New age grouper doping thread

Triathlon Forum
1

Since you were generous enough to answer my question, sort of, I figured I’d accede to your request to start a new thread. Don’t say I never done nothing for ya.

my motives remain as they have been since the beginning. we have a service that we are paying for, as athletes, but we’re not getting. the age groupers are paying the freight for the federation. all the freight. every bit of it. part of that freight is going toward paying for elites. fine. meanwhile, the elites have an established set of rules for what doping is, and they have a method by which their legitimate therapeutic needs set in abeyance certain of those rules.

age groupers have a rule also when it comes to doping, and it happens to be the same rule that the elites have. but unless you’re a top age grouper, who’ll travel to international competitions, you don’t get that method for abeyance, even though you’re mathematically more likely to need it, because you either are or will eventually approach age categories where the body breaks down and you may find yourself on that thin line between doping legitimate health.

so, i would like that gap to be closed. i’d like us as a sport to explore whether we ought to drug test our top amateurs. i’d like to see if we can think through that, as i don’t think the germans did, so that when we do it we get it right. ought our age group drug panel include drugs that are simply performance enhancing, or should we be involved in social engineering, as the IOC is, by including drugs like cannabis? what other changes to the panel ought we to contemplate?

and finally, hasn’t the average athlete, who foots the bill for our federation, expect our federation to demand of USADA the same sort of treatment that the elites get? and if USADA does not comply – which it so far has not, and has no requirement to, because AGers to not fund that organization – does that get USAT off the hook? me, i think as long as we have these questions and issues, USAT is still on the hook. nothing precludes USAT from dealing with this issue itself.

And while I appreciate the above reply, I have to say that in light of it, your proposed solution makes even less sense to me. Don’t get me wrong- I agree with just about all of the above. Therefore, I favor the obvious solution: Lobby the USADA to provide TUEs for age groupers. Force the USAT to lobby the USADA to provide such exemptions. Not only is that the obvious, simple, most easily achievable solution, it’s the one that actually would provide for equal treatment of age groupers and elites in the eyes of the rules.

Your solution, at least as it’s beginning to take shape, would result in different doping rules for elites and age groupers. Among other problems, which others have pointed out.

vitus, i’ve never come close to taking a banned substance. i am not seeking some sort of cover for doing so, even though you keep accusing me of it. i have never even taken an illegal drug, in my life, of any sort, let alone a performance enhancer. since i have led that sort of life i find it particularly galling that you keep accusing me of wanting to create some sort of moral cover for my own proposed illicit drug use.

Allow me to clarify my statements in that area, then. I did not mean to accuse you personally of doping or desiring to dope. What I am accusing you of is engineering a rule by which those who *do *want to dope will be able to do so with the tacit blessing of the USADA and USAT, even though there’s no therapeutic reason for them to take a PED. Your solution is aimed, intentionally or not, at aging triathletes who don’t have any health problems that need to be treated, but just want to maintain the vim and vigor of youth for awhile longer. That’s doping, not medicine. Your solution would basically negate the need for a legitimate medical justification.

If what you’re concerned about is equitable treatment under the rules for age groupers, who pay the bills, I don’t see why it doesn’t make more sense to simply argue for equitable treatment for age groupers, instead of trying to institute a seperate scheme of rules.

2

As I’ve posted several times, I don’t think there should be any AG testing until a procedure can be set up for AGs to apply for and obtain TUEs, provided they meet the qualifications.

That being said, I would be against a TUE procedure that allowed AGs to self-certify that they have meet the requirements. First, as you’ve noted above, it sets a separate standard for AGs than Elites. Second, it leaves too much open to the subjective decisions, whether honest or not, of individual AGs. One example is what constitutes a therapeutic reason. One AG might consider conditions brought on by age itself to qualify, while another may not. If there’s going to be a procedure where the use of a PED is formally accepted, then there ought to be universally applied standards. In the absence of testing and TUEs, people will make the same decisions. But at least there, there’s little pretense that the subjectivity is formally or universally accepted.

And even if testing of AGs were implemented, I can only see it as testing of AG podium places. Random testing of AGs, most of whom have no chance to win and are primarily here to participate (as opposed to compete) is a bit ridiculous. If the resources are available for tihs type of testing, wouldn’t they be better spent on a few additional marshalls on motorcycles policing drafting during the bike. Isn’t that a much more visable problem that directly affects all competitors?

3

Fortunately, I don’t think anyone is talking seriously about age group testing at this particular moment.

I agree with you, of course, that a procedure should be set up for AGs to apply for and get TUEs, which should be a simple enough thing to do. No other rule change would be necessary.

I see no reason why that should be a problem, but if it is, and if some kind of self certification is necessary, I don’t see why age groupers need a different set of criteria than elites. Dan, for some reason not clear to me, seems to have abandoned the notion that USADA can be persuaded to issue TUEs to age groupers. If we work from his starting point, though, I still don’t see why it doesn’t make more sense to allow age groupers to self-certify under the current rules. That is, instead of the USADA issuing TUEs to age groupers, they could simply implement a rule saying that if age groupers meet the current criteria, they can race legally.

That would still leave some wiggle room for people to take advantage of, yes, but not nearly as much as Dan’s proposal. And besides, since it comes down to a matter of personal honor, I don’t see it as a problem.

4

Ultimately, I am of the opinion that it does not matter to me or the sport that Age groupers dope.

So what if somebody beats me because of a PED? What did I lose except for maybe a plaque and my name displayed on an obscure internet results website. If anything losing makes me work harder. If I am winning I figure I must be doing enough as it is.

Now for Pros it does matter, they need the wins to put food on the table. If a cheater kept me from paying my daughter’s college tution I’d want to kick that cheater’s a**.

5

Yes, there is that, and I think it’s a legitimate point of view. The problem arises, though, for people who have a legitimate medical need for a drug on the banned list, and want to race, and race legally. Currently there seems no way for them to do so, as a technicality. They really have nothing to worry about as regards any penalty, of course, it’s a matter of personal honor.

Which is why I see no need for Dan’s proposal whatsoever. Simply institute a rule that allows them to self-certify under the current rules. I wish Dan would respond and let me know why that’s not satisfactory to him.

6

rickn, may I ask you why you race at all, then?
Only to be called a “Triathlete” or “Ironman”?
That would be really sad.

Vitus, you mean athlete self-policing like with drafting?
We know how well that works out.
That would mean throwing your hands in the air and to not care…
That would be as equally as sad.
So you think we don’t need a reasonable set of rules and find a way to at least keep those athletes honest who we send to represent US Triathlon abroad?

That would be a pretty good smack in the face of other national federations who make a valid effort to get something organized.
Oh well… not that we are not known for loud smacks…
I’d say it would be another missed opportunity.

But as I see it, Triathlon here in the US is on it’s best way to die as an clean amateur sport anyway. The same way cycling did a long way back…
How does one say?
History repeats itself.

7

**So you think we don’t need a reasonable set of rules and find a way to at least keep those athletes honest who we send to represent US Triathlon abroad? **

No, that’s not what I think. What I think is that we already have a reasonable set of rules, and the only issue is that they aren’t really applied to age groupers. (Though I think the age groupers we’re talking about are not so much those we send abroad to represent US Triathlon.)

We have a set of rules right now that spell out which drugs age groupers can’t take, and under what circumstances they can obtain a TUE. That set of rules is identical to the rules for the elites. That’s because it’s the same set of rules. The only problem is that USADA does not, apparently, actually issue TUEs to age groupers who meet the criteria for an exemption.

The solution, then, is to get the USADA to start issuing those TUEs under the current rules. If that’s not possible, and we have to go with some kind of self-certification, I don’t see why we don’t allow such self-certification to be carried out under the existing rule.

What Dan is calling for is self-certification under a new and different rule than currently exists, and I see no reason for it, and several significant problems.

8

If drug testing ever does occur for AGers, which I could careless if it does, I hope it is optional. By that, I mean if you are a MOP or BOPer, there is NO reason for you to be drug tested. I can understand if you are fighting for an OA win or AG win, you want to know you’re on an even playing field. But does anyone care if someone finishes a 1/2 IM in 6:30 because of PEDs instead of 6:50? So, if this ever comes about, I think you should only be required to be drug tested to qualify for OA or AG awards. No testing, no awards.

9

I race for only one reason and that is to win. And to do so, I use an aero helmet, a disc wheel with latex tubes on Pro 2 lights, racing flats and loads worth of caffine and snickers marathon bars. I have taken pretty much every legal advantage possible to get faster.
No ped’s for me and so far I have about 0 wins. That won’t make me take illegal PED’s, however if the people who beat me are taking drugs so be it.
Really who is the victim?
Aero helmets and disc wheels may be legal, but is it fair to use those items against an athlete on a mountain bike? I’m sure the mountain biker doesn’t think so.

That said I look down on those who dope, but that is their choice. I will beat them–I just choose to get better naturally. This is a victimless crime IMO.

10

“Lobby the USADA to provide TUEs for age groupers. Force the USAT to lobby the USADA to provide such exemptions.”

i think that’s a fine job for somebody, vitus. when will you start? how often should we expect updates?

“Your solution, at least as it’s beginning to take shape, would result in different doping rules for elites and age groupers.”

i don’t believe you’ll find any of that in what i wrote, with one exception: i don’t believe USADA or WADA should be involved in social or religious or cultural engineering. i think they should stick to their mandate, and that is to prevent performance enhancing doping in sport. otherwise, no, i did not advocate a second set of rules of AGers. i’m advocating the same set of rules, with a special medical understanding of the aging athlete.

would you not think that USADA’s committees should also have a special *medical *understanding of paralympic athletes? do you not think it appropriate to know what a wheelchair racer’s “normal” range of testosterone is before you consider what his therapy should be? me, i’m not a doctor, and i don’t know whether there are any differences between a group of 60+ athletes versus a group that almost entirely consists of 15- to 40-year old athletes, which is that group with which USADA concerns itself, simply by virtue of the demographics of olympic development sport. but i’d like to know the medical answer to that question? why are you afraid of the answer?

“What I am accusing you of is engineering a rule by which those who *do *want to dope will be able to do so with the tacit blessing of the USADA and USAT, even though there’s no therapeutic reason for them to take a PED.”

fine, but let all readers here acknowledge that you have no basis for this accusation. there is not a shred of evidence to support your assertion. there’s just this gut feeling you have. and it’s fine that you have it, as long as we all understand that’s all it is. you can make all your pain go away, vitus, if you just do the easy thing, and get USADA to agree to accept TUEs for all age group triathletes.

“Your solution is aimed, intentionally or not, at aging triathletes who don’t have any health problems that need to be treated, but just want to maintain the vim and vigor of youth for awhile longer. That’s doping, not medicine.”

what you describe is exactly what we have going on right now, my friend, and if you’d wake up and smell the coffee you’d see that. broach the subject with any federation you want, and what you’ll get is apathy or inaction (and inaction was pretty much what you counseled at the beginning of this series). age groupers aren’t part of olympic development, so federations aren’t interested. age groupers aren’t in danger of getting tested, so why should they care? that’s the typical federation response. as you see from my interview yesterday with Skip, this is recreation we’re engaging in. recreation. like shuffleboard or checkers.

i don’t blame skip, he’s between a rock and a hard place. he’s pretty much obliged to give up anti-doping to USADA and the last thing USADA wants is to have to deal with all of us engaging in… recreation. so i’d like to be able to tell you, vitus, not only what you can and should do to protect your health, but also what you might be contemplating but cannot do, without cheating.

do you understand, my friend, that if we age-adjust testosterone levels according to the best available science that may make it even harder for an aging athlete to get a TUE, self-administered or not? but what we have now is no consensus at all as to what low, mid and high testosterone ranges are, for anybody, let alone for the aging athlete. with USADA, it’s a black art, and you don’t get to know what the bar is. they don’t want your TUE form, and they don’t want to tell you what is cheating and what is not.

and in the beginning of this series you thought the whole thing was a fool’s errand. now perhaps you don’t think so. maybe it’s best you call USADA and ask them if they’re prepared to accept TUE requests from among our 100,000 annual members. you need their phone number?

11

**“**Lobby the USADA to provide TUEs for age groupers. Force the USAT to lobby the USADA to provide such exemptions.”
i think that’s a fine job for somebody, vitus. when will you start? how often should we expect updates?

That’s a lame attempt at evasion, Dan. You are the one who sees such a big problem with the current state of affairs. You are the one bothered by the ethical dilemna some age groupers find themselves in. Personally, just speaking for myself, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it. If I had a legit medical condition that required treatment with a banned substance, such that it would qualify for a TUE, I’d just send the paperwork in and race with a clean conscience. Now, you’re right in that the rules don’t actually allow for that, and so I agree that it’s reasonable for some people to have ethical qualms about doing so, and since we agree that it’s their personal honor at stake, and nothing else, I would like to know why you don’t lobby for the simple, obvious solution to their problem. Why go so far out of your way to try to formulate and advocate for a solution that goes beyond what’s actually called for to solve their problem? In the continuing absence of an answer from you to that simple question, you’ll have to excuse me while I continue trying to divine your motives from the information I have at hand.

**i don’t believe you’ll find any of that in what i wrote, <> i’m advocating the same set of rules, with a special medical understanding of the aging athlete. **

I don’t believe that’s the case. We have a set of rules now that allow for medical exemptions under certain criteria. You’re proposing an entirely different set of criteria for age groupers- namely, a set limit on the level of testosterone. Why is that necessary? Why aren’t the current criteria sufficient?

**would you not think that USADA’s committees should also have a special *medical *understanding of paralympic athletes? do you not think it appropriate to know what a wheelchair racer’s “normal” range of testosterone is before you consider what his therapy should be? me, i’m not a doctor, and i don’t know whether there are any differences between a group of 60+ athletes versus a group that almost entirely consists of 15- to 40-year old athletes, which is that group with which USADA concerns itself, simply by virtue of the demographics of olympic development sport. but i’d like to know the medical answer to that question? why are you afraid of the answer? **

I am not “afraid” of the answer, Dan. It’s simply that the current guidelines already allow for the answer to be found in the case of paralympic and aging athletes. I still do not understand why you think otherwise.

12

“Personally, just speaking for myself, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.”

then why did you start the thread?

“If I had a legit medical condition that required treatment with a banned substance, such that it would qualify for a TUE, I’d just send the paperwork in and race with a clean conscience.”

you have the luxury of doing this, because your TUE request very likely may not come back at all. so let’s say you want to know whether you’re racing clean or not, which characterizes the people i know facing this dilemma. Since you note that “we have a set of rules now that allow for medical exemptions under certain criteria,” you tell me under what conditions my low testosterone is legally treatable.

come on, now, be specific. if i’m 60 years old, how low can my testosterone be before i can receive a TUE? what are the conditions under which i can be granted a TUE? under what conditions can i expect my TUE to be revoked? what are the allowable treatments, and in what doses, using what protocol?

the alternative is that i, or USADA, or USAT, might be able to help you clear your conscience, by spelling this out for you in a format easy to understand and absorb, with specificity. and then you really could race with a clear conscience. or, you could race with a guilty conscience, depending on the information provided you.

but, hey, you don’t need me to do that, because you already know the answers to my questions above, right? and you’ll present them here, in an answer to my post, right? i’ll make myself a sandwich while you compile the answer (with references from WADA’s circulars).

or, i can save you some time if you’ll concede that this information is not available, at all, except in broad strokes. if you can find what it is (let me know if you can’t and i’ll save you the looking) then you’ll find you’re back to what it is you feared would happen, that it’s up to the individual and his doctor to determine what “low” means. that’s what’s happening right now. that rationalization you think i’m trying to usher in. that’s what i’m trying to usher out.

but then, nobody in your and my age group is on testosterone therapy, right? so we don’t have to worry.

13

**“**Personally, just speaking for myself, I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.”
then why did you start the thread?

Because, as I said, I can understand why some people would be bothered by it, and I can see that some kind of solution is desirable for them, and for the life of me, I can’t understand why you’re adopting the solution you’ve put forth, instead of something simple and obvious.

so let’s say you want to know whether you’re racing clean or not, which characterizes the people i know facing this dilemma.** Since you note that “we have a set of rules now that allow for medical exemptions under certain criteria,” you tell me under what conditions my low testosterone is legally treatable.**

I believe someone posted a link to the USADA criteria in another thread. If you like, I’ll post the link again. Is that necessary?

come on, now, be specific. if i’m 60 years old, how low can my testosterone be before i can receive a TUE? what are the conditions under which i can be granted a TUE? under what conditions can i expect my TUE to be revoked? what are the allowable treatments, and in what doses, using what protocol?

The rules, wisely, are NOT that specific. They are, however, the same rules that elites follow.

**the alternative is that i, or USADA, or USAT, might be able to help you clear your conscience, by spelling this out for you in a format easy to understand and absorb, with specificity. and then you really could race with a clear conscience. **

People can do that now, except for the technicality that requires actual issuance of a TUE. The rules themselves are spelled out in a format easy enough to understand.

but, hey, you don’t need me to do that, because you already know the answers to my questions above, right? and you’ll present them here, in an answer to my post, right? i’ll make myself a sandwich while you compile the answer

What kind of sandwich? Whatever it is, hold the mayo.

Please tell me why the current criteria are acceptable for elites, but not for age groupers.

14

Not sure how it is in the U.S., but having Asthma, while I was in university I needed a TUE, and it was hella easy to get, I just logged onto the CCES (Canadian Centre for Ethics in sport) to get the form, filled it out, faxed it to my doctor to fill out (Paid the $10 fee for her to do it), she faxed it to the CCES, they followed up by phone to get the dose, and then I had my certificate within 10 days. I also got one issued last year before AG Duathlon worlds, since I wasn’t sure if they were doing random tests for AG racers (they said that they could, but I don’t think anyone was tested).

15

“I believe someone posted a link to the USADA criteria in another thread. If you like, I’ll post the link again. Is that necessary?”

i don’t want the link posted. i want the question answered. print the answer to the question here, in response to this post. if you can’t, and you’d like, i’ll do it for you. if you won’t, then i’ll take that as an admission that finding the information one needs is not nearly as easy and clean a process as you thought it was.

“The rules, wisely, are NOT that specific. They are, however, the same rules that elites follow.”

but the protocols are that specific. when you get busted for being over a threshold amount of nandrolone, or TE ratio, there’s precision and specificity. when you make the case for being “danger zone” low in testosterone, USADA has a pretty specific idea of what “danger zone” means, in nanograms per deciliter. and the therapies are that specific and, in fact, are spelled out, with amounts, in the rules.

“People can do that now, except for the technicality that requires actual issuance of a TUE. The rules themselves are spelled out in a format easy enough to understand.”

okay, fine, let’s say i’m hypogonadal. my testosterone is 185. six months ago it was 215. six months before that it was 145, three week after an ironman. that’s when i got tested, because i wasn’t recovering. i’m not taking any testosterone now. i can’t seem to recover. i’m depressed and sick a lot of the time. my general practitioner at kaiser says i need to go on androgel or risk osteoporosis. do i get a TUE?

“Please tell me why the current criteria are acceptable for elites, but not for age groupers.”

elites can get TUEs. elites have – whoopee! – a place where you can go get help at USADA! perhaps a way to find out in advance what the criteria are for a successful TUE application, from the ombudsman, or maybe the athlete ambassadors, or the doping control officers, science officers, or educational staff. a whole slice of the website just for you. “Athlete Tools,” it’s called. oops. you’re not “currently an athlete in the OOC testing pool,” are you vitus? oh well. no login for you. you ever tried to get through to these people? i have. give it a try… and… good luck, vitus.

16

** i want the question answered. print the answer to the question here, in response to this post.**

Deja vu. Here is the answer again (I copied it from another post of mine in response to the same question from you in another thread.):

What are the criteria for granting a TUE?
The criteria are:
¨ The athlete would experience significant health problems without taking the prohibited substance or method,
¨ The therapeutic use of the substance would not produce significant enhancement of performance, and
¨ There is no reasonable therapeutic alternative to the use of the otherwise prohibited substance or method.

17

I got curious as to why this is such a big issue. I went to Duathlon worlds in Italy and just about the whole field drafted. I did not. (Needless to say - I did not bother going when worlds returned to Italy) I made a choice not to cheat. However the organizers were very disinterested in the rules. In fact, some of the age group athletes who medaled opeenly admitted to cheating in Inside Triathlon magazine. So why drug test? Does it not make more sense to enforce the existing rules first?
Just curious.

18

“Deja vu. Here is the answer again”

nope, that’s not it. not for the question i asked. let me post it for you, because it’s obvious you can’t find this no matter how hard you look. don’t feel bad, it’s hard to find. and that’s the point, isn’t it? it’s hard to find? it’s hard to know the rules. but that’s not the end of it. try to find any inclination below as to what qualifies as “low enough” for the purposes of what’s cheating and what’s not.

MALE HYPOGONADISM

A. Medical history: The etiology of hypogonadism must be clearly identified:

  • Primary hypogonadism (e.g. Klinefelter syndrome, bilateral anorchia, cryptorchidism, Leydig cell aplasia, male Turner syndrome, Noonan’s syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia)

  • Or secondary hypogonadism (e.g. panhypopituitarism, idiopathic hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, Kallmann’s syndrome, constitutional delay of puberty, LH deficiency, Prader Willi syndrome)

B. Diagnostic criteria:

  • Clinical history with biological assays of testosterone, LH and FSH, confirming the diagnosis must be presented. The obtained values must be interpreted by an endocrinologist or specialist in internal medicine.

  • Appropriate stimulation of the gonadal axis by hCG and results should be provided.

C. Relevant medical information: In cases of traumatic hypogonadism (bilateral anorchia) surgical evidence or imaging should be provided when possible.

MEDICAL BEST PRACTICE TREATMENT

A. Name of prohibited substance: Enanthate testosterone or cypionate testosterone

B. Route

  1. Testosterone will be preferably administered by regular intramuscular injection. The treatment must be recorded by a health professional and kept available for control at any time. The use of transdermal testosterone skin patches could be an alternative to consider based on specialist advice. For medical reasons (hepatocellular risks) oral androgens should not be used.

  2. The administration of testosterone will be conducted by IM injection every two to four weeks to replace endogenous secretion.

C. Frequency

  1. The dosage must be decided by at least one endocrinologist or internal medicine experienced physician and confirmed by appropriated serum measures in relation to injection times. The age-related normal range for testosterone serum levels must always be respected. Permanent high levels (levels should normalise in the two days following injection) and over replacement should never been accepted.

  2. The reference dosage is from 50 to 250 mg cypionate testosterone by IM every two weeks or enanthate testosterone every three to four weeks to replace endogenous secretion.

D. Recommended duration of treatment The treatment may be for life but an annual review including evidence of well-controlled therapy must be provided.

Other non-prohibited alternative treatments?

CONSEQUENCES TO HEALTH IF TREATMENT IS WITHHELD

Serious impairment.

  • Under developed genitals (if before puberty)
  • Muscle weakness
  • Serious osteoporosis
  • Diminished libido
  • Erectile dysfunction /impotence
  • Male infertility
  • Depression

TREATMENT MONITORING

Frequent and unannounced serum testosterone measures should be imposed and related to the injection period or patch application.

TUE VALIDITY AND RECOMMENDED REVIEW PROCESS

The duration of approval will be limited in all cases to 3 years at a maximum. In all cases an annual review process with a control of well adapted dose should occur each year. Another independent specialist may be consulted as necessary.

ANY APPROPRIATE CAUTIONARY MATTERS

  • Oral androgens should not be used for medical reasons.

  • In the particular case of a young athlete with delayed puberty the opinions of a pediatrician and an endocrinologist must confirm the diagnosis and a need for testosterone supplementation. This should be accompanied by the report of a relevant clinical examination. The approval must always be for a period of no more than one year.

  • Given the potential controversy associated with the approval of a TUE for testosterone the opinion of an independent expert is strongly recommended.

19

I am unclear why you don’t think I’ve answered your question.

You have hypogonadism. It’s serious enough to warrant medical treatment, apparently. Does that condition qualify you for a TUE? Let’s see:

***¨ The athlete would experience significant health problems without taking the prohibited substance or method, ***
**
This is a call for your doctor to make, no? It certainly sounds like you’d experience significant health problems without treatment. But I’m no doctor, and maybe you have no symptoms at all- no significant health problems, in other words.

***¨ The therapeutic use of the substance would not produce significant enhancement of performance, and ***

If the treatment is necessary to treat the significant health problem, I don’t see this clause as a problem. Do you?

¨ There is no reasonable therapeutic alternative to the use of the otherwise prohibited substance or method.

Seems like this isn’t a problem, either.

Where exactly do you see a problem, Dan?

20

“This is a call for your doctor to make, no?”

no. it’s not. not if it’s a TUE you want. this is precisely the point you yourself were making. what you don’t want are athletes and their doctors making this up as they go along. what you want is objective guidelines stating what is doping and what is not. and what is the appropriate therapeutic response versus the therapeutic overresponse.

“If the treatment is necessary to treat the significant health problem, I don’t see this clause as a problem. Do you?”

if one doctor thinks anything below 300 is low, and another thinks anything below 200 is low, and one thinks that for best health we titrate to 600 and the other says 400 and USADA says 250, then it’s off to the races, so to speak. it’s me and my androgel tube against you and yours. that’s what we have now. that’s our status quo, and that’s what we ought to fix, before it gets a lot more prevalent.

look, vitus, it’s like drafting. we agree that drafting is bad, and we say, “no drafting,” but if everybody decides for himself what drafting is, then we have a problem. what we have now is, “drafting is bad, don’t draft, but there are no marshals, and there is not going to be any marshals, and you decide what the draft zone is for yourself, but just don’t take an unfair advantage.”

that’s what we have now. there are plenty of dishonest people who’ll take advantage of that. there are plenty of honest people who just don’t know what the draft zone is (metaphorically speaking). they don’t want to cheat. maybe someday we’ll have doping controls. but before we do, we have to agree on what’s cheating and what’s not. i’d like USADA say, “here are six TUEs presented to us for testosterone use (or growth hormone use, or corticosteroids, whatever). here are three we denied, here are three we approved, and here are the stipulations that went along with the approvals.” then there’d be some flesh on the bones.

a friend of mine got his TUE denied yesterday. his TUE form was 40 pages long, all sorts of documentation, doctor’s notes, all of it. his primary doctor was dumbfounded. and there was no reason for the denial. was his doctor of the wrong specialty? was the underlying problem not severe enough? was the treatment of the wrong type, or wrong dosage? nothing. and, since he is not a member of the OOC testing pool, no athlete login for him.