I'm always happy when drug cheats are caught but given USADA's limited resources shouldn't we be focusing on the pro athletes. Or maybe this sets an example??
I'm always happy when drug cheats are caught but given USADA's limited resources shouldn't we be focusing on the pro athletes. Or maybe this sets an example??
What about Scots Pine Oil which is reputed to have natural sources of testosterone in it. From the Scots Pine tree. Will this test a person positive?
https://woodlandessence.com/products/scots-pine-pollen?variant=32557362446
rojo wrote:
I'm always happy when drug cheats are caught but given USADA's limited resources shouldn't we be focusing on the pro athletes. Or maybe this sets an example??
The article doesn't say what initiated the investigation. Given that Beyer complied with the investigation and confessed, it is unlikely USADA had to work very hard. Likely, USADA did not initiate the investigation. This is probably a case of inside information or anonymous reporting.
There is a case a few years ago of a masters athlete writing on slowtwitch or some other endurance forum about the PED program he was on. Users found his post history and results, forwarded the information to USADA, he was tested (dirty), and banned. USADA didn't initiate anything, didn't have to spend too many resources, and the case served to enforce the rules across the board. I'll try to find it.
In this case, we don't know enough to say USADA went too far out of their way. All we know is one more doper has been caught.
Here's the case:
http://www.velonews.com/2016/03/news/michael-buckley-41-handed-four-year-doping-ban_399868The incriminating thread is now gone, but here is what was posted on elitefitness.com forums:
So again, that case could bring the same question of "Why would USADA spend resources tracking this guy down?" In reality, he was served to USADA on a silver platter.
The issue of testing at masters events or even testing masters who are not pros (keep in mind that in some sports people can have much longer careers--archery, shooting, equestrian) has been around for a long time. Also the testing is not the most expensive part, it is adjudicating positive tests that are the cost killers.
I could agree with the argument that USADA only worry about pros and high level amateurs who stand to make international teams and not worry about 56 year triathletes or cyclists (although cycling often has prize money).
I take the opposite opinion:
1) I believe that everybody has a right to fair competition - it isn't something that should just be granted to the elites.
2) For masters runners, money and USATF titles can be at stake. There are some races that pay $1000 to the top master. Doesn't that justify testing, if your focus is on only testing the "high level"?
3) Corruption at lower levels has a subconscious effect, and the mentality can carry over to a higher level.
What I would like to see is an "opt-in" system for runners at races. Basically, when you register, you check a box that IDs you as either competitive or recreational. If you're competitive, then you're eligible for age group awards, overall awards, and qualifying for Boston, NY, etc, otherwise you're not.
If you check competitive, then you also agree to comply with the USADA regs, not get stuff handed to you on course, not get outside assistance, not run with headphones, etc.
If you check recreational, then go ahead and supplement for low T, have your friends hand you stuff or pace you, etc. You won't get any award or BQ, but you'll get your medal and t-shirt.
+1
Yeah....No one is gonna lie....Human beings are basically honest...
This falls on the athlete. He should have known to apply for the TUE.
This is the best way to hit that 0.1% quota of positive tests.
truthseakr wrote:
YMMV wrote:
+1
Yeah....No one is gonna lie....Human beings are basically honest...
I guess I don't see your point. You either are:
1) competitive, in which case you have to comply with the doping and outside assistance rules, and will get tested/dqed.
or
2) recreational, in which case you don't have to comply, won't get tested or DQed, but can't win anything.
It seems like you're implying that someone might "lie" by checking the recreational box to get out of being tested. But that's the very point. If you check recreational, then you're allowed to take whatever you want, in exchange for not being eligible to win any AG or overall awards, or to use the time to qualify for other races.
No, we need drug testing on AG athletes as well, especially in triathlon when Kona slots etc are on the line. Kevin Moats was recently busted a second time and was 3rd in his AG in Kona this year, meaning he robbed someone of a chance at the podium which is a lifetime goal for many. IMO top 3 in all AG should always be tested.
Alldopers wrote:
No, we need drug testing on AG athletes as well, especially in triathlon when Kona slots etc are on the line. Kevin Moats was recently busted a second time and was 3rd in his AG in Kona this year, meaning he robbed someone of a chance at the podium which is a lifetime goal for many. IMO top 3 in all AG should always be tested.
Or just stop paying into Ironman branded races and the qualifying scheme they call the "world championships"
"Qualifying" based on place is stupid. There really needs to be a way to have a time based qualification.
Giving masters athletes a 4 year ban is irrelevant. Ban them totally. the 40 year old category is just a step along the way to the 60 year category
Masters in the know wrote:
This falls on the athlete. He should have known to apply for the TUE.
A TUE still gives you an advantage over your rivals. Should I be given a TUE because I have an inefficient running form?
harry wales wrote:
Masters in the know wrote:
This falls on the athlete. He should have known to apply for the TUE.
A TUE still gives you an advantage over your rivals. Should I be given a TUE because I have an inefficient running form?
More than likely I would guess it would give an advantage. And now USADA has a new Recreational Competitor TUE (RCTUE) policy exclusively for testosterone & steroids that was implemented a couple of years ago. However, you supposedly have to promise to lose races - so you may not have an advantage over your rivals after all...go figure. ?
http://roidvisor.com/usada-permits-recreational-athletes-use-anabolic-steroids-long-promise-lose-races/If there were money at stake, then okay. But maybe there needs to be a different organization to cover amateur athletes with more forgiving policies?
I like your opt in option and in some ways that exists. To win the USATF masters you have to be a USATF member. I think it was a couple of years ago that Matt Carpenter won the CO USATF championship but could not collect the money or title because he was not a USATF member. In triathlon it is a little trickier as there are few triathlons not sanctioned by USAT and membership is required to compete.
The fair competition for all is the argument USADA has used to expand its mission.
harry wales wrote:
Masters in the know wrote:
This falls on the athlete. He should have known to apply for the TUE.
A TUE still gives you an advantage over your rivals. Should I be given a TUE because I have an inefficient running form?
No. It gives a competitor who is at a disadvantage equal footing with his peers. Similarly, you are allowed to improve your sh!tty running form.
theJeff wrote:
harry wales wrote:
A TUE still gives you an advantage over your rivals. Should I be given a TUE because I have an inefficient running form?
No. It gives a competitor who is at a disadvantage equal footing with his peers. Similarly, you are allowed to improve your sh!tty running form.
If you mention this over at the 50+ Masters Training/Racing Forum they get all bent out of shape though.
darkwave wrote:
I take the opposite opinion:
1) I believe that everybody has a right to fair competition - it isn't something that should just be granted to the elites.
2) For masters runners, money and USATF titles can be at stake. There are some races that pay $1000 to the top master. Doesn't that justify testing, if your focus is on only testing the "high level"?
The problem with this is that each test will cost a race about $1000 to administer. So, with a limited budget of $1000, you could do one test and have no prize money. Or have a $1000 prize without testing.