From USADA's website:

So how does a substance or method make its way onto the WADA Prohibited List?

Typically, a substance or method will be considered for the WADA Prohibited List if the substance or method meets any two of the following three criteria:

1) It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance
2) It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete
3) It violates the spirit of sport

Testosterone, especially in the older age groups, clearly gets a little checkmark next to 1 and 3.
I think people get confused by the term "illegal." The conversation is best served by the use of the more precise "banned" or "prohibited."

I think people get confused by the term "illegal." The conversation is best served by the use of the more precise "banned" or "prohibited."

Yes, I agree. I don't talk or write about this much and chose a word that isn't exact enough.


Testosterone, especially in the older age groups, clearly gets a little checkmark next to 1 and 3.

Thanks for finding this info. I guess I am saying that I don't agree on #3. Although, I realize that #3 can have a pretty wide range of interpretation. Also, there seems to be group here saying #2 is still in play.

If we include drugs safely administered by our doctor, then that would be part of the level playing field.

I'd be against that. For one, most health insurance wont pay for blood transfusions or small dosing of EPO, both are likely safe if you dont go overboard. So only the wealthy could compete.

---

Styrrell

Has USADA actually commented specifically on testosterone replacement in presumably testosterone deficient men? I'm curious to hear their position (sorry if this was already stated!)

I'm not sure what coimments they would make. WADA makes the rules and USADA enforces them. Right now the rules is you can use T if you get a TUE (a bit simplified).

---

Styrrell

Forgive me...what does 'TUE' mean?

Theraputic Use Exemption. It means if you have a disease and a drug is necessary, you can use it. For T it has to be an actual disease. Feeling a little tired or being a little low doesn't count.

---

Styrrell

Thanks for clarifying.

I'd be against that. For one, most health insurance wont pay for blood transfusions or small dosing of EPO, both are likely safe if you dont go overboard. So only the wealthy could compete.

Are the poor buying super-bikes and $600 wetsuits, getting coaching, and heading out to Kona? With drugs the person is actually performing better (well, with coaching it's the person performing better, too). That has a certain appeal beyond just a bike being more aero or a wetsuit allowing easier strokes.

Now that I think about it, coaching seems to have many key similarities to drugs. To wit...

1.) Coaching is expensive.
2.) Coaching boosts performance.

If you take a person that doesn't have a coach and doesn't do drugs and want to give them the biggest advantage you would give them a coach first.

When testing for doping with testosterone, I don't think they are looking at total levels (or at least not just that), I think they are looking for synthetic/exogenous testosterone... But I could be wrong!

My argument was an answer to what you said...You argue that T is fine because it's FDA approved. That was one of your points to wonder why not allow it. Therefore I explained to you what it means FDA approved...You ignore it, and now write this...Now that is bloody funny...OK. Believe whatever the hell you want. Many here work in healthcare and have explained a few things to you...but you seem to know better. You'll give me a chance? Let's take that the other way around...you were given all the info to realize that using testosterone outside of the inclusion criteria is dangerous, because it has side effects without benefits (use pubmed instead of making your own theories about what is safe and what isn't).

Ahhh the ST experts...always entertaining.

There...I'll give you a chance...


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22430839

By the way, clinical trials are ongoing right now at NIH on T supplementation for males with 'lowish' testosterone, rather than for those it is usually
recommended for. Feel free to go over pubmed and look at the current evidence. Yes...when a doctor recommends testosterone for a male with a value around
250-300ng/dL (usually, ignoring whatever the values of free Ts are), this doctor is taking an unnecessary risk.

So what if the level is more like 150ng/dL? Where do you draw the line of what is unnecessary?

It's almost funny when I watch these commercials. Almost. The other day I saw one for a runny nose, but the side effect was diarrhea. So now I gotta decide if I want a runny nose, or a runny ass.

People will always find an excuse to skirt the rules, having the cake & eating it too. I thought this fountain of youth concept was only in cartoons, but it turns out I'm living in one.

---

---

1. Coaching doesn't have to be expensive. There are plenty of affordable coaches around.
2. Coaching doesn't boost performance. Doing the workouts boosts the performance.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

You draw the line when the risks outweigh the benefits. You draw the line when there is a real medical condition that requires testosterone supplementation.
I never said it was never to be taken. All I'm saying is that if you take it outside of the inclusion criteria, you're creating an unnecessary risk. Funny how people are
quick to bash FDA whenever convenient, and quick to ignore FDA when taking a drug outside of it's recommended usage...sigh...

Happy to revise all my statements when the NIH large cohort study on T-supplementation in middle-aged males comes out and supports that it's safe, in the short
term and the long term. However, given the previous studies, it's reasonable to assume that the answer is going to be negative. And currently, given the guidelines,
and data, it's dangerous when taken outside the recommended usage.

It's not unlike what has happened with antibiotics that were overprescribed and now in many instances, we fail to treat bacterial infections. When many 40yo start
using testosterone with just a punctual low total T, you'll just have to wait 20 years to see a large proportion of males with boobs, heart problems, permanent ED, etc.

The line is already drawn. It's called the normal range. If you are on the low side of normal, or under the normal, then you have to decide for yourself if the health risks are needed/necessary to maintain your quality of life.

If you want to find a doctor to prescribe you testosterone for levels that are on the low side of normal or below the normal, go ahead. Nobody is saying you can't. If you feel the health risks are worth what the T supplementation might give you, great. Go ahead. Just don't expect to compete, or if you do, take your lumps if you get caught. If you truly have a hypogonadal condition where you NEED T supplementation, odds are you know it already.

John

---

---

Top notch coaching: Francois and Accelerate3 | Follow on Twitter: LifetimeAthlete |

While the chances of most side effects being prevalent within the population are damn near impossible, the side effects listed for T are pretty severe....including blood clots in the leg, not to mention the possible effects of non-users through contact with the user.


Some pretty serious stuff.....

---

Chicago Cubs - 2016 WORLD SERIES Champions!!!!

"If ever the time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams

The National Institute of Health questions it..
http://www.nia.nih.gov/...can-we-prevent-aging

"For middle-age and older women, the decision to take hormones is far more complex and difficult than ever before. Questions about MHT remain. Would using a different estrogen and/or progestin or different dose change the risks? Would the results be different if the hormones were given as a patch or cream, rather than a pill? Would taking progestin less often be as effective and safe? Does starting MHT around the time of menopause, compared to years later, change the risks? Can we predict which women will benefit or be harmed by using MHT?"

For testosterone:
"The bottom line: there is no scientific proof that testosterone treatment in healthy men will help them age better. Until more scientifically rigorous studies are conducted, it is not known if the possible benefits of testosterone therapy outweigh any of its potential risks. NIA continues to conduct research to gather more evidence about the effects of testosterone treatment in aging men."

---

"It is a good feeling for old men who have begun to fear failure, any sort of failure, to set a schedule for exercise and stick to it. If an aging man can run a distance of three miles, for instance, he knows that whatever his other failures may be, he is not completely wasted away." Romain Gary, SI interview

Fair enough.
Don't get me wrong, I don't have the answer. I just wonder, if levels are truly low, as in well below normal range (as opposed to the low side of normal), does one take it only if it is causing a genuine medical issue, or at a certain point to they take it to get to normal levels in hopes of simply having more energy, better QOL..
And......what is a 'medical issue' caused by low T? If QOL doesn't count, what true medical issues are there?
Totally agree that it is over-prescribed. Just wondering when it is justified...

It's a difficult question to answer, and currently the evidence tells us that for the real medical cases, it makes sense, but that's it. See the link posted by Doug.

And this:

http://www.nia.nih.gov/...-testosterone-report

So, I reiterate: prescribing testosterone for a 50yo with 300ng/dL, or even 150, assuming a healthy male (the causality isn't clearly established) is an unnecessary risk.
Just wait a few years, and we'll see a bunch of lawsuits from males with cancers, heart problems, sex drive at 0, against the doctors who gave them the T, when they
probably asked for it.

1) It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance
2) It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athlete
3) It violates the spirit of sport

Testosterone, especially in the older age groups, clearly gets a little checkmark next to 1 and 3.

I'd say 3 is pretty ambiguous, but T definitely gets a check by 1 and 2.

If Kevin Moats is anything to go by then it appears to do the trick so long as it's bakced up with hard work in training, that guy looks simply awesome for his age whether we like it or not. Interestingly this is a very American discussion as I've certainly never seen ads for T suppliments in any other country in the world and it is simply illegal in the region I live. As a European the threads on this over the last few weeks have been quite an eye opener. I'm not saying that there aren't Europeans in the age groups who dope, there may well be but it would be considered very covert doping but in the US seems you can do it legally with the help of a friendly doc....amaing for us! One thing I think that has not been addressed here though is if they can prove that taking T does indeed give you a better standard of life on various factors and can be done safely then what the governing bodies and WADA are doing is essentially stopping people from being the absolute best they can be.

I've had read the arguements in this thread the eating well and training hard is the same as taking T, that is simply not true. Sure it will (and does) keep me healthier and younger in many ways than the vast majority of my peers but from what I understand taking T has a whole different effect as you would expect if you chemically enhance your T levels back to those of a 25 year old. Perhaps one option is simply for races to have 2 divisions for the 40+ catagory, those on T and those not on T. Until then though as mentioned many times previously it is cheating in sanctioned races and we all know that ao if caught then there can be no complaints.

Just wait a few years, and we'll see a bunch of lawsuits from males with cancers, heart problems, sex drive at 0, against the doctors who gave them the T, when they
probably asked for it.

Do doctors pay different insurance rates based on the sorts of treatments they do/don't prescribe?

Who is minding this profession?

Christ... just read that over 20% of the population is on psychiatric drugs. Can that be true?