Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Maude Mathys: Doping Sanctions and Ethics
Quote | Reply
I'm aware this is a topic that can get people very hot under the collar. Apologies, Dan, if this goes off the rails and I'm the person who took the handbrake off, but here goes...

Facts first: Maude Mathys is Swiss runner and ski-mountaineer. In 2015 she twice failed drugs test for clomiphene (link) in relation to skimo races (link). In the investigation Mathys's main defense was that she using the drug in order to support an effort to become pregnant, and she has subsequently had at least one child. Mathys received a reprimand, on the basis that she should have obtained a TUE if there was legitimate therapeutic use, and there are no proven performance enhancing effects for female athletes.

Fast forward to 2019, and Mathys has recently won one of Europe's premier mountain races, Sierre-Zinal (can't find any info about prize money from a cursory Google search but there will be some), then travelled to the States for the Pikes Peak Marathon where she won and set a new course record, picking up at least $5,250 in the process (prize money structure difficult to ascertain but available here). In much of the coverage of Mathys's recent achievements, her 2015 reprimand has been mentioned regularly and iRunFar enacted their policy on doping which meant her victory was reported in brief terms and she was not interviewed by them (unlike the other male and female podium finishers).

Opinion seems to be polarised on this - one camp says she's done nothing wrong and she has been publicly shamed, something she doesn't deserve. This camp seems to suggest she effectively gets a pass as she was trying to get pregnant and there's no performance enhancing benefit to using clomiphene for female athletes. The other camp says she deserves everything she's getting, that a reprimand is still a sanction as she failed a doping test and it merits being called out on every occasion she gets press coverage. Several high profile runners have been very active on social media and message boards in their condemnation.

I have my own opinions which I might share in a subsequent post to stop this getting too long, but what do people think here? Is having these discussions continuing a wronged woman's public shaming, or are fellow competitors and spectators justified in talking about it publicly? It would be particularly interesting to hear from any female athletes, as there has also been some accusations of sexism and misogyny related to this in people's criticism of Mathys.
Quote Reply
Re: Maude Mathys: Doping Sanctions and Ethics [hiscotsg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't know anything about this specific case nor about clomiphene but in general I would be supportive of a publication having a policy that every time they write about an athlete that had a doping violation they mention it.

-------------
Ed O'Malley
www.VeloVetta.com
Founder of VeloVetta Cycling Shoes
Instagram • Facebook
Quote Reply
Re: Maude Mathys: Doping Sanctions and Ethics [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
RowToTri wrote:
I don't know anything about this specific case nor about clomiphene but in general I would be supportive of a publication having a policy that every time they write about an athlete that had a doping violation they mention it.

Change that to "having a policy that every time a person does anything they have an asterisk to say they are a registered sex offender". Despite the fact the person either urinated in public or was caught shaggin the girlfriend in public and go the charge.

That's how this all rings out to me. There are degrees to it. People that pretend everything involving rules and the law is forever black and white I find often struggle to apply that same calculus to other moral dilemmas when probed. Registered sex offenders, abortion, speeding in your car or rolling a stop sign, etc....

If it doesn't enhance performance, why's it on a banned list for someone to get popped? Sounds to me like the system is at fault here in this woman's case. If it doesn't enhance performance and that was all it was, sounds like people like chumming the waters to me.
Quote Reply
Re: Maude Mathys: Doping Sanctions and Ethics [RowToTri] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Link here to iRunFar's policy on doping and athlete coverage. I asked Meghan Hicks from iRunFar specifically if they would consider speaking to Mathys seeing as this has become such a flashpoint, and her (edited to remove irrelevant side points) response was: 'No, at least not now or in the near future, will we seek to speak with Maude Mathys or provide a platform for her side of the story... In the slightly longer time frame, we wouldn’t seek to speak with Mathys either. Mathys’s case falls under our disclosure policy. A negative judgement was made about her by a governing body, and our policy is to disclose those judgements and to minimize our coverage of those who’ve received them on iRunFar..In a much longer time frame, we are not immalleable to changes to our editorial policies. However, most of our important policies have come as a result of close consideration as well as seeking advice from our greater iRunFar team. Any change to our doping and athlete coverage policy, including deciding to speak with someone who’s received a negative judgement, would come after a larger, more careful consideration that takes time'.
Quote Reply
Re: Maude Mathys: Doping Sanctions and Ethics [burnthesheep] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It is definitively performance enhancing for men and is on the banned list of substances. I understand your point re not being performance enhancing in her case, but it's not beyond people to use x-y-z condition as way of trying to get a reduced sanction. She should have had a TUE and there would never have been an issue.
Last edited by: hiscotsg: Aug 29, 19 7:32
Quote Reply
Re: Maude Mathys: Doping Sanctions and Ethics [hiscotsg] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
there are no proven performance enhancing effects for female athletes


Just picking on this one line, since you mentioned it twice.

"Proof of effectiveness" is a common rationalization in doping discussions of all kind. There is no definitive proof of performance enhancing effect of a lot of drugs on either men or women. For the reasons that of both funding (who's going to pay the hundreds of thousands-to-millions?) and medical ethics boards. Try getting your clomiphene study approved. You want to give women an estrogenic hormone known to increase cancer risk and could interfere with their natural hormone production. And you're not interested in learning something that might improve women's health. Good luck getting approval.

For this reason, if we were to require definitive proof of performance enhancement before banning, a lot of substances would never make it on the list. E.g. GW1516 which is such a powerful carcinogen in rats you could never legally study its use in humans. (Which doesn't stop some athletes from taking it).
Last edited by: trail: Aug 29, 19 7:45
Quote Reply
Re: Maude Mathys: Doping Sanctions and Ethics [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Trail, it's a point well made and I completely agree with you. I've just tried to get all the information and the way it is being reported by other outlets in one post for other readers to consider.

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that male or female cheaters will take something to try to improve performance particularly because they have a ready made excuse. Clomiphene is a perfect example of this - if a female athlete thought it would give them a boost in training or recovery and they could cover it up easily then it's a no-brainer for someone of that persuasion.
Quote Reply