Doping among masters athletes

I did not know,like you, that many of my doc. prescribed meds are on that list! To maintain my health is more important than another ribbon.

Does "prohibited at all times" mean practice too? If so, does this not directly contradict USMS's mission statement? Like Orca, my health is more important, but regular swimming workouts is helping to achieve better health. I don't HAVE to compete. :cry: It just gives me motivation to show up to swim practice in the morning.

:rofl: I think everyone has their suspects and while I'd like a clean sport, I doubt we have the resources (financial or people) to police this. This paragraph captures the issue perfectly. Personally, I'm of the mindset of the friend ... ... but the realist in me agrees with Walters... I derive enough satisfaction from training, the act of competition and using my own performances as a yardstick so the fact there are people doping in USMS (or via FINA Masters) doesn't detract from my own satisfaction. If nothing else, given the potential damage the dopers are doing to their bodies longer term, I figure I'll be well-positioned once I hit the 80+ age groups ;) My sentiments exactly, and I hoping to get some top 10 times when I hit my 80s. :)

Testosterone levels decline with age. Solvay Pharmaceuticals created the term "Low T" to sell AndroGel. And it worked.

If your health is important to you, then you will not be using a banned substance without a doctor's prescription.

I'm sure big pharma is as good as a good used car salesman in selling you something that you NEED! There is always someone trying to sell us something that will make us thinner, younger and more attractive with any work on our part!

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. How about adding, besides health and safety of USMS members, the integrity of USMS competition?

How about adding, besides health and safety of USMS members, the integrity of USMS competition? I like it.

At the 2016 US Aquatics Sports annual convention USA Swimming awarded Travis Tygart with the USA Swimming award. Tygard wasn’t there but Edwin Moses (yes that Edwin Moses 2 time Olympic gold medalist in the 400M hurdles, world record holder, undefeated in 122 consecutive championship races , …) his USADA board chair was there to accept on his behalf. Great acceptance speech! Anyway… While there were some hallway conversations around doping control, there wasn’t much in the way of meaningful action taken by the USMS House of Delegates. So for those who are passionate about this I suggest you contact your LMSC leadership to make your feelings known. And to the suggested …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. I’ve got a couple of concerns; First I believe the “for the treatment of a medical condition” is somewhat different than the WADA TUE so I’m not sure we could do this if we sign on with WADA/USDADA. And trying to develop a standalone doping control protocol/agency has its own world of obstacles. Second, the shift from competition only to general membership health and safety is a quantum shift in both the nature and scope of testing. As suggested testing is not a precursor to membership and not related specifically to competition. By my rough estimate this takes the cost of the program from from the hundreds of thousands of dollars to the millions of dollars. I was told that it would cost around $25,000 per sanctioned event to conduct USADA certified doping control. This would not include the necessary administration costs associated with a doping control program. Expanding this from the 10-15 tests conducted per event to 65,000 tests would cost each member $200 or more in annual membership dues. And I’m willing to make the assumption that the cost and mandatory drug testing will adversely impact membership. I’m fully behind the USMS mission to promote health, wellness, fitness and competition for adults through swimming, but I also realize the need to make Masters Swimming economically feasible so we can reach out to more adults.

So we prohibit full body tech suits but discourage performance enhancing drugs? It would appear that is the set of rules currently in place, wouldn't it?