My girlfriend needs to have an inhaler with her, and uses it regularly while running.
Because her 5k time is closer to 25 minutes than 15, she is not a candidate for a “therapeutic use exemption”.
Every event she enters she is a doper, although a MOP one.
Is what she’s doing unethical?
What if she wears a jersey that says “I’m using an inhaler in violation of USAT rules because I cannot comply”? Would a public statement shift the responsibility of making realistic rules onto USAT?
What if she wears a jersey that says “I’m using an inhaler in violation of USAT rules because I cannot comply”? Would a public statement shift the responsibility of making realistic rules onto USAT?
Difference is that it is medically perscribed for asthma I assume versus trying to run under a certain time/win.
The line is probably where the drug goes over a certain level in her bloodstream. For example, if she were hitting the inhaler more pre-race to improve time outside of her Rx recommendations…then we have an issue.
Here’s the idea: The concept of cheating is predicated on the assumption of concealment; Vino wouldn’t be much of a “cheater” if he attached the bag of blood to his handlebars, he’d be in public violation of the rules. Cheating, as opposed to just breaking the rules, is much like lying - saying one thing and doing another.
Once the element of concealment is deliberately forfeitted, does the act of cheating loose its ethical weight?
Because her 5k time is closer to 25 minutes than 15, she is not a candidate for a “therapeutic use exemption”.
Are you sure that’s correct?
What I understand from Slowman’s article is that they are blanketly illegal, and only top contenders are candidates for exceptions.
The concept of cheating is predicated on the assumption of concealment
Not really. It’s predicated on breaking the rules. It’s often concealed, but not always.
Regardless, tell me again why your girlfriend can’t get a TUE?
From Slowman’s article:
the TUE application an athlete fills out will be considered if the athlete is a reasonable hope for an international medal, and I understand this to include an age-graded athlete. Clearly, however, this leaves in limbo the questions asked by the rest of us who aren’t a threat for the podium.
The rule is that you can’t take banned substances. You don’t get a pass because you confess to it, you just make it easier to get caught. Whether that makes you feel as though you’re an ethical person is sort of your own thing but the behavior doesn’t make much sense. I suppose a murderer who confesses and is penitent is entitled to some moral credit but that seems to be undermined in the example you envision where an athlete would confess to wrongdoing and then do it anyway.
The concept of cheating is predicated on the assumption of concealment
Not really. It’s predicated on breaking the rules. It’s often concealed, but not always.
Regardless, tell me again why your girlfriend can’t get a TUE?
From the OED’s entry for “cheat” as a verb:
1.trans. To escheat, confiscate. Obs.c1440Promp. Parv. 73 Chetyn, confiscor, fisco.
2. To defraud; to deprive of by deceit. 1590 SHAKES. Com. Err. IV. iii. 79. 1594Rich. III, I. i. 19 Cheated of Feature by dissembling Nature. 1616 BULLOKAR, Cheate, to cousin, to deceiue. 1679 PRIDEAUX Lett. (1875) 68, I am unwilling a rogue should cheat me of 5l. 1821 J. BAILLIE Metr. Leg., Lady G.B. ix. 6 The Scaffold of its prey to cheat. 1858 FROUDE Hist. Eng. IV. xviii. 71 If they were to be cheated of their right. 1875 JOWETT Plato (ed. 2) III. 328 You are lazy and mean to cheat us out of a whole chapter.
3. a. To deceive, impose upon, trick. 1634 MILTON Comus 155 To cheat the eye with blear illusion. a1680 BUTLER Rem. (1759) II. 52 All Fanatics cheat themselves with Words, mistaking them for Things. 1727 DE FOE Syst. Magic I. iii. (1840) 78 They would not by any means cheat and impose upon them. 1882 SHORTHOUSE J. Inglesant II. 386 Let us cheat ourselves, if it be a cheat, with this fancy.
So blatantly cheating is an impossibility, I take it.
Anyways, semantics aside, I seem to recall someone in here in a similar situation asking what to do. Consensus was to get a letter from the doctor and submit the proper form to the USAT. Simple. I don’t remember that the idea of not being granted a TUE because of a lack of speed was an issue.
The rule is that you can’t take banned substances. You don’t get a pass because you confess to it, you just make it easier to get caught. Whether that makes you feel as though you’re an ethical person is sort of your own thing but the behavior doesn’t make much sense. I suppose a murderer who confesses and is penitent is entitled to some moral credit but that seems to be undermined in the example you envision where an athlete would confess to wrongdoing and then do it anyway.
I don’t think you’re getting the point - she would be granted an exception if she were a contender, but nobody cares since she’s not. As such, she’s just left to break the letter of the law without penalty.
So blatantly cheating is an impossibility, I take it.
Anyways, semantics aside, I seem to recall someone in here in a similar situation asking what to do. Consensus was to get a letter from the doctor and submit the proper form to the USAT. Simple. I don’t remember that the idea of not being granted a TUE because of a lack of speed was an issue.
I suppose submitting a forum to get tossed in a file somewhere serves the same purpose as the jersey, but the jersey was a little more colorful.
And I don’t think that the jersey serves the same purpose as the form- though it would be more colorful. The point is that the rules, from what I gather, provide people like your girlfriend with a method to race legally while at the same time taking a substance for a legitimate medical reason. If she adheres to that method, she is not cheating, and there’s no ethical dilemna. A jersey, no matter how colorful, is not the prescribed method.
I read that article, and the only scenario that really makes me uncomfortable is the one he presents at the end, regarding a fast friend who no longer competes because of his therapeutic medicine. To me, if we’re talking anything less than contention over podium and/or Kona spots, and the athlete in question really does need drug x (i.e., there is no intent to gain an unfair advantage), I find it hard to get worked up about the issue. If you’re pissed off because you came in 23/40 instead of 22/40 because someone might have used an inhaler, you really need to take some of that anger and focus it on training more. It would suck to be in Dan’s friend’s shoes, though; I would probably have some qualms myself about competing if I found myself in that scenario.
“Consensus was to get a letter from the doctor and submit the proper form to the USAT. Simple. I don’t remember that the idea of not being granted a TUE because of a lack of speed was an issue.”
USAT would toss the form. you have to submit the form to USADA, it takes care of all doping matters for USOC daughter federations. USADA would not consider the application, as i understand it, and this is directly from the mouth of USADA officers. so, yes, she’s cheating, and as of now there is no workaround in place for this. hence the article series started today.
the answer i keep getting from federation and anti-doping officials is that there is no testing for caleb’s girlfriend, so what’s the diff? the problem, of course, is one of degree. what if i’m low-normal in the testosterone department. am i able to supplement up to normal? to above normal? since there’s no testing for me, is any of this okay?
to me, it seems clear there ought to be a sort of age-grouper’s online guidebook that includes pathways to a knowledge of what is doping and what is not. there ought to be, at a minimum, a way for a person to self-assess his fitness for a TUE. maybe that’s sort of “drug testing lite,” but let’s consider caleb’s girlfriend for a moment. beta-2-agonists are legal, with a doctor’s letter, renewed every year, for that class of drug in an inhaled form. it is not legal in any case in pill form. is this common knowledge among AGers? i think if AGers simply knew that these are the rules of the road, then people could, ahem, breathe easier in the knowledge that they are acting in an ethical way.
The concept of cheating is predicated on the assumption of concealment
Not really. It’s predicated on breaking the rules. It’s often concealed, but not always.
Regardless, tell me again why your girlfriend can’t get a TUE?
From Slowman’s article:
the TUE application an athlete fills out will be considered if the athlete is a reasonable hope for an international medal, and I understand this to include an age-graded athlete. Clearly, however, this leaves in limbo the questions asked by the rest of us who aren’t a threat for the podium.
the TUE for asthma is usually granted to anyone who applies, since there are no documented performance benefits to albuterol/salbutamol at normal doses in a normally-functioning athlete. The USAT Nationals and ITU AG Worlds will disqualify any competitor who uses an inhaler without a TUE. So, go ahead and have her apply for the TUE, it doesn’t do any harm…
USADA gave me a TUE last year, contra what they are telling Slowman now (I have no reasonable hope of any international medal
They also sent me a letter at the beginning of this year reminding me to renew my TUE or face disqualification. Odd.
Isn’t the real question,…“Who cares?” If your girlfriend knows she is not taking medication in an attempt to gain an unfair advantage over other athletes, but rather to render her physically capable of participating in her hobby, then I would say she is acting ethically, regardless of any doctor’s note or exemption. She may, in fact, be breaking rules, but that is not the same as acting unethically. And since she is not pushing anyone off the podium or out of a qualification spot, I doubt if anyone cares.
Rich. III, I. i. 19 Cheated of Feature by dissembling Nature. 1616 BULLOKAR, Cheate, to cousin, to deceiue. 1679 PRIDEAUX Lett. (1875) 68, I am unwilling a rogue should cheat me of 5l. 1821 J. BAILLIE Metr. Leg., Lady G.B. ix. 6 The Scaffold of its prey to cheat. 1858 FROUDE Hist. Eng. IV. xviii. 71 If they were to be cheated of their right. 1875 JOWETT Plato (ed. 2) III. 328 You are lazy and mean to cheat us out of a whole chapter.