Because you did not reply to anyone, nor quote your point (it’s not upthread) or theirs, we cannot share your disappointment or address/comment on your point, whatever it was.
2 Likes
The main reason to downvote this topic would be that it is a complete waste of time. Non-anonymized publication of TUEs isn’t going to happen. It’s not even for WADA or any other non-governmental sports organization to decide. It’s a matter of privacy law. And if you look at what debates are actually happen in that context, they are going in the exact opposite direction, with some legal experts questioning wether the public announcements of the names of convicted dopers is not already in violation of EU privacy laws. And with the EU not going to play along, it would be ridiculous to only force non-European athletes to make their TUEs public.
1 Like
They have plenty of medical privacy. I don’t think there should be any concerning what’s essentially a waiver for PED use. Especially when so many athletes don’t actually need these drugs and are getting them solely for performance gains.
There are users at every ironman and plenty of local races. Testing only catches people taking PEDs that are actually detectable. The list of undetectable PEDs is unfortunately far too big.
Unless you have absolute first-hand knowledge of this, and are going to show examples, this is the exact kind of statement that will get you shown the exit real quick.
1 Like
It is extremely hard to get a TUE for testosterone. A prescription for TRT from your doctor because of low testosterone levels is not at all sufficient. You basically only have a chance get a TUE for testosterone if your body’s own testosterone production is permanently shut down, e.g. as the result of a double orchiectomy or similar.
1 Like
Not for TRT obviously, but are there not steroids that get prescribed for acute illnesses? I think I used Testosterone when I should have said steroids.
Very predictably the article leads with examples around pregnancy and other critical health aspects, which clearly are nobody’s gripe but get used to justify all sorts.
What people object to is when there are more asthmatics inside certain elite endurance groups than outside. Or lifetime mental focus drugs for people who were told at school they have a spicy attention span.
Athletes are not air traffic controllers; it’s a selfish pursuit in an already elitist area, even before letting private sector doctors give diagnoses for a fee. I wouldn’t even know how to get tested for asthma, ADHD etc, and I’m a disorganised wheezer. At least there seems to be some vetting - not every doctor’s word counts.
But making TUEs public seems like a pretty lenient compromise. Pro racing with health issues isn’t a human right. What stops someone training themselves into poor blood markers (like testosterone) and then artificially enabling that with a TUE?
1 Like
Great unclouded view - how much is “plenty” and why is it enough or too much?
But actually, see (b) below.
ISTUE 4.2 An Athlete may be granted a TUE if (and only if) they can show that [all] of the following conditions are met:
a) needed to treat a diagnosed medical condition supported by relevant clinical evidence.
b) will not, on the balance of probabilities, produce any additional enhancement of performance
c) is an indicated treatment for the medical condition, and there is no reasonable permitted Therapeutic alternative.
I’m not a medical expert, but I think those would be corticosteroids, not anabolic steroids.
Taking methylphenidate (Ritalin) or lisdexamfetamine (Vyvanse/Elvanse) outside of competition doesn’t even require a TUE. They are only banned in competition. Other anti-ADHD drugs like atomoxetine (Strattera) aren’t even on the doping list at all.
It’s similar with asthma. The most common asthma inhaler drugs like salbutamol only require a TUE if taken in excess of a specified maximum dosis or orally or by injection.
Usually, when people suspect they have a medical condition, their first step is to make an appointment with their GP or an appropriate medical specialist.
Exactly. For example, among the listed necessariy criteria for a TUE in WADA’s TUE Physician Guidelines - ADHD, you will even find the sentence ‘Simply stating that the patient meets the DSM-5-TR criteria is not adequate’ emphasized in bold and italic in the original. Arguing against people getting a TUE because they ‘were told at school that they have a spicy attention span’ is a total strawman argument, because that is not something which happens in reality.
The fact that ‘poor blood markers’ is not at all sufficient to get a TUE, especially not for something like testosterone. The criteria in WADA’s TUE Physician Guidelines - Male Hypogonadism under which a TUE for testosterone can even be considered are extremely restrictive.
As a general rule of thumb, the more potential for abuse a drug has and the less commonly it is used for actual medical treatment, the more difficult it will be to get a TUE approved for it. Which is why it is almost impossible to get a TUE for testosterone or EPO, but salbutamol, which is used by millions of asthmatics daily and which at best has very questionable performance-enhancing effects in inhaled form, is regulated comparatively lightly.
I wish there was a way to say this a little bit more politely, but for somebody who has such a strong opinion on TUEs, you don’t come across as very well read about the topic.
[quote]But making TUEs public seems like a pretty lenient compromise. Pro racing with health issues isn’t a human right.
[/quote]
The people who get to decide that disagree. I can only repeat what I’ve said before: there is zero chance that the EU would loosen its privacy regulations to allow the non-anonymized publication of TUEs. The whole debate is a complete waste of time.
‘Pro’ is also not a relevant criteria in the international doping system. Not to mention that most pro triathletes are professionals in name only.
3 Likes
Thanks for saying what most of us already know, and in a clear and easy to understand form. And yes our nemesis here knows Jack All about the subject… (-;
1 Like
All right fair, so my whinge is misplaced to TUEs and actually applies to overuse of drugs outside TUEs. Even worse. Maybe all the asthma inhalers we saw on triathlon media 2019-2022 weren’t even TUEd. FML
Do a steroid cycle outside of the testing pool, end it, natural T declines, NOW you get diagnosed (low T) and voila … you have a clear therapeutic need. Is ist that simple? Yes, ist is.
But the people around you might have noticed. Social control might not be a perfect solution, but it is way better, than essentially allowing those with money to juice to their liking. Because it is not so hard, to find someone writing a compelling story of a rare and undisclosed condition, that requires Bjarne Ris levels of epo in your blod and a hematocrit of 65.
Very bad policing from your side. He is not naming anyone in particular. If this kind of things can’t be said here, many may choose to go to the exit door before it is shown.
1 Like
Once again you do not understand the thresholds required for a TUE..It’s not that simple, in fact almost impossible. Now in your scenario you can get a doctor to prescribe it, happens all the time. TUE no way, unless you go cut off a ball, get the test, and then transplant it back in the sack..Is that simple??
3 Likes
I think TUEs should remain confidential (and they will).
There should be no opprobrium attached to applying for or receiving a TUE, nor for taking the drug (or mechanism) it permits.
The athlete needs to take these drugs for a medical condition. A TUE will not "be granted if (STUE 4.2) on the balance of probabilities, [the drug will] produce any additional enhancement of performance."
So what if ‘x’ athlete applied for a TUE? An individual is infringing the athlete’s medical privacy if they say what the issue is or what the drug is/was, and it’s true. And if it’s false; it’s false.
1 Like
General reply: I deleted a post from this thread for some pretty direct accusations that came without evidence.
If they, or anybody else, have that evidence…my DMs are always open for a discussion.
1 Like
Do unprecedented, statistically anomalous race results count? The cynicism exists for a reason.
Well clearly race results “count” so let us know which races you think have shown performances which are unprecedented and/or statistically anomalous. Then we can all enjoy scrutinising those RACE results and deduce whatever for ourselves, with or without cynicism. Not sure what this has to do with TUEs.
A reply for both you and @emceemanners:
Saying “XXX performance is unbelievable” is fine.
Saying “XXX retired because of drugs / TUEs” without bringing receipts isn’t.
The middle ground? Like the Supreme Court and obscenity, we’ll know it when we see it.