Doping among masters athletes

I have contacted Patty Miller. And Dawson Hughes. As well as ...Okay, I’ll bite… Can you post a copy of your proposed position statement that you shared with Patty and Dawson?

From the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, published in Circulation in December of 2015: "As a matter of general policy, the use of performance-enhancing drugs and supplements should be prohibited by schools, universities, and other sponsoring/participating organizations as a condition for continued participation in athletic activities."Does the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology somewhere define performance-enhancing drugs and supplements? And do they address TUE’s? Do commonly used hydration and recovery drinks count? They are supplements that offset performance degradation, enhancing performance. And what about aspirin, vitamin supplements or coffee? At least WADA defines limits of commonly used performance enhancing drugs and supplements. A blanket statement that universities should ban coffee and aspirin seems a bit if an overreach.

I have no problem with "Given that USMS cares about the health and safety of its members, the use of performance enhancing drugs and supplements as defined by WADA, unless prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a medical condition, is strictly prohibited" or some reasonable variation. Outstanding. Thank you for your support.

The authors reference WADA for the definition of performance enhancing drugs, as you would expect.Thanks! That's good to know.

I certainly endorse that position statement. I had always assumed that was USMS defacto position, since USMS is a member of FINA and FINA is officially anti-PEDs.I assumed we just didn't test because it is too complicated/expensive, much like we don't scan swim suits to make sure they are FINA compliant.

"Unwilling to champion" is overstating things. To my knowledge, such a position statement has never been proposed or submitted to the board or HOD to consider. It just hasn't come up. Maybe it has in the past when I wasn't on the board. (You said something about it coming up at convention but I don't recall it, and anyway I'm not talking about actual drug testing but a position statement.) Complaining about it on the forums is just water-cooler whining. If this is near and dear to you, draft a position statement and a justification for adopting it, and submit it to Patty, who controls the board's agenda. It should take you less time then you've spent writing about it on this forum. If she is unwilling to devote time to the matter (it isn't as if we lack for things to do) then find a delegate from your LMSC willing to propose it from the floor of an HOD meeting at convention. Which is this week. I have contacted Patty Miller. And Dawson Hughes. As well as a member of the Rules Committee. And an LMSC delegate. But why don't you, sir, as a Vice President within USMS, hold this issue near and dear as well? How do you justify not supporting a position statement? It was 2010, at convention. The issue was a position statement, not drug testing.

I quoted one of the Class I recommendations from the publication, which is quite lengthy and exhaustively researched. The authors reference WADA for the definition of performance enhancing drugs, as you would expect. Try this. Given that USMS cares about the health and safety of its members, the use of performance enhancing drugs and supplements as defined by WADA, unless prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a medical condition, is strictly prohibited.

Solvay Pharmaceuticals created the term "Low T" to sell AndroGel. And it worked. From this report, I'd guess the molecule is more likely to make men (we're not talking about East German women here) look good more than swim fast ... www.realclearscience.com/.../have_low_t_taking_testosterone_probably_wont_help_109759.html The authors evaluated 156 randomized controlled trials in which testosterone was compared to placebo to treat a variety of conditions. Testosterone did not consistently prevent or treat cardiovascular disease, nor did it consistently improve sexual function or satisfaction, with half of the studies showing positive effects and the other half not showing any effects. It was altogether ineffective at treating erectile dysfunction. The majority of studies showed no effects on psychological well-being or cognitive function.Testosterone did offer a few benefits. The review indicated a small boost to libido and a robust increase in muscle mass. However, the increase in mass was not accompanied by increases to strength. On the whole, when you add in the health risks, it seems it's been over-sold, at least to men. To repeat Gull's comment: "If your health is important to you, then you will not be using a banned substance without a doctor's prescription." And, I'd add: "... and, even if you can talk a doctor into prescribing some of these substances - which isn't very hard to do if you go doctor-shopping - you probably shouldn't..."

Physicians can and do prescribe medications for off label uses. The FDA approved indication for AndroGel is for the treatment of primary hypogonadism and hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, not "Low T."

Here is a link to the USADA Athlete Guide to the 2016 Prohibited List so that members can check their medications/supplements and not be labeled as "dopers" in this forum. www.usada.org/.../ Some things I found interesting were: Insulin is prohibited in and out of competition (TUE needed) Anything with pseudoephedrine is prohibited during competition (no more Advil Cold and Sinus) Albuterol and other asthma treatments are allowed at certain use levels; but Any level of albuterol or pseudoephedrine is prohibited at all times if the person also takes a diuretic Any level of cannabinoids are prohibited in competition (no TUE allowed) Narcotics are prohibited in competition (check if you are being treated for chronic pain) Glucocorticoids are prohibited in competition Some Parkinson's medications are prohibited during competition Many commercially available supplements and diuretics contain prohibited substances ("Some dietary supplements that claim to be “natural” water pills may contain prescription diuretics not listed on the label" check with www.Supplement411.org ) The USADA website also warns athletes to consult with their doctors and advise them that they are an athlete before any surgery so that a TUE can be obtained or an alternative treatment can be proposed, if a substance would be used that would violate the WADA rules. www.usada.org/.../ It does appear that WADA/USADA has decided that there may be a difference between the scrutiny that should be given to Masters vs. other athletes. Apparently, as a result of an arbitration filed by a Masters athlete (who received three denials for a TUE for the use of testosterone), USADA has created a “Recreational Competitor TUE”, which apparently has a lower threshold for granting TUEs to Masters athletes. www.wsj.com/.../prescription-steroids-get-a-quiet-exemption-1461365753 I don’t know if this is USADA’s way of saying “it’s just Masters” or if the TUE process is not really prepared for 50,000 USMS swimmers to start reviewing their medications and applying for TUEs and arbitrating their denials. Many of the issues/positions expressed in this thread apparently have been discussed in other Masters sports. www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2010062103639.html An interesting point in the WP article is the statement by the Chairman of the USATA Masters Division that he was taking a prohibited medication for his blood pressure and did not know it was prohibited when he competed in the world masters championships in Riccione, Italy. I assume he was not taking it for a competitive advantage, but instead for health reasons. I liked his quote that if we would have been tested, he would be embarrassed to finish 20th while taking (performance enhancing) drugs. Regarding the proposed USMS position statement, I wonder if its adoption or even enforcement would placate the people who are most concerned with it? Clearly what they/we want is a level playing field where athletic performance is not enhanced by drugs taken for the purpose of a competitive advantage. I presume that, with the possible exception of cannabinoids, (at least in most states) and over the counter cold medications, the performance enhancing drugs taken by Masters athletes are prescription drugs taken pursuant to the instruction of doctors for a stated medical conditions. Gull has already stated earlier in this thread that “Low-T” is not an actual medical condition so I assume the “unless prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a medical condition, is strictly prohibited” would then need to be limited to medical conditions approved by USMS. If these athletes were to take testosterone prescribed by Dr. Teeple (who apparently does not agree with Gull that Low-T is not an actual medical condition) who sells his book “I’m Still Sexy, So What’s Up With Him? Learn How Testosterone Can Change Your Relationship” on his website www.teeplestestosterone.com and states that he was instrumental in the creation of the Recreational Competitor TUE, I assume that even with the granting of a RCTUE, there would still be the complaint that those competitors were “dopers.” I have to admit that I do view in a different light, the athletes that were shown by the Fancy Bear hack to have TUEs to use amphetamines in competition. What I don’t see, is the condemnation of them in this forum, that has been lavished on others (Sun Yang, Efimova, etc.) I understand that their drug use is authorized, but I can’t imagine that it does not give them a competitive advantage. I do not take PEDs - actually I do not regularly take any medication. I attribute this, at least in part, to my return to swimming 17 years ago. I do confess that I have taken Advil Cold and Sinus before a meet or two when I was congested from allergies or a cold (I did not know it was banned until I started researching the WADA list because of this thread). Now that I know that is not proper, I will not do it again; however, I guess under the proposed position statement my conduct was prohibited and I am a “doper.” Hopefully this post will point everyone to the WADA website so that you can avoid being a “doper” like me.