Masters Swimming and Illegal Supplements

Originally posted by jim clemmons I "cheating is defined by what you consider wrong versus right". Hopefully. Again, cheating is doing something illegal. Just because "YOU" (emphasis added) might think something is "morally right", doesn't make it less illegal. I sound like such the moral police here, I just don't understand statements that try to justify doing something illegal just because an individual doesn't think it is wrong. Maybe Michelle Smith, the Chinese women, or the East Germans didn't think doping was morally wrong. Does that make it any less cheating?

No Sam, there are many things that are legal that are also cheating. Just because FINA defines something as a performance enhancing drug that is against the rules does not make it illegal, but it is still cheating. Illegality is defined by local laws, not by international bodies. Masters swimming does not even make it against the rules, but it is still cheating. It is an odd bias that thinks that only the younger swimmers could perhaps take performance enhancing drugs. It is the generation 10 years older than me (46) that made a public statement for the consumption of illegal drugs (not that they were by any means the first generation to take them.) But, Sam is right in that a cheater does not need money or fame to cheat. Just being recognized as a great swimmer by USMS swimmers is enough, or seeing your name in a list of the best age group swimmers in the country. And it is not very hard to justify by the people who are going to cheat. "Everybody does it," or "the best swimmers do it," is enough.

Originally posted by Sam Perry Again, cheating is doing something illegal. Cheating is doing something that's against the rules. Very few rule violations are actually illegal (i.e., against the law). And that brings us back once again to the question of what John actually meant. Did he mean to say "illegal supplements"? Or did he mean "banned substances" (which is how many people seem to be interpreting his question)? If it is the latter, then as Ion rightly noted, there are no banned substances in masters swimming. Nor can we apply the standards used by FINA, USA Swimming, and NCAA, since the only substances that are blanketly banned by these organizations are substances that are illegal even with a prescription. Any other substances on the banned list are, in reality, banned only if the user does not disclose the use in advance and provide proof that there is a legitimate medical need for such use. Masters swimmers (who, because of their average age, are much more likely to have a legitimate medical need for such substances) currently have no need to provide any such disclosure and proof of need, nor does USMS have any body to which such disclosure and proof could be submitted. Consequently, there is currently no way that the FINA/NCAA/USAS standards could be applied to masters swimmers. Bob

Originally posted by Sam Perry I also don't think age means anything, I'd be willing to bet if there were a test, you might find it more common among older swimmers. As you age the body begins to slow down, we all know this. If I could take something AGAINST THE RULES to slow that process, it would be enticing. If by "you might find it more common" you mean that drug use is more common among older swimmers, I fully agree. In fact, that is what I said. The reason why they are more likely to be using drugs is because they are more likely to have health problems. Let's take an actual example: Hypertension (high blood pressure) is a problem that affects people of all ages. But there is no question that it is more prevalant among older people. Only about 1 in 9 men aged 20-34 have hypertension, while only about 1 in 32 women aged 20-34 have the disease, and I suspect that the percentages are even lower than this for competitive swimmers in this age range who enter FINA, NCAA, and USA Swimming competitions. Yet more than half of both men and women aged 55-64 have the disease, and more than 70% of men and nearly 85% of women aged 75 and older suffer from it. (Note that these figures are based on the classic definition of hypertension, in which anyone with a systolic pressure of at least 140 and/or a diastolic pressure of at least 90 is considered to be hypertensive.) Diuretics are a class of anti-hypertensive drugs that have been in use for a long time, and which therefore have one of the best established records of safety and efficacy. And, in some circles, they are still considered to be the drugs of first choice when treating essential hypertension. But they are also on the list of banned substances that is used by FINA, NCAA, and USA Swimming. As I understand it, this is not because they actually enhance performance, but because their use may prevent other drugs that enhance performance from being detected by current testing procedures. So what if a competitive swimmer has hypertension and their doctor prescribes a diuretic to treat it? Well, if they want to continue competing in FINA/NCAA/USAS meets, the first thing they must do is disclose the fact that they intend to use the said drug. The rules are very clear on this: If an athlete uses a banned substance without disclosing it, they're disqualified even if there was a legitimate medical reason for the use. In fact, the use is ideally supposed to be approved before the athlete even starts using it, but the rules do recognize that there are emergency situations in which it may place the athlete at risk if use of the substance is delayed. But even then, immediate disclosure of the use is required. And, if the review board does not approve the use, the athlete must either stop using it or be barred from competition. Now, the first thing the review board would presumably examine is whether the health problem actually exists. I have no idea what sort of examination they do. In this case, would the athlete be required to temporarily stop using the drug so the board could verify that the athlete's blood pressure did, indeed, rise to dangerous levels? Another problem is what constitutes hypertension. In the statistics I cited above, "hypertension" was considered to exist if systolic pressure was at least 140 and/or if diastolic pressure was at least 90. But this standard is now considered to be questionable. In fact, "normal" blood pressure is considered to be 115/75, and every elevation of 10 points in the systolic pressure and 5 points in the diastolic pressure above this is known to double the risk of heart disease. Thus, a person with a blood pressure of 125/80 (once considered very normal) actually has twice as much risk of heart disease as a person with a blood pressure of 115/75, and a person with a blood pressure of 135/85 (once considered a high normal) has 4 times the risk. Obviously, these risks are nothing new - it's just that nobody knew about them until recently. And, when they were discovered, all doctors did not learn about it at the same time. But even if the board can (a) determine what the athlete's untreated blood pressure actually is, and (b) agree on how high it needs to be to warrant treatment, there is still the issue of what treatment should be used. The general policy is that use of a banned substance should not be allowed if there is an alternative treatment that could be used. Obviously, there are several classes of anti-hypertensives besides diuretics. But there are serious health concerns about some of these, some do not have as well established a track record as diuretics (meaning that there may be as-yet-undiscovered health risks associated with their use), and virtually all of them have side effects which may render them inappropriate for some patients, particularly if those patients also have other health problems. Moreover, some hypertension is so severe that it requires treatment with more than one anti-hypertensive. And there are questions about whether all anti-hypertensives are equally effective in reducing the health risks of essential hypertension. (Note that the term essential hypertension means that the cause of the hypertension is unknown. It is therefore possible that some anti-hypertensives may be treating the cause of the hypertension while others may only be treating the symptoms.) The bottom line is that the review boards are, in the end, in the position of second guessing the athlete's own doctors. A former doctor of mine wrote a diet book, and in the opening chapter, he included the following advice: "It is always prudent for your physician to approve and supervise your diet, and I always so advise, even if you know you are in good health. Your physician knows much more about you than a stranger writing a book . . ." If you substitute the words "review board" for "stranger writing a book", this statement is still valid. I suspect that the reason all of these things have not been a problem for FINA/NCAA/USAS is because hypertension is so rare among the athletes who compete in their events. But this is clearly not going to be the case for USMS. Unless USMS is prepared to have a full-time review board consisting of doctors who have the expertise needed to second guess the treatments of doctors all over the country, USMS would be well-advised to stay away from banning substances (except, perhaps, for those that are illegal even with a prescription). Bob

I bet that many Masters swimmers are taking substances that are on the USADA list. It's suprising what is listed. Over the counter cold meds, dietary supplements, diet aids, diuretics and headache remedies often contain banned substances. Some blood pressure meds and some drugs for menopause symptoms are banned. I bet some Masters swimmers drink a lot of coffee before meets - warmup in a cup.

Originally posted by Bob McAdams ... But this is clearly not going to be the case for USMS. Unless USMS is prepared to have a full-time review board consisting of doctors who have the expertise needed to second guess the treatments of doctors all over the country, USMS would be well-advised to stay away from banning substances (except, perhaps, for those that are illegal even with a prescription). Bob That might come. The F.I.N.A. web site has international Masters rankings, meaning Masters swimming is under the F.I.N.A.'s umbrella. In meets held in meters, U.S.M.S. already obeys to F.I.N.A. in many rules (for example in defining the age of competitors before their birthday, in defining the standard of the pools that hold races, in strokes and technique allowed), but not on a banned list yet. F.I.N.A. doesn't pressure U.S.M.S. to have a list of banned products, because there is no outcry from Olympic and U.S. age group swimmers about performances in U.S.M.S., yet. Yet. For example, in the late 90s, Jessica Foschi (U.S.) -who was knocking at the door of the international stage with 2:03.xx in 200 free Long Course- was banned from the U.S. Swimming for two years for use of a steroid, she competed in U.S.M.S., and all was 'dandy' and 'peachy'. F.I.N.A. was lax even at the Olympic level -never mind the U.S.M.S. level- when East Germans and Chinese were systematically cheating with illegal performance enhancements, and only outcries did make F.I.N.A. act against the widespread use of illegal performance enhancements at the Olympic level. At the Masters swim level, performance enhancement steroids that veterinary doctors prescribe to racing horses or that medical doctors prescribe to humans recovering from cancer and A.I.D.S. -products that are illegal by F.I.N.A. but are legal by U.S.M.S.- are being used and abused in my opinion. I saw swims in all kinds of age groups in U.S.M.S., young and old, -but not direct instances of the act of doping, just swims- that defy the nature in mind boggling ways. A few years ago, in the U.S.M.S. one hour swim, a known triathlete -who I saw starting swimming from zero in another country at the grand age of 22, and is mannish looking now- did 5,050 yards. Only 100 yards less than a recent N.C.A.A. Division I swimmer, who was then in the shape of a 49.3x in 100 yards fly in U.S.M.S. that year, and a 56.xx in 100 meter fly Long Course. That's impossible naturally without illegal -by F.I.N.A.- performance enhancements. And other examples, at U.S.M.S. meets.

I'm too lazy to search for it, but I recall a poll done in here not that long ago where people admitted to using steroids. The percentage was small, but still shocking. You use 'em and you'll get what you deserve.

Originally posted by Bob McAdams Cheating is doing something that's against the rules. Very few rule violations are actually illegal (i.e., against the law). You are right, illegal was the wrong word to use. I should have said against the rules. I know the difference between breaking the law and breaking the rules. I also don't think age means anything, I'd be willing to bet if there were a test, you might find it more common among older swimmers. As you age the body begins to slow down, we all know this. If I could take something AGAINST THE RULES to slow that process, it would be enticing.

I still think using 'rules' to define cheating is a minimal standard, at best. There are many actions that are not against the rules but are still cheating, and ethics and morality play a significant role in determining what is cheating and what is not.

There isn't much left for Master swimmers to take in relation to drugs or performance enhancing chemicals. The growth hormones and the anabolizing hormones could make you "bigger" but at what cost? Amphetamines and the similar diet pills will make you think you're faster and might give you psychological boost but it wouldn't truly make you faster. EPO would be tricky because oxygen depletion isn't that big a deal in swimming as in running or cycling. I mean, the higher hematocrit (quantity of red blood cells) could benefit a middle to long distance runner or cyclist but I can't see it helping much in swimming. I might be wrong here, but I can't remember what drugs would enhance my swimming, but then I am used to putting people to sleep (anesthesia) not making them swim faster or further. billy fanstone