Definition of Athlete: Any Person who participates in sport at the international level (as defined by each International Federation), the national level (as defined by each National Anti-Doping Organization) including but not limited to those Persons in its Registered Testing Pool), and any other competitor in sport who is otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of any Signatory or other sports organization accepting the Code. All provisions of the Code, including, for example, whereabouts and missed tests, Testing, and therapeutic use exemptions must be applied to international and national-level competitors. Some National Anti-Doping Organizations may elect to test and apply anti-doping rules to recreational-level or masters competitors who are not current or potential national caliber competitors. National Anti-Doping Organizations are not required, however, to apply all aspects of the Code to such Persons. Specific national rules may be established for Doping Control for non-international-level or national-level competitors without being in conflict with the Code. Thus, a country could elect to test recreational-level competitors but not require therapeutic use exemptions or whereabouts information. In the same manner, a Major Event Organization holding an Event only for masters-level competitors could elect to test the competitors but not require advance therapeutic use exemptions or whereabouts information. For purposes of Article 2.8 (Administration or Attempted Administration) and for purposes of anti-doping information and education, any Person who participates in sport under the authority of any Signatory, government, or other sports organization accepting the Code is an Athlete.
I think what they’re saying is that the national bodies can be flexible in their approach. The key word in the definition is “advance” TUE. The impression I get is that should a positive occur, the athlete could be provided the chance to prove the medical need for the substance afterwards (which is not the case for international / national - they must inform in advance).
This is why it is so stupid to test AGers. In order to clean up a given sport, out of competition testing has to be done. They are never going to require that of AGers, nor should they.
The key word in the definition is “advance” TUE. The impression I get is that should a positive occur, the athlete could be provided the chance to prove the medical need for the substance afterwards **** I don’t get that from what you posted- is it in another section of the code? Regardless, it’s still pretty stupid. Joe Blow the MOPer gets tested and pops positive. Now he gets to prove himself innocent by attaining a TUE retroactively. Yeah, that sounds great. It’s not like something like that might affect his reputation, or anything. What consequence would a recreational athlete face for a positive test, btw?
Exactly, and finally the new code will make it clear: “we only care about National or International level athletes. xx country can do as they choose with anyone else”.
Consequences would be up to your country: “Specific national rules may be established for Doping Control for non-international-level or national-level competitors without being in conflict with the Code”
Basically each country can develop their own rules - they are no longer required to conform to the WADA code for below-National level athletes.
My guess is that most countries will choose to do no testing at all, due to the time and expense involved.
sounds good in theory, but if USAT implemented any program on AG’ers they would have raise annual membership to $200 (slightly under the cost if the US Government took it over). once they raised memberships fees, only people left would be the pros i would guess.
I believe it would be up to the National Anti-Doping organization, not the National Sport Organization. There’s actually a whole debate with the new code over who has authority / responsibility for testing and it looks like they want it to be clear that the Doping authorities are in charge.
I recently competed in the US Master’s National Cycling Championships in Seven Springs, PA. On the day of the road race, on the line we were told that USADA was there and that there would be drug testing. We were told that even if we DNF’d we needed to check back at the finish line to see if our name was on the list. They ended up testing the winner and one random in each age group. But they listed four names, I guess so that if one of the two guys they were supposed to test didn’t show, they would test the “alternate random”. Of course, not showing up would be considered a positive test.
So, they do test Age Groupers in Cycling at important races. I can’t see any reason why they wouldn’t/shouldn’t do the same at a big enough triathlon where there was something important on the line. For instance, it would seem totally reasonable to test age groupers at Kona. It is the world championship after all.
The concequences of testing positive in my mind would be huge. It wouldn’t be about money or glory, it would be about face and reputation. In the past I have gotten my letter on file that allows me to use my anti-allergy nasal spray when I knew I would be competing at the Olympic Trials in 1996. I absolutely KNEW that I wasn’t going to win anything. I just went because I qualified and wanted to go. But I certainly didn’t want to get picked as a random and test positive for something stupid that would have been legal if I had just filed the paper work. How humiliating would it have been to get popped for that and ruin your reputation? “Oh yeah, there goes Kevin, he tested positive at the trials and he still sucked. What a loser.” You can explain all you want, but the damage would be done.
The concequences of testing positive in my mind would be huge. It wouldn’t be about money or glory, it would be about face and reputation.
I understand and agree. (See my objection to recreational athletes not getting a TUE until after the fact of a failed drug test, for example.) What I meant was, what would the possible punishments be on an official level?
I can’t see any reason why they wouldn’t/shouldn’t do the same at a big enough triathlon where there was something important on the line. For instance, it would seem totally reasonable to test age groupers at Kona. It is the world championship after all.
But none of the age groupers at Kona are racing for the world championship. They’re racing *in *it, but not *for *it.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: I am not even going to consider taking a drug test as a recreational athlete/age grouper. The question will only come up for me in real life if they institute random testing of age groupers, but I would resent having to prove that I’m clean just because I’m faster than most in my age group.