51-Year-Old Recreational Masters Runner Tests Positive For Doctor Prescribed DHEA, Gets 1-Year Drug Ban

pointon wrote:

you guys have to be careful with the accusations - I am 47, I've been running for 35 years and truly I've barely lost a step since my teens. And I don't take anything - not even ibuprofen.

I'm starting to get regionally fast - I ran 17:15 for 5k and 1:20 for a half marathon this year - which weren't great times when I was in my 20s but now I am starting to win age groups in larger races.

Some people, myself included, just haven't been hit by aging virtually at all - it's just luck - no drugs needed.

I

I do believe you. But, if you're running those times 5 years from now, I'm sorry, but I'll be suspicious.

Enjoy the waning embers of your youth. If you continue to run, you'll be healthy and, increasingly, ahead of the median of your peers, but, unless you are one in 100 million (Ed Whitlock...), you can expect some precipitous declines. It's OK. You can still be great for your age. That's why we have age groups in competition. But, you, above all, should be in favor of nabbing the many many masters cheaters out there.

I[/quote]

I do believe you. But, if you're running those times 5 years from now, I'm sorry, but I'll be suspicious.

I will be 52 and I hope to be running comparative times to 17:15. or better That is the biggest problem with this sport. If you run well people are suspicious? What kind of reward for working hard is that?

That is why I'm for more testing. If you place top 3 in a USA Masters track Championship you should be tested. They better be patient because it might take me a while to pee after a race and don't even think about getting in the way of my cool down.

Yes, but what were you running at 47? What were you running at 27? My point is that people slow down, they're supposed to. When they don't, then I'm suspicious.

And you make a good point: A lack of effective testing is most damning to those who are achieving their performances cleanly.

My point, to repeat, is that HRT is so common among older Americans these days, that, whether their intention is to cheat or not, many masters are running much faster than they would without medical assistance. And that that fact is harmful to the integrity of the sport whether someone is doing so at 25 or at 55.

I am a 51 year old woman who ran a 1:22:xx 1/2 and a low 2:50 marathon this year. I take no drugs, no hormones, etc…I train hard, I started running competitively later in life, I'm determined and motivated, I have good genes, etc…Sometimes there are those athletes that defy what we know as aging. It's sad to me that accomplished Master/Senior runners are now under the microscope and perhaps feeling defensive about their hard earned race placing and awards. Not everyone fits the "mold".

You are missing several basic points:1) USADA accepted her documentation that her DHEA usage was not for performance enhancement. She did not cheat.2) She was accused by some other 50-something post-menopausal women for taking drugs to steal prize money, or maybe just glory and bragging rights. Her non-competitive times suggest she is not. If she wins prize money, it's only because no one better bothered to show up.3) She was accused of being "disingenuous". This is a question of her "expectation". Should she reasonably expect to be tested by USADA?- she is a non-USATF runner- she describes herself as "not elite"- if she saw the website at all, indicating USADA would be there, she likely thought, like 2000 other race participants, that has nothing to do with her. She is amused and bewildered because she knows she's not that good. She got in the top 10, because there really was no competition.4) This was not a "masters competition".

say no to epo wrote:

If you want to run because you love to run then go for it. If you want to take any substance in the world for your health or your vanity that is fine.

But if you stand on the start line of a race you should be agreeing to compete by the rules. There is no difference in cheating methods. Would people be forgiving her if she had taken a short cut?

Competition is competition whether you are 9 or 109. What makes "elite" runners' races more important than masters competition as far as being contested fairly?

I don't care if Kristi wants to run whatever mountain trails she wants but if she is competing there are rules. No one is stopping her from running but they should stop her from cheating in races.

Things are a little bit different for women, but your times, according to age graded calculators, put you under 2:20 and 1:07. You are either

1. one in a hundred million

2. As good as, if not better than, Joan Benoit Samuelson

2.5 Joanie herself, fudging her times a bit

3. A troll

4. Lying about at least one of the 'facts' in your post.

If what you're saying is true, you're one of only a handful or so women. I won't pursue this further, but, yes, I'm skeptical.

Let me ask you: If you had a chance to talk to Justin Gatlin and he said to you: "I never took drugs, and, even if I did, inadvertently, I know now, after the 2014 season, that a clean Justin Gatlin can run under 9.7, because I know I didn't do drugs this year" what would you say in response?

Do you think Paula was clean? If so, do you harbor any doubts?

Yes. It sucks, that there are, possibly, WR holders who are clean and whose performances are doubted. But if you're outperforming talented, hard working cheaters, then, I can't help but be skeptical.

Sorry.

Yikes! I read the whole thread. Did you?I actually didn't read her website, but this thread reported that she described herself as "enjoying competitive running". Not quite the same as actually being a "competitive runner". In any case, her times say something else. She is "enjoying competitive running" as a spectator behind the "competitive runners".She only wins or places in her age group when it is not competitive.Maybe she knows DHEA is on the banned list, but did she know she was subject to these rules? Was she actually "advised" there would be USADA testing?

I'm Convinced. wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

I'm remain unconvinced. Despite her website, biology degree, and her physiotherapy background (all very compelling arguments to be sure), this is a "recreational" lady not really expecting to place in any masters standings with any depth.

Are you another total friggin idiot who hasn't read the thread. On her website she classes herself as a "competitive runner", she's also won and placed in her age group, depth or otherwise, and she looks like a cut "competitive runner":

http://masterstrack.com/2014/12/33461/

When you work in the health industry, have biology and physical therapy degrees, experienced runner, advised of possible testing at race, etc, etc, how could you not have just the very slightest of inklings that DHEA might be a PED and maybe, just maybe on the banned list?

She unexpectedly got pinged, hard luck. Good on the race organizers.

endorphins wrote:

I am a 51 year old woman who ran a 1:22:xx 1/2 and a low 2:50 marathon this year. I take no drugs, no hormones, etc…I train hard, I started running competitively later in life, I'm determined and motivated, I have good genes, etc…Sometimes there are those athletes that defy what we know as aging. It's sad to me that accomplished Master/Senior runners are now under the microscope and perhaps feeling defensive about their hard earned race placing and awards. Not everyone fits the "mold".

This is great for you. There's an excellent chance you would have been capable of running much faster in your 20's had you been competing at the same level. So your times today may reflect a more normal dropoff in performance from what you were capable at a younger age.

Some masters work harder now than at at 27. Don't project your experience.

Link - I will say, that I meant I ran a marathon in the low 2:50's…a 2:52. Though I think I can run a 2:50 (or below). The only thing I take is liquid Iron, and I'm not even good about that! So, I guess I'm 1 in a hundred million. And Joanie has run faster than me.

rekrunner wrote:

she described herself as "enjoying competitive running". Not quite the same as actually being a "competitive runner".

So you can't be a "competitive runner" and enjoy it?, another law according to rekrunner to suit his argument. Sorry, but you really are "another total friggin idiot".

Look, it doesn't matter what her intent is/was. She was taking a substance that was giving her an unfair advantage in competition. End of story.

For all the masters runners on here who are saying "I can run x.xx now and I only take my Geritol." Please stfu and realize that you probably could have run a lot faster in your 20's if you trained hard. You were probably working hard and maybe raising a family, so you didn't put in all the miles, etc. We get it.

HOWEVER, if you did train hard and you are faster (as fast) at 47 than 27, you are almost certainly full of sh!t and you are dirty. Without exception, everyone who has followed this path at the elite level was found to be dirty - Regina, Eddy, etc.

I don't want to hear a bunch of crap about better shoes (they're not), faster tracks, nutrition. That all helps to limit decline. The only thing that stalls aging (or reverses it) is found in a pill, bottle, or needle.

If you're doing it clean, then you should be happy with that. It really only matters to you and a fairly small circle anyway. But given how I've seen people cheat in endurance events (cutting course, etc), then I don't see why someone with disposable income and a sense of entitlement wouldn't cheat. There was a very well known masters runner I knew who faked a disability so that he could take time off of work to train. He even worked in a local shoe store while supposedly too disabled to work his regular job. Why wouldn't he be willing to take a pill? Maybe he had some idiosyncratic code, but I doubt it. I could give a couple of other examples of cheating that I personally witnessed in workouts or races, but I would rather appeal to the reader's experience as my anecdotes are only proof to me.

At times here and other places, I see a type of veneration of "competitive" runners. We all want to believe hard work and persistence can pay off in the end. Because running is hard, we tend to over value it as an activity and to associate certain attributes with runners - even a type of moral superiority/purity. I think this is crap. There are a lot of great endurance athletes that I've known and a good many of them are equally good people. However, almost all of them have a degree of self-involvement that is not entirely healthy and in the right personality type, it wouldn't be hard to go from there to cheating.

How many times have we seen an elite athlete that is likeable and then been burned? It seems like everyone loves Haile G and think he's a great guy because he's approachable and smiles a lot? Do those same people reflect on his relationship with a brutal dictator? Or is it more about how Haile G makes them feel?

It took a few minutes on google to figure out who this is :) You have a similar decline (slowly) through your 40s as I had, which is very good, but very much doable as a clean athlete, I know, I also have good genes and consistent training. Stay healthy and you will continue to ascend the all-time lists, and when you reach the 55-59 group, no more of those ugly Russian times ;) Good luck!

Takes one to know one?The fact is, she did not call herself a "competitive runner". Technically you lied.While "enjoying competitive running" and "competitive runner" can overlap, the two statements are different. You can be both, but one does not imply the other. If you have to mis-state the reality to make a point, maybe it's because your point doesn't stand otherwise.1) You misrepresented what her website said. Just pointing out what you said is factually incorrect.2) "Freedom of speech" gives her a broad right to declare what she wants about herself on a website. Whatever she self-declares, finishing 40 minutes behind a 50 year old women does not make her a very "competitive runner" in any "masters competitions". But of course she can enjoy it anyway.

I'm Convinced wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

she described herself as "enjoying competitive running". Not quite the same as actually being a "competitive runner".

So you can't be a "competitive runner" and enjoy it?, another law according to rekrunner to suit his argument. Sorry, but you really are "another total friggin idiot".

My take away from all this is that we can all take DHEA and compete if we get a TUE waiver. USADA accepted her medical excuse. She was punished for not seeking a waiver.

BoulderMasterRunner wrote:

My take away from all this is that we can all take DHEA and compete if we get a TUE waiver. USADA accepted her medical excuse. She was punished for not seeking a waiver.

Right. I can't quite get how having a doctor's note makes a difference. In theory, the idea is that a doctor says the drug is necessary or at least useful in terms of improving your health but we all know that you can find doctors who will prescribe a drug just because you want it.

As you get older there are all sorts of things that you can't do or can't do as well as you could do it years before. Doing those things better isn't necessarily improving your health, i.e., being able to run a mile in under 6:00 as opposed to under 7:00 doesn't mean you're healthier and actually, there are questions about the long term impact on people's health from most of the "anti-aging" drugs I read about.

Link wrote:

Yes, but what were you running at 47? What were you running at 27? My point is that people slow down, they're supposed to. When they don't, then I'm suspicious.

And you make a good point: A lack of effective testing is most damning to those who are achieving their performances cleanly.

My point, to repeat, is that HRT is so common among older Americans these days, that, whether their intention is to cheat or not, many masters are running much faster than they would without medical assistance. And that that fact is harmful to the integrity of the sport whether someone is doing so at 25 or at 55.

Sub 15:20 at 27, 17:00, at 47, and 17:15 at 55. By LRC standard that's pretty poor. But now it's established that anyone over 50 that goes under 17:30 is on drugs.

This place never ceases to crack me up.

We're talking about procedural knowledge, not biological knowledge. If not for their agents, most of the pros wouldn't even know how to apply for a waiver to clear their allergy meds and stuff. A normal person, who runs slowly and doesn't have an agent, would never be able to find out how to do this, or for that matter, find out that there is anything to do.

The owner of my local crossfit studio describes himself as a "competitive runner" on his website. He is a man in his early 30's with a marathon PR of about 3:15. This lady is about as much of a competitive runner as he is, and the situation is roughly analogous to him unexpectedly winning a local 5K in 18:54 and then being asked to pee in a cup.

Who's she trying to kid? wrote:

It is, on her website she describes herself as enjoying "competitive running" and with her knowledge as mention above regarding occupation, education, etc, she would have known it was giving her competitive edge, disingenuous for her to indicate otherwise.