Tri Talk HomepageTri Talk EventsTri Talk ForumsBlogsTri Talk TrainingTri TradeTriPlayerWikiTeam Tri Talk
No Sh1t sherlock...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TriTalk.co.uk Forum Index -> General
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
blindcider




Joined: 12 Sep 2013
Posts: 264

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 2:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jorgan wrote:
blindcider wrote:

A slight aside; but Insulin requires a TUE and diabetes is a chronic condition. Are you suggesting diabetics shouldn't be allowed to compete?


I was provoking debate Smile

The question is where do you draw the line? If world class athletes are winning big races on TUEs, you have to seriously ask if their health would really be that bad without them. They aren't using them to have a decent quality of life, they are using them to enhance their athletic performance at a world class level. Plain & simple.


So was I.

Steve Redgrave was winning Olympic Gold medals whilst on a TUE (or at least would be required today, I don't know about back then). I think its undeniable that he needed the drugs in order to live but the absolute anti-TUE crowd seem to forget cases like his.

Clearly the rules and oversight around TUEs need to be stricter as do the regulations about what is allowed in/out of competition. IMO if you are a pro athlete actively training then you should be considered in competition during the active season anyway.
_________________
I'm an Enduroman, Greenman, Outlaw, Slateman, Titan and an idiot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jorgan




Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 17467
Location: alles was ich bin, alles was ich war

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

^^ If Steve Redgrave was/is in a genuine life-threatening condition without Insulin in his everyday life, then fair enough.

If someone cannot walk up a flight of steps without the possibility of an asthma attack, then yes, they should absolutely have a prescription for steriods. Could that same person be a world class sportsperson with the prescription. That's what the medical professionals are supposedly there to judge. I am not a sports physician, but the nub of my argument is clear.

We all know this is a loophole that can and is being exploited.
_________________
26 Years since it all began....


Last edited by Jorgan on Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:09 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hammerer
Site Admin



Joined: 19 Nov 2007
Posts: 16553
Location: Right Next Door To Hell

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

blindcider wrote:
Jorgan wrote:
blindcider wrote:

A slight aside; but Insulin requires a TUE and diabetes is a chronic condition. Are you suggesting diabetics shouldn't be allowed to compete?


I was provoking debate Smile

The question is where do you draw the line? If world class athletes are winning big races on TUEs, you have to seriously ask if their health would really be that bad without them. They aren't using them to have a decent quality of life, they are using them to enhance their athletic performance at a world class level. Plain & simple.


So was I.

Steve Redgrave was winning Olympic Gold medals whilst on a TUE (or at least would be required today, I don't know about back then). I think its undeniable that he needed the drugs in order to live but the absolute anti-TUE crowd seem to forget cases like his.

Clearly the rules and oversight around TUEs need to be stricter as do the regulations about what is allowed in/out of competition. IMO if you are a pro athlete actively training then you should be considered in competition during the active season anyway.


everyone has forgotten about Laura Trott as well, but shes nice and pretty so thats OK.
_________________
Blog
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Buzz_




Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess it depends what you think sport is trying to measure. The most naturally gifted? The best trained? The luckiest, the richest?

Should TUEs be allowed to 'level the playing field' or do you just have to work with the allergies or ailments that you have, be they temporary or chronic?

In the end, the governing body sets the rules for the playing field, and the athletes work within those rules. Finding loopholes in any rulebook is a legitimate tactic for most sports, drugs raise more emotions than equipment or even competition tactics but to a professional athlete it amounts to the same thing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pedro Peru




Joined: 19 Apr 2010
Posts: 956
Location: Leeds

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buzz_ wrote:
I guess it depends what you think sport is trying to measure. The most naturally gifted? The best trained? The luckiest, the richest?

Should TUEs be allowed to 'level the playing field' or do you just have to work with the allergies or ailments that you have, be they temporary or chronic?

In the end, the governing body sets the rules for the playing field, and the athletes work within those rules. Finding loopholes in any rulebook is a legitimate tactic for most sports, drugs raise more emotions than equipment or even competition tactics but to a professional athlete it amounts to the same thing.

This is the issue though isn't it. I'm not sure anyone thinks that treating a condition you have is a major issue, at least I don't. The abuse of the system is when exaggerating or creating a condition to enhance performance through the use of TUEs.

Is a cyclist using Triamcinolone to lose weight without muscle loss or to actually treat a respiratory infection? Do a large number of runners within the NOP have hypothyroidism or is the doctor they use creating this to help keep them skinny?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blindcider




Joined: 12 Sep 2013
Posts: 264

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

hammerer wrote:
blindcider wrote:
Jorgan wrote:
blindcider wrote:

A slight aside; but Insulin requires a TUE and diabetes is a chronic condition. Are you suggesting diabetics shouldn't be allowed to compete?


I was provoking debate Smile

The question is where do you draw the line? If world class athletes are winning big races on TUEs, you have to seriously ask if their health would really be that bad without them. They aren't using them to have a decent quality of life, they are using them to enhance their athletic performance at a world class level. Plain & simple.


So was I.

Steve Redgrave was winning Olympic Gold medals whilst on a TUE (or at least would be required today, I don't know about back then). I think its undeniable that he needed the drugs in order to live but the absolute anti-TUE crowd seem to forget cases like his.

Clearly the rules and oversight around TUEs need to be stricter as do the regulations about what is allowed in/out of competition. IMO if you are a pro athlete actively training then you should be considered in competition during the active season anyway.


everyone has forgotten about Laura Trott as well, but shes nice and pretty so thats OK.


Her voice is like nails on a blackboard, kids playing recorders and scraping forks across plates to me so forgetting about Trott is very OK
_________________
I'm an Enduroman, Greenman, Outlaw, Slateman, Titan and an idiot
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tuckandgo




Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 402

PostPosted: Wed Nov 22, 2017 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jorgan wrote:
^^ If Steve Redgrave was/is in a genuine life-threatening condition without Insulin in his everyday life, then fair enough.

If someone cannot walk up a flight of steps without the possibility of an asthma attack, then yes, they should absolutely have a prescription for steriods. Could that same person be a world class sportsperson with the prescription. That's what the medical professionals are supposedly there to judge. I am not a sports physician, but the nub of my argument is clear.

We all know this is a loophole that can and is being exploited.


Interested in your view of a real world example, me ( Smile ) .
And don't worry, I'm thick skinned, never going to win race and the system allows me to enter.

I have bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (basically a fungal growth in my lung, ) and am on some rather nasty antifungals and steroids (pred. , the dosage goes up and down depending on my symptoms)

I started racing triathlons 6 years ago. This was diagnosed 2 years ago and I have been on steroids since. I will be given a TUE if I am tested (I have this confirmed).
I'm sort of front of middle of pack finishing in 10-11hours depending on the course.

Essentially I have a chronic lung condition that has been thoroughly investigated (initially I was told it was cancer) and I am having the appropriate treatment.

Should I
a - be allowed to compete, with my medication and a TUE
b- be allowed to compete if I don't take my medicine
c - not expected to compete as I have a chronic lung condition that means that I have to take medicine

(I appreciate b and c sound similar but there is a different reason for it)

p.p.s. this is nothing to do with my stance on professionals doing everything they can within the rules, I stand by that, and not just for TUEs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Buzz_




Joined: 19 May 2007
Posts: 371

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tuckandgo wrote:
Should I
a - be allowed to compete, with my medication and a TUE
b- be allowed to compete if I don't take my medicine
c - not expected to compete as I have a chronic lung condition that means that I have to take medicine

While I'm firmly in the (a) camp, I think you are missing another option:
(d) be allowed to compete but not eligible for prizes/Kona.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tuckandgo




Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 402

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 8:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buzz_ wrote:
tuckandgo wrote:
Should I
a - be allowed to compete, with my medication and a TUE
b- be allowed to compete if I don't take my medicine
c - not expected to compete as I have a chronic lung condition that means that I have to take medicine

While I'm firmly in the (a) camp, I think you are missing another option:
(d) be allowed to compete but not eligible for prizes/Kona.


That's an interesting one.

In a bizarre bit of human psychology I think I'd feel rather sad entering a race knowing I wasn't eligible to 'win' anything, even if I didn't stand much chance of it. One day I do sort of hope to qualify for Kona as I was improving significantly (ha, that's what they all say Smile ) until I got ill and I am currently hampered by a severe chest infection every 6 months which puts my fitness back to zero. I'd love an 18month+ period of consistent training to see where I could get to.

FWIW - at the higher dosage (20mg) which I was first put on, Pred made a big difference, noticeable almost immediately. (v. rough est of +5% all round after a month) However the side effects were horrible and I was very glad to reduce the dose after 3 months. (15mg)

At a much smaller dose (10mg) it seems to actually hamper performance as your body isn't used to producing cortisol but it isn't a high enough to dose to compensate for this, so energy levels are low and recovery slower.

At 5mg I don't notice any difference to not taking it tbh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jorgan




Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 17467
Location: alles was ich bin, alles was ich war

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tuckandgo wrote:

p.p.s. this is nothing to do with my stance on professionals doing everything they can within the rules, I stand by that, and not just for TUEs.


Yes, but are the rules being abused by elites in the fabrication or exaggeration of any condition, in order to get a TUE granted for performance enhancing purposes?

There are actually several strands to the TUE argument. Instances such as your personal condition & ones like it, the Pro athlete cases, and things like men claiming their T levels are low & they want to level the playing field, boosting to arbitrary levels (this is the easiest one to legislate for).

As always it's who you know, and there are plenty of opportunities for big teams to get sympathetic doctors to support their athletes. Whilst some will argue it's bending the rules, if you falsify official medical documents or make a dishonest diagnosis, then that's illegal... it's not pushing the boundaries.
_________________
26 Years since it all began....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jorgan




Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 17467
Location: alles was ich bin, alles was ich war

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Buzz_ wrote:
tuckandgo wrote:
Should I
a - be allowed to compete, with my medication and a TUE
b- be allowed to compete if I don't take my medicine
c - not expected to compete as I have a chronic lung condition that means that I have to take medicine

While I'm firmly in the (a) camp, I think you are missing another option:
(d) be allowed to compete but not eligible for prizes/Kona.


I would also say 'd' and make sure you signed a disclaimer for each race, because you could argue 'c' was good grounds for you not to compete. This isn't to punish people, it's to make sure everyone is covered, and mindful of the potential consequences.
_________________
26 Years since it all began....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
tuckandgo




Joined: 03 Sep 2012
Posts: 402

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jorgan wrote:
Buzz_ wrote:
tuckandgo wrote:
Should I
a - be allowed to compete, with my medication and a TUE
b- be allowed to compete if I don't take my medicine
c - not expected to compete as I have a chronic lung condition that means that I have to take medicine

While I'm firmly in the (a) camp, I think you are missing another option:
(d) be allowed to compete but not eligible for prizes/Kona.


I would also say 'd' and make sure you signed a disclaimer for each race, because you could argue 'c' was good grounds for you not to compete. This isn't to punish people, it's to make sure everyone is covered, and mindful of the potential consequences.


So what sporting events should people with chronic conditions that require regular medicine (that enables them to lead perfectly functional lives) be allowed to compete in?

Incidentally, I do sign a disclaimer (doesn't everyone?) and I'm clearly functionally able to compete having done Mallorca, Nice and Wales since the diagnosis all at a very respectable pace. I could stop taking my medicine and in the short term it would make no difference to this but in the long term I'd have to have a bit of my lung chopped out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JaRok2300




Joined: 01 May 2014
Posts: 378
Location: Worcester, UK

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In relation to option D, unless athletes are issued with different coloured numbers or something of that nature couldn't it still have a negative impact on the race.

E.g. I blow up chasing someone for that last Kona place that isn't actually eligible for it, resulting in getting passed by people behind who I could have beaten otherwise.

PS. never going to happen in my case so purely hypothetical.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jorgan




Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 17467
Location: alles was ich bin, alles was ich war

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tuckandgo wrote:
Jorgan wrote:
Buzz_ wrote:
tuckandgo wrote:
Should I
a - be allowed to compete, with my medication and a TUE
b- be allowed to compete if I don't take my medicine
c - not expected to compete as I have a chronic lung condition that means that I have to take medicine

While I'm firmly in the (a) camp, I think you are missing another option:
(d) be allowed to compete but not eligible for prizes/Kona.


I would also say 'd' and make sure you signed a disclaimer for each race, because you could argue 'c' was good grounds for you not to compete. This isn't to punish people, it's to make sure everyone is covered, and mindful of the potential consequences.


So what sporting events should people with chronic conditions that require regular medicine (that enables them to lead perfectly functional lives) be allowed to compete in?

Incidentally, I do sign a disclaimer (doesn't everyone?) and I'm clearly functionally able to compete having done Mallorca, Nice and Wales since the diagnosis all at a very respectable pace. I could stop taking my medicine and in the short term it would make no difference to this but in the long term I'd have to have a bit of my lung chopped out.


What I said doesn't stop anyone in your position competing, it simply registers the fact that you're participating with a pre-existing medical condition, for which you have a TUE. That's not the same as a general disclaimer where no pre-existing condition has been acknowledged or identified, and no items on the WADA banned list are being taken.
_________________
26 Years since it all began....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jorgan




Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Posts: 17467
Location: alles was ich bin, alles was ich war

PostPosted: Thu Nov 23, 2017 10:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Continuing the philosophical discussion.....

Two guys in the M55-59 AG.

Guy 1 has no declared medical conditions, but maybe his T levels have declined and it's affecting his performance; legally there's nothing he can do about it and he just cracks-on because that's the reality of ageing.

Guy 2 is competing on a TUE with a condition that has been registered for the last 20 years. The TUE for a banned PED has allowed them to race at a respectable and often competitive standard for those 20 years.

Guy 1 has never used a proscribed PED. Guy 2 has, for 20 years.

Guy 2 beats Guy 1 by five mins, and claims a prize.
_________________
26 Years since it all began....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TriTalk.co.uk Forum Index -> General All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
Page 6 of 7
  Share
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum





Home | About TT | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions | Advertising | Contact TT
Copyright ©2003-2015 TriTalk®.co.uk. All rights reserved.