Masters Swimming and Illegal Supplements

First let me say that I am extremely proud of this controversial thread and remain hopeful that it will launch me into the lead for the coveted "Most Controversial Thread" award for 2005/2006.... :-) Second, to be more clear what my intentions were when I started this thread....... I was aiming the discussion toward banned substances in USS Swimming (and/or FINA) that promote real significant benefits beyond your normal GNC vitamin, protein powder regime. I'm talking REAL cheating here..... steriods, human growth hormone, THG, EPO and other designer drugs on the leading edge that as we have all heard are out there but not yet tested for yet. I was not as focused on albuterol (asthma medications), caffeine, nose sprays and other misc. stimulants we've heard about. As an asthmatic, I have found little benefit during workouts if I take a "hit" on it to cure an attack, but that's just me. Muscle growth and EPO like supplements and drugs to me seem more of a concern. John Smith

Originally posted by aquageek What a bunch of crap! Did the manufacturere hold the guy's mouth open and force him to take the "supplement?" A person who's foolish enough to roll the dice with unregulated substances should be prepared for potential consequences. Typical reaction - sue the manufacturer, refuse to take personal responsibility. While suits against manufacturers are often crazy, if someone sells a product with a list of ingredients, but actually includes unlisted ingredients that are illegal in the product I don't see why they should not be held liable for the consequences. If your local bakery started putting a little bit of rat poison in every loaf of bread I doubt you would take the view that it was a matter of personal responsibility on the part of the bread consumer. Btw, I believe that the courts have already awarded the swimmer in question damages.

Originally posted by gull80 Again I would refer you to the list on the WADA website. In the first place, the majority of the drugs listed are clearly performance enhancing (anabolic steroids, growth hormone, etc.), and very few, if any, Masters swimmers are using these to treat a legitimate medical condition. Craig, aren't some of the perfomance enhancing drugs used with AIDS patients to prevent certain types of wasting or something along those lines?

I know I would be pretty upset if my one-a-days contained illegal performance enhancing drugs. This is a long standing disagreement between Geek and me. I fail to understand why the individual should be held to a higher standard of responsibility than a corporation, whos actions usually affect a very large number of people.

This question is more complicated for Masters swimmers than it is for USA swimmers. Why? Because Masters swimmers take a variety of medications for legitimate health reasons. Several medications may have performance enhancing qualities. Others may inhibit performance. I'm assuming this question is not directed toward those people, but unfortunately, drug testing in Masters swimming would include people who take medications for health reasons. Does USMS want to send a message to those swimmers that they cannot take the medications they need for their health? No. Aside from records, what incentives do Masters swimmers have to take performance enhancing drugs that are not required for their health? College scholarships? Endorsements? Olympics? In most cases, probably not. Personally, I'm really more of a fitness swimmer pretending to be a competitor -- so other people setting records is not something that affects me. In my opinion, if a Masters swimmer wants to take a performance enhancing drug with so little incentive, they already suffer the appropriate consequences. They have to look at themselves in the mirror each day. They also have to take responsibility for any health consequences these performance enhancing drugs may have. ~SB

Originally posted by Bob McAdams Unfortunately, the policy doesn't address what happens if an athlete ingests trace amounts of a banned substance by eating food (rather than supplements). How many athletes have been banned for this? Even the most creative of busted athletes aren't using this lame excuse. I did see an interesting segment on Real Sports about some bike rider that is claiming his positive blood test resulted from something called a "vanishing" twin. Maybe he should have gone with the Bob McAdams excuse - a cow ate a hemp plant and my hamburger was loaded with THC and I got busted.

Originally posted by gull80 Right. That's like the patient we saw recently who explained his positive tox screen (for cocaine) on the fact that he was in a room with other people who were abusing the drug (but he of course was not). In a previous life, I handled the liability insurance for a drug screening company. One lady sued the company claiming a false positive for cocaine because she ate a poppyseed bagel prior to the test. I can't recall the final outcome but we hired another lab that said she would have to eat a few dozen poppysee bagels to have this actually happen. Maybe what she meant was she was sprinkling cocaine on her poppyseed bagel before eating it.

Originally posted by aquageek Here you go Bob, straight from an article in today's NYT on something called bitter orange: The F.D.A. does not require manufacturers of dietary supplements to prove that the products are safe and effective before they are sold. We can parse right versus expectation all day but the simple fact remains that these supplements are not drugs, not regulated and many times not safe. But, feel free to part with you hard earned dollars to take them. Wrong again! You are correct that supplements are not drugs and are therefore not (as the NYT article said) required to spend millions of dollars proving safety and efficacy to the FDA. But they are regulated in the same way that foods are. And that means that they are required by law to list ingredients. Since you've brought up the whole subject of FDA regulation of drugs, I should clarify the situation for those who may not be familiar with the process. When a company wants to introduce a new drug, the first thing they do is patent it, which gives them exclusive rights to produce it for 18 years. They then begin the long and expensive process of carrying out studies to prove its safety and efficacy to the FDA's satisfaction. Note that it is not enough just to prove that the drug is safe. They must also, to the FDA's satisfaction, prove its efficacy in treating some disease. The drug manufacturer essentially gambles that they will complete this process with enough of their 18 year patent left to recoup the millions of dollars they have spent satisfying the FDA's standards before the patent expires and other companies are allowed to compete by producing generic versions of the same drug. What is ironic about this is that once a drug has received approval for treating some disease, doctors are free to prescribe it for any reason they choose, regardless of whether the disease it is being used to treat is one for which it has received FDA approval. Thus, we can have two drugs, which we'll call A and B, both of which have been shown to be safe, but neither of which have been proven, to the FDA's satisfaction, to be effective in treating disease X. But because drug A has been proven, to the FDA's satisfaction, to be efficacious in treating another disease, a doctor can prescribe it for the treatment of disease X, but he cannot prescribe drug B for treatment of the same disease, even though there may be more evidence that drug B is beneficial in treating disease X, and even though drug B may actually be in use for that purpose in other countries. Industry experts have estimated that the cost of gaining approval for a new drug would be substantially reduced if the manufacturer only had to demonstrate safety, leaving it to doctors to determine whether its efficacy had been adequately demonstrated for a particular disease before prescribing it. As it is, the additional costs of proving efficacy are passed along to consumers in the form of high drug prices. If supplements were to be regulated in the same way, there would be one important difference: Supplements, by definition, cannot be patented. Consequently, a manufacturer who spent millions of dollars demonstrating a supplement's safety and efficacy to the FDA's satisfaction would never be able to recoup their expenses, since they would have no period of exclusive right to production during which they could charge an inflated price. Bob

Originally posted by aquageek A consumer has an expectation, which is substantially different than a right. True. That is why we have laws to define the difference. And the law says that manufacturers of supplements have to list the ingredients. That means that, in the U.S. at least, consumers do have the legal right to expect that all ingredients will be listed on the label. And if they aren't, and the consumer suffers damages because of it, the consumer has the right to sue the manufacturer. Of course, if a manufacturer is selling a food or supplement that contains an illegal drug, then the responsible individuals may have more of a debt to pay than just the proceeds of a lawsuit. I, personally, have an expectation that anyone who puts unregulated stuff in their body probably doesn't give a flip about their personal well being, or, is willing to take a risk. Except that, as I noted previously, supplements are not unregulated. It's true that they aren't regulated as drugs by the FDA. But they are subject to the same regulations that apply to foods. The Coca Cola company, for example, can't just manufacture their product without filtering out the small amounts of cocaine that are found in the coca leaves, and if they did, they'd be legally liable. The same principle applies to manufacturers of nutritional supplements. Bob

Originally posted by Bob McAdams Industry experts have estimated that the cost of gaining approval for a new drug would be substantially reduced if the manufacturer only had to demonstrate safety, leaving it to doctors to determine whether its efficacy had been adequately demonstrated for a particular disease before prescribing it. As it is, the additional costs of proving efficacy are passed along to consumers in the form of high drug prices. If supplements were to be regulated in the same way, there would be one important difference: Supplements, by definition, cannot be patented. Consequently, a manufacturer who spent millions of dollars demonstrating a supplement's safety and efficacy to the FDA's satisfaction would never be able to recoup their expenses, since they would have no period of exclusive right to production during which they could charge an inflated price. Efficacy is established through clinical trials, allowing physicians to practice evidence-based medicine (rather than relying strictly on their own experience or anecdotal reports). The term "efficacy," as applied to supplements, is an oxymoron. Most randomized clinical trials of supplements have failed to show a clinically significant benefit, and in many cases have demonstrated risk.