Good suggestion, but at this point I think the OP is no longer able to edit the title. A moderator would have to get involved. I may be wrong.
I changed it for him.
3 Likes
OK thanks this is more specific.
My big question would be around various WADA banned substances that doctors freely give out to age groupers without a TUE and these age groupers think it is totally OK because their docs authorized it. It may be legal in society, but not legal for sport. But literally there is nothing stopping this because said age groupers are not tested. Is there any mechanism being thought of that automatically disqualifies an athlete from “competing” if they get a prescription from a doc with a banned substance? This puts the onus on the athlete to know what is banned and to not all their doc to give the prescription.
Minimally results get disqualifed for a period say 90 days post prescription whether the substance is in the body or not. If you got the prescription with a banned substance you’re guilty.
I think a few posts up they talk about some countries won’t even announce busts due to privacy issues for non pro athletes, so I wouldn’t think they could create a policy that is accepted by every federation that then cross checks with “personal” information that many times is normally protects the individual. The idea sounds good, but I would think the actual implementation would be impossible to actually task. In the US individual’s medical information has HIPAA standards that protect’s individual’s medical information, that there will be almost no chance if an AG got a prescription for certain drugs to then alert authorities, etc. fighting that battle probably wouldn’t even be worth attempting.
Your take on the superteams in cycling, particurlarly UAE (Gianetti, Matxin) and Visma?
1 Like
I agree with you that administration/enforcement would be difficult however with the widespread use of doctor prescribed TUE requiring PEDs, a rule that makes you guilty of receiving a prescription without a TUE in advance (whether said substance goes into body or not), puts the onus on the athletes and like most things, rules and potential penalties are there to keep the honest people honest.
Right now, athletes walk around thinking its legal because the doc gave them a medically legal prescription, but if they realize that that prescription also needs to be an athletically legal prescription without which they can be thrown out of competition, perhaps more people double check.
The people who want to cheat, we’re not stopping anyone at the age group level.
I’m surprised to see this statement by someone involved with WADA.
I understand the rationale – contamination of various substances is leaving trace trace amounts in the system and (presumably) a fair number of athletes are getting flagged who claim they are innocent.
Personally, I’m not so sure I believe them. The eggs and semen stories all seem like convenient cover, but I clearly don’t have technical experience in this area.
What is surprising to me is that it sounds like WADA would be open to a type of legal microdosing, where certain levels of a substance would be allowed to be found in your system. I’m sure procedurally this could save a lot of work, to simply take that approach of “you’ve exceeded the limit, no matter how you got there, the penalty is XYZ”.
But wow, what a crazy world it would be if microdosing was essentially allowed.
1 Like
Oh I agree with you on a rule like that. I’m just kinda wondering though it’s sorta an empty penalty, because the only way you as an athlete would then even be in trouble is if you were positive test. Just being on TUE’s and they authorities having know way of knowing your on TUE’s, is sorta in “name only” type of rule.
I mean they already have to double check in the current model, whether they think it’s legal or not…it’s NOT currently. I’m just saying there is no chance the authorities are going to access to the that medical information to then “bust” them…unless they just randomly fail a test.
In M / F carnal activitiy provided there is only microdose of semen f should be fine too
If they could determine that, “Under this Limit there is zero Benefit” kind of thing then i would be fine with it.
My understanding is that is the case today. There are certain thresholds that trigger a positive. Stay under those thresholds and you never test positive. If you didn’t have thresholds, I think you would see a lot more positive tests (some with intent to dope and some without intent).
1-What percentages of OOC tests are because of tips vs just testing the field?
2-What percentage of tips seem to come from jealousy/hope vs. revenge/knowledge?
3-Would you consider it ethical if an athlete is tested the maximum number of times, because a tester happens to live down the block? (Yes, personal experience…came the last two days before we moved to get paid and told us as much…came 8 times in 4 months for, at the time, someone who had done one World cup)
4-Do you think international testing agency’s try to test athletes from “less tested” areas more on race day testing?
If there’s zero benefit. Why do it? Reading between the lines it seems like the athletes have clearly beaten the system and as long as they don’t get tested immediately after the needle goes in they have plausible deniability about the tiny amount that gets detected if they do to get tested.
Pro athletes prepping for Nice right now micro dosing EPO and teeing up their blood bags are sitting around laughing at this statement. Doctors will always be 10 steps ahead of guys like you and gullible fans still think this is Disneyland. It’s not a miracle that times have orbited lol.
1 Like
I find that an interesting point and approach on your part. What I can say about TUEs in general, to be clear. I was surprised how few athletes actually have a TUE; I thought there were many more.
Of course, there are unscrupulous doctors, but the majority are certainly cautious about prescribing such substances. Because if a case arises and the athlete says that they have been prescribed this by a doctor, that doctor must of course comment on it and justify the prescription on medical grounds.
Yes, that is currently the big topic of discussion. Everyone agrees that something needs to be done, but no solution has been found yet. Many people are clearly opposed to the introduction of limits, precisely for the reasons you mentioned.
The problem here is that the doping test is a snapshot in time. Perhaps the amount detected during the test is below the threshold and the effect is very small. But if the athlete had been tested two weeks earlier, the value might have been much higher.
2 Likes
No, there are currently no threshold values for doping substances. There are threshold values for drugs, as these are only prohibited in competition.
However, there are values for certain doping substances; if these are not reached, the probability of contamination is higher and additional analyses/investigations must be carried out.
Not only in competition. Public figures, e.g. from the AIU, show that in countries where very few or sometimes no tests are carried out by the NADO, the AIU carries out significantly more tests than in countries where the NADO tests more.
2 Likes
Why do you think doctors are 10 steps ahead of us? That’s what people keep saying. However, I know that laboratories are constantly developing their methods, and I know what laboratories are now capable of detecting and analysing. I think many people would be surprised if they knew what laboratories are capable of.
2 Likes