects is the crux of the issue and appreciate your insider knowledge on the topic.

I question three of your assertions:

• "Most of the guys that I have seen on HRT or T past 40 have a very good positive effect on a small dose"

There just isn't the science to back this up right now. Most, if not all, of what we know about how testosterone impacts performance is studies done at very high doses and then extrapolated to small doses for it's effect.

• "age naturally and to compete naturally with low T"

Low testosterone isn't natural. There is a wide body of science showing how our environment impacts not only how much testosterone we will have but that also clearly links exposure to environmental chemicals with lowering T levels. This has resulted in T levels for today's male between a fraction of what they were decades ago. There is tons of research on this. I would post reference articles but every time I do that someone reads one and debunks it for x or y. (Every study may be marginally flawed, we are looking for an overwhelming majority of the research to confirm the same study)


The medical science on this is changing...and fast. There simply aren't many negative impacts from testosterone supplementation. Quite the opposite, there are serious health consequences from having low testosterone. I am not supporting doping or testosterone. I simply want to follow the science. And if the science says low testosterone is unhealthy and that we have an environmental issue thats causing low testosterone, then we are going to see more and more men taking it for health. My concern is how can the sport of triathlon work with that instead of just writing off a large segment of participants?

you are SO full of shit

Low T IS natural. It is the body's natural response to aging, genetics, stress, and environmental conditions. It's the same with illness and death, those things are natural too. "Natural" is a hard, cruel beast. By taking hormone replacement, or any medication for that matter, what you are doing is circumventing what is "natural" by seeking to change body chemistry. The rules of sport say that some things are fine to use to circumvent aging, genetics and illness, and other things are not (e.g. anabolic steroids, growth hormones, testosterone, etc...)

So while most of us are fighting that beast with our bare hands and a spear, if you're using T then you are bringing a firearm.

I agree that the fuzzy line between a therapeutic medication and something taken for performance effects is the crux of the issue and appreciate your insider knowledge on the topic.

I question three of your assertions:

• "Most of the guys that I have seen on HRT or T past 40 have a very good positive effect on a small dose"

There just isn't the science to back this up right now. Most, if not all, of what we know about how testosterone impacts performance is studies done at very high doses and then extrapolated to small doses for it's effect.

• "age naturally and to compete naturally with low T"

Low testosterone isn't natural. There is a wide body of science showing how our environment impacts not only how much testosterone we will have but that also clearly links exposure to environmental chemicals with lowering T levels. This has resulted in T levels for today's male between a fraction of what they were decades ago. There is tons of research on this. I would post reference articles but every time I do that someone reads one and debunks it for x or y. (Every study may be marginally flawed, we are looking for an overwhelming majority of the research to confirm the same study)


The medical science on this is changing...and fast. There simply aren't many negative impacts from testosterone supplementation. Quite the opposite, there are serious health consequences from having low testosterone. I am not supporting doping or testosterone. I simply want to follow the science. And if the science says low testosterone is unhealthy and that we have an environmental issue thats causing low testosterone, then we are going to see more and more men taking it for health. My concern is how can the sport of triathlon work with that instead of just writing off a large segment of participants?

Low T IS natural. It is the body's natural response to aging, genetics, stress, and environmental conditions. It's the same with illness and death, those things are natural too. "Natural" is a hard, cruel beast. By taking hormone replacement, or any medication for that matter, what you are doing is circumventing what is "natural" by seeking to change body chemistry. The rules of sport say that some things are fine to use to circumvent aging, genetics and illness, and other things are not (e.g. anabolic steroids, growth hormones, testosterone, etc...)

So while most of us are fighting that beast with our bare hands and a spear, if you're using T then you are bringing a firearm.

no, it's not. This has been decided. Just because you say so doesn't make it true.

tttiltheend wrote:

"For instance, Testosterone in large doses increases performance. But most of the people that take it are using much smaller doses to combat lower T levels and that has no impact on performance."

That's a highly debatable statement. I'd like to know the source for the assertion that smaller doses have no effect on performance. Regardless, whether it's a large dose or small dose they are taking a banned substance, full stop.

Honestly, it's the lack of evidence that leads to me that conclusion. For instance, there are no studies where a person has a normal T level and physical performance is analyzed. They then suffer some type of endocrine insult and their T level drops to abnormal levels. There is no evidence to say that if the person supplements back to where they originally were (i.e. an age appropriate level) that a performance benefit is obtained over when they were at the same level naturally.

For once and for all, I'm not debating that it isn't a banned substance and I'm not saying anyone should cheat. We are merely having a discussion. But simply reciting the rules does not end a conversation nor does it prove anything.

"So the rather overzealous application of a very strict doping control code is being applied to people that either don't know about it or know enough to understand it would never be approved. Yet they also know they aren't getting a performance benefit. So the process pushes them toward just racing."

Um, what overzealous application are you talking about? The clueless BOP'er that is on T-therapy for medical reasons, doesn't realize it's banned, and just casually competes in local triathlons, has zero chance of ever being tested. Zero. Essentially, there is no control or overzealousness and every BOP'er in that situation is essentially certain to get away with it.

It's a complete red herring to talk about casual competitors being driven from the sport due to overzealous doping regulation. It's hard for me to take such assertions as anything other than a smokescreen for opposing more aggressive anti-doping measures. Testing is nonexistent until you get to the highest levels of amateur competition and even then it's very rare. And the likelihood that people who are on T-therapy at high levels of competition and don't realize they are cheating is almost essentially zero.

This is the part where I have a different interpretation of what the consensus is. I feel like people on this forum talk about strict enforcement for everyone, regardless of their place in the pack. And that anyone, from BOP to pointy end who is found taking a banned substance should be treated the same. If what you propose is true, that there is little to no enforcement for MOP/BOP, then I guess the issue is solved. Although I think multiple people will chime in and say that's not the case. I certainly have no problem with doping measure for pros and elites and I would never lobby against such efforts as they are integral to the sport. My concern is exactly what you think isn't happening...that amateurs are being driven away. For example, this thread started on the topic of some people getting B12 injections/IVs. If your interpretation of the situation is correct then this thread wouldn't have even started..would it?