Y ask Y: Following are two thoughtful posts from the Masterstf Mailing List on egroups. They address doping issues in masters track but have application to the wider discussion of drugs in elite track. Ken Stone After reading Milan's unabashed "solutions" and conclusions on the Olympic drug events, I must weigh in. Even at the risk of alienating some readers with potentially excessive background and detail, I'm venturing out to acquaint all readers with some background on Kathy's "doping" conviction of 1999. My purpose is to assert a contrasting opinion that athletes---masters athletes in particular---cannot accept without question the rules promulgated by those who would be our regulators. In research that I have done since Kathy's suspension (for using methyltestosterone as part of her prescribed Hormone Replacement Therapy) I have not found, nor has anyone in the IOC, USOC, IAAF, WAVA, or USATF medical regulatory hierarchies been able to provide me, any evidence of a linkage between the trace amounts of this medicine and performance enhancement. Moreover, from a sample, the laboratories (and adjudicating bodies) are admittedly unable to determine whether the presence of a very small amount of methyl (such as is documented in Kathy's prescribed HRT regimen) represents the residual of having taken a large amount of hormone at some time in the recent past, or a small amount taken on a daily basis. So instead of establishing such a foundation before promulgating a testing procedure, regulatory bodies just simply ban methyltestosterone altogether. Now as far as regular testosterone is concerned, these same bodies HAVE established a threshold: the presence of more than six times a "normal range" is considered doping. Interestingly in Kathy's case, not only did she NOT test out as having six times the normal range, the addition of her methyltestosterone medicine merely lifted her into a "normal" testosterone range for post menopausal women of her age. Certain conclusions about this medicine and athletics become inescapable: a) There is no evidence linking minute (however determined) amounts of methyltestosterone with athletic performance enhancement. Such a linkage, one should expect, would be the very starting foundation for any specific athlete drug policy. b) Were a linkage (however doubtful) ever established, it would be most important to unequivocally determine whether or not a threshold exists below which no performance enhancement occurs. c) Neither the linkage, nor the threshold, nor the testing procedures which carefully follow and apply these data exists. Instead, as a convenience to the regulatory bodies, notwithstanding the considerable inconvenience and injustice for the athlete, a simple rule-of-detection-only, and one-size-fits-all is the myopic response. Certainly, it is a righteous and uplifting feeling to sound the clarion call for total ban, for all athletes, at all competitions and competition levels, of any kind of drug, used for whatever purpose, that the regulatory bodies pronounce as unfit. But the implications for athletes are really more involved than such a simple declaration. And living with one of those athletes who endures debilitations that are easily solved by unnecessarily prohibited medicines, and who has been stripped of honors fairly achieved, has generated some new perspectives indeed. At the very least, doping procedures, as they relate to the Masters athlete, are wrongheaded and are applied without adequate foundation. I enlist everyone's support for a complete reevaluation and restructure, with appropriate exemptions as warranted in the interim. And I'll reiterate Milan's invitation too: "Other opinions are welcome". Carl Jager Carl Jager's thoughtful contribution to the "drugs" debate prompts me to share with a wider audience another argument that I have tried out on a couple of contributors, privately. Kathy J's tribulations were the impetus for me to think more about the need for different standards for masters athletes. In 1998, I had a hemorrhagic stroke. I was very fortunate, in that the lasting effects have been minimal. I am able to compete. But I am less competive than pre-stroke, in large part because one of the medications that have lowered my b.p. by 20 (upper figure) and 10 (lower) points _also_ slows blood circulation to the extremities, by slowing down the heart. In other words, it adds what I conservatively estimate (taking age into account, and projecting the trend for the previous 10 years) is 1 sec per 100 meters: 2 full seconds in the 200, which was my "best," pre-1998 (although not that great). The beta-blocker makes me slower. Imagine my surprise, then, to discover, in picking up the card with the list of prohibited substances at Eugene, that metoprolol (the b-b) is banned. Why? Apparently because, I learned, target shooters and archers take it to slow down the heeart, and shoot between beats, which they believe enhances their accuracy. (I also take another banned substance, a diuretic, for my b.p. And we know why this is banned.) Now, no one is ever likely to test me. (Except, perhaps, for my sanity, in continuing to compete when I do so, so poorly.) But I enjoy it--for all the reasons that some of you have described so well. But my discovery that my taking of a pharmeceutical that actually _inhibits_ my performance, but at the same time enables me to continue to run "competitively," would make me ineligible (like Kathy J.) if testing took place and common standards were enforced, has persuaded me that we simply have to have some sanity in these matters, and standards that take into account that 56-yr old women and 63-yr old men may have needs that are different from 25- and 30-year olds. The key would seem to be "performance-enhancing". Cold meds aside (and I know that there are always those who will use this as an excuse, but suspect they are few among masters competitors), and the use of diuretics to mask other drugs conceded, can't we develop some kind of realistic tests that use a simple criterion: is this performance-enhancing? Are there masters performers who use drugs? Sure. I know some, and hear rumors of others--some of them national class. (But I think it irresponsible to share these, or to speculate about performances--as I do about wondering publicly about Olympic competitors who pull out with injuries, suggesting that the "real" reason is impending drug busts.) People will do stupid things to their bodies, to gain a few tenths of a second in the sprints, some inches in the long jump, or a meter in the discus. And "better" drugs are being developed, even as we write and work out. No way we can stop this, without dramatically changing masters t&f. But, if there's going to be testing at some meets, then we ought to be able to dope out (no pun) ways of building in options, for medical reasons (and perhaps others). I'd wear a note from my physician, pinned to my shirt, if necessary. This has gone one too long. But I thought this different spin might be useful for the needed debate. Bob Hassenger (63)
