gsteinb

No, it really doesn't. You repeatedly saying a posting a position doesn't make it so.

The rules are simple, no matter how complex bodies are.

There's a storied history of exceptions being taken advantage of. And the line of what constitutes 'low T' has clearly moved over time, driven by egotism, drug companies, and unscrupulous doctors.

Bottom line racing isn't a right. You don't need to race.

canuckbelle

I just can't even...

The rules *do* allow for some medical uses of testosterone. The rule was posted in this thread. So your saying "The rules are simple..." with the message that racing while taking testosterone is impermissible is manifestly *false*.

So maybe you're saying it's unethical even though the rules allow it. And I'm pushing you on your reasoning. You're not really coming up with much, though.

globecanvas

I think it's interesting that in this case, and the HCT ceiling, the rules define fair play as a biological range of normalcy, rather than the absence of doping. There will obviously be people who naturally fall outside of these ranges in both cases. Barring outliers from competition is apparently the cost of leveling the playing field, in the view of whoever is making these particular rules.

canuckbelle

Wait, what? No outliers on the high side are being barred from competition (for men, at least). Where are you seeing that? Men who 'naturally' have very high values of various features enjoy a competitive advantage that isn't deemed 'unfair.'

Also, do you mean to suggest that those who naturally fall well below a range are barred from competition (since they're also an 'outlier')? Surely not, right?

globecanvas

Female athletes who exceed the maximum testosterone level are barred, right? That was the question I asked, and I thought you responded in the affirmative. And any athlete that exceeds the HCT ceiling is barred. So that's two examples of outliers on the high side being barred from competition regardless of the cause. In one example the rule only applies to females, but that's a separate issue from what is interesting to me, which is that fair play is being defined biologically rather than by the athlete's behavior.


No, I'm not suggesting that. In both of these examples, the range is defined only as a maximum, not a minimum.

canuckbelle

Regarding the latter, the reason I raise that is I thought one thing we're talking about is whether those who fall well below the minimum should be allowed testosterone if it's for a medically recognized condition for which testosterone is a recognized treatment. And that strikes me as acceptable and fair. It doesn't give a competitive advantage.

I wonder if there's some conflation: you only get to compete with your body as it is, and that defines fairness. That strikes me as an odd view of "fair." But maybe that's the view some are putting forward?

globecanvas

These are obviously not simple questions to answer. If the rules of fair play are defined as a biological maximum of normalness, does that imply that exogenous methods to increase levels (of T, HCT, or whatever) up to some undefined biological minimum are acceptable? Does it also imply that methods to increase levels right up to that maximum are also acceptable? It's well documented that before the EPO test, athletes would carefully manage doping to get HCT right up to the ceiling without going through it, as if they were playing blackjack.

globecanvas

Today's news:

banned-cyclist-hastings-cites-borrowed-used-syringe-as-reason-for-failed-steroids-test

junior-time-trial-champion-gabriel-evans-admits-epo-use

canuckbelle

I agree that these are *very* difficult questions to answer. But I balk at overly simplistic claims like "If you're taking testosterone for any reason, you aren't allowed to race." That strikes me as wrong and lacking the necessary nuance.

My provisional position is that it's acceptable to bring someone up, due to a medical condition, to *within* the 'normal' biological range. Maybe the way to do that is to bring someone up to the bottom third of the range (and set that as the 'maximum' exogenous level). I think the bottom of the range itself is probably too low. Exogenous hormones are often less effective at a given concentration than endogenous ones.

gsteinb

There was an outlier case that was posted. Prior to that things were more clear cut. I had no awareness of that until this thread. That said, if someone can get a TUE then it clearly isn't illegal. It's also obviously pretty hard to do so. The question really is where's the line. Should someone be allowed to go from low to the upper end of normal? Should someone with a low ftp allowed to be take epo to raise it? Should the women you're crushing be allowed help to balance out your superior sprint? Perhaps we should all race on equal equipment?

Seems to me that in the complexity of the questions the wisest and fairest course remains to be to disallow such practices.

canuckbelle

These are exactly the important questions that need to be asked *and* answered. Unfortunately, there's clear evidence that the UCI (and IOC/IAAF) haven't given them enough thought. There's a human rights case taking on the IOC and UCI in Canada right now over this very issue.

But you can't run this slippery slope argument and just leave it at that. We think some things are fair to compensate, but others are not. And sometimes it's not clear why we draw the lines where we do, but we do have to draw them somewhere. The hope is that we come up with some principled reasons for doing so. That's exactly what the Karkazis et al paper is about.

gsteinb

and who is monitoring those numbers? all you need to do is fudge them. Armstrong got a back dated TUE for a cortisone script, surely people can get a report that says they have low T, and then show it's raised to the lower 1/3 while in reality they were normal and are now off the charts…and they have an excuse for testing positive to boot.

canuckbelle

Armstrong didn't get a TUE. He got a backdated prescription, and there's PLENTY of reason to think that the UCI was knowingly engaging in foul play w/ that and Armstrong's failed doping tests.

It's not easy to get a report documenting low T due to a diagnosable medical condition. It's not easy at all. Why do you say that? It seems like you're making things up.

globecanvas

The impression I had before getting involved in this conversation was that a TUE for testosterone was basically as simple as getting a doctor to sign off on a particular diagnosis, which as anybody knows is very easy to get. Reading more about it, it seems like it's not that easy after all.

gsteinb

I know of a local doctor who's going to trail for illegal practices related to any aging drugs. I'd imagine it wouldn't be too hard for such a guy to do such things, if he's willing to do one illegal thing why not another?

and yeah, back dated script, which got him the TUE.

canuckbelle

This is true for ANY policy. The mere possibility (or rare occurrence) of exploiting a policy shouldn't stop us. And getting an endocrinologist to document and sign off on a diagnosable medical condition would not be merely as simple as you suggest. Sure it *could* happen...but...meh. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. It would be quite difficult.

globecanvas

USADA sure makes it sound difficult, anyway -- certainly harder than just getting your doctor to play along.

https://www.usada.org/wp-content/uplo...stosterone.pdf

gsteinb

Seems GC and I both think it's much simpler than you do (getting a doctor to fudge things).

It should be very hard to get such exemptions to race.

The pros have demonstrated a propensity for exploiting every loop hole. There's no doubt, given the clamoring for testing, that there are amateurs who would similarly exploit the rules.

canuckbelle

I think you misread GC's comments.

gsteinb

"getting a doctor to sign off on a particular diagnosis, which as anybody knows is very easy to get."

this says exactly what I said as well.

globecanvas

As I wrote, that's what I thought before getting involved in this conversation. Reading more today (just internet browsing while "at work"), it sounds like it's not that simple at all.

canuckbelle

Dude...wow. Read the first part of the sentence "The impression I had before getting involved in this conversation" and then what comes after "Reading more about it, it seems like it's not that easy after all."

Super awesome selective quoting, though. You could work for Fox News.

gsteinb

shrug. I know people who go to anti aging clinics. I know a guy who worked in one. wink wink nod nod low T.

gsteinb

TUE is hard to get
getting the doctor to sign off on a diagnosis not so hard.

if he didn't mean that, it's certainly not clear.

easy on the P&R

canuckbelle

Getting an endocrinologist? Nah, that's harder than you're making it out. Getting some random family physician? Maybe easier...but that wouldn't count.

Is it impossible to find a corrupt endo to sign off? Of course not. But it's very hard. And that sounds like exactly the thing we'd want from a robust policy.