Is a rider under Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) a clean rider?

[sponsor]

If an athlete (rider) has a valid Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for a banned substance in their sport, or for that matter a prosthetic, should their performances be taken without note of the prosthetic or drug they were allowed to use Or should it be noted like a wind aided performance?

 

[hrotha]

Provided the TUE isn't bogus, yes.

 

[DirtyWorks]

If an athlete (rider) has a valid Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) for a banned substance in their sport, or for that matter a prosthetic, should their performances be taken without note of the prosthetic or drug they were allowed to use Or should it be noted like a wind aided performance?

As far as PED's goes, the athlete is non-positive for values related to the TUE. For example, years ago, lots of riders were issued TUE's for asthma. If tested for asthma related PED's, the athlete would go positive, but is not sanctioned because of the TUE. All of which is not shared with the public. Remarkably, many were "cured" of asthma years later. So, the TUE loophole has been exploited in most ranks of athletes.

Prosthetics gets you right into the heated discussions about the track and field athlete with the prosthetic lower leg whose name I cannot recall. I don't have any answers to this one.

Another interesting one is athletes who get operations to improve performance in their sport. No post-operative classification is done to the athlete.

There are other unusual conditions too. There are almost no right answers with any of these issues. Don't take my post as suggesting any either. It's an endless topic.

It's important to understand how the word "clean" is variously interpreted by elite athletics.

clean == never tested positive because the federation doesn't sanction important athletes.
clean == even though on a cornucopia of PED's ahead of current testing.
clean == never tested positive pushing the technical limits of the bio-passport.
clean == never tested positive and performing "pan y aqua."

All four interpretations of the word clean are valid.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

Jimmy Casper with 12 years of TUE for salbutamol due to asthma without an elevated reading, gets a positive in 2008 due to an administrative mess-up due to not submitting renewal paperwork in time, for levels within those allowed under his TUE = not bogus, no asterisk on results.

Alessandro Petacchi with stupid number of times the acceptable level of salbutamol under his TUE in his system = bogus, asterisk on results.

Lance Armstrong without previous TUE for substance, tests positive then has a TUE backdated to cover the time where the positive test was = bogus, asterisk on results.

 

[Catwhoorg]

.

Prosthetics gets you right into the heated discussions about the track and field athlete with the prosthetic lower leg whose name I cannot recall. I don't have any answers to this one.

Oscar Pistorius

(currently under trial for the murder of his girlfriend)


Ross Tucker (and others) pointed out that the research allowing him to compete 'at an even level' was hopelessly flawed, but in the end the IOC wanted an amputee competing at the highest level, so hey presto he gets to.



For TUE's generally they not only specify a drug, but a dosing. A positive for the drug under test is examined in light of the dosing allowed, and expected concentrations. So having a salbutamol TUE will specify the maximum dosage (or there are defaults if none are specified).

There are plenty of examples of (usually amateur) athletes being pulled up for salbutamol positives despite a TUE, but seemingly the typical sanction is loss of results and a warning for a first offense.

Salbutamol and various Thyroid hormones are ones that are common 'public' knowledge of abuses going on.

(Testosterone/TRT is commonly abused especially below the pro-ranks but almost never is a TUE granted)

 

[sponsor]

If an athlete CREATES the condition that requires a TUE to overcome and that TUE happens to also help that athlete win then I see a real problem.

Seems to me - any/all may give an unfair advantage. And it seems to me, this is a great hole to exploit by those without scruples.

 

[Will Carter]

Lance Armstrong without previous TUE for substance, tests positive then has a TUE backdated to cover the time where the positive test was = bogus, asterisk on results.

I assume this is the 99 '+ve'. If so can we clear something up, was it a '+ve' or was it traces? i.e. were the amounts within limits but still an embarrassment to USP and the UCI/Tour? I've tried to check loads of times now but the inter-web is awash with so many stories its hard to know what is what.

 

[Libertine Seguros]

I assume this is the 99 '+ve'. If so can we clear something up, was it a '+ve' or was it traces? i.e. were the amounts within limits but still an embarrassment to USP and the UCI/Tour? I've tried to check loads of times now but the inter-web is awash with so many stories its hard to know what is what.

Without a TUE for it, it's irrelevant if it was within the TUE limits.

 

[bigcog]

Here you go, get yourself into a lather:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRnInyTd8b8&feature=player_embedded#t=283

 

[StyrbjornSterki]

If you can get a TUE for it, it isn't banned.

 

[More Strides than Rides]

No rider with a tue is clean. They are not cheating and its all fair (if legit), but lets not call them clean.

 

[42x16ss]

Jimmy Casper with 12 years of TUE for salbutamol due to asthma without an elevated reading, gets a positive in 2008 due to an administrative mess-up due to not submitting renewal paperwork in time, for levels within those allowed under his TUE = not bogus, no asterisk on results.

This^^^ For me there are some caveats regarding TUE's:

Is it for a proven, legit condition?

Is the athlete abusing the amounts to be taken?

How easily can an athlete exceed the prescribed amounts and be detected?

IMO Casper and Petacchi are perfect examples of TUE use and abuse, partly because of how common exercise induced asthma is among athletes.

 

[sponsor]

No rider with a tue is clean. They are not cheating and its all fair (if legit), but lets not call them clean.

That is my thinking. It is not cheating.

I do think it unfair they are allowed to use substances and devices others may not, but its not cheating, just the rules.

 

[Dazed and Confused]

That is my thinking. It is not cheating.

I do think it unfair they are allowed to use substances and devices others may not, but its not cheating, just the rules.

Agree completely.

Lets see how ridiculous it gets with riders puffing on inhalers left, right and center.

Ah the signals. Circus.

 

[doperhopper]

It's important to understand how the word "clean" is variously interpreted by elite athletics.

clean == never tested positive because the federation doesn't sanction important athletes.
clean == even though on a cornucopia of PED's ahead of current testing.
clean == never tested positive pushing the technical limits of the bio-passport.
clean == never tested positive and performing "pan y aqua."

All four interpretations of the word clean are valid.

or pan y steak, provided it's chinese

 

[zigmeister]

We've covered this in the PED thread.

Yes, it is a performance enhancer. Performance is relative. Plain and simple.

If you have asthma, and you can't ride/race without your inhaler, then you went from ZERO cycling performance to being able to compete.

So baseline zero, not competing at a higher level. How is that not performance enhancement?

Performance can't be judged relative to another person, because each person is unique. But certain medical/testing practices and standards can maintain a level playing field to an extent. Better than the nonsensical system in place now.

I could make the same argument then that testosterone, those with very low levels, below 300ng/mL, and experience lack of energy, ability to train/compete, should be allowed to take a reasonable amount of bio-identical testosterone, to increase there level to mid-range of the well known testing standard.

The same thing just happened...you went from nothing, to just an average guy with an average level. Testosterone doesn't make you a super-human person, despite all the ignorance and stupidity of the media and people in general regarding hormones.

The same principle applies, and should be applied sensibly to all medicines. I'm not saying people should be allowed to take non-naturally occurring steroids like EQ, Var, Winny and the likes...just bio-identical and they are closely monitored.

State of NJ athletic committee is taking a stance similar to this in sports.

 

[simoni]

Performance enhancing or performance enabling?

If the TUE is bogus then yes, its cheating (e.g. theres a bit of a ****-storm re: thyroxin in UK endurance running and some good info, from people I trust, that there's a few athletes effectively fabricating medical conditions to justify taking it).

But if the TUE allows a professional athlete to perform his role then what is the problem? Where is the line here?

Judging by some of the comments on here massage and physiotherapy shouldn't be alllowed. Yes, its a grey area but "TUE = dirty" is a ridiculously simplistic argument.

 

[sponsor]

"Cold answer"

The fair thing is to leave the unfairness of life alone.

 

[nslckevin]

That is my thinking. It is not cheating.

I do think it unfair they are allowed to use substances and devices others may not, but its not cheating, just the rules.

Should baseball players be allowed to wear glasses? They have a condition (poor eye site) that untreated will not allow them to hit at the major league level. Letting them wear glasses gives them an unfair advantage compared to the way their body was made by nature.

Please explain how the two cases are different.

 

[alanshearer]

If an athlete CREATES the condition that requires a TUE to overcome and that TUE happens to also help that athlete win then I see a real problem.

Do you have an example?

 

[The_Juan]

I know of TUE is a huge problem in MMA. The Nevada Athletic Commission (NAC) just banned all TUE and the UFC is having major issues because many of its fighters are all of a sudden testing positive for PEDs.

And the NAC banned them because the abuse of PEDs was becoming a huge problem, an obvious problem: Pretty much all the fighters had some sort of TUE.

 

[sponsor]

Should baseball players be allowed to wear glasses? They have a condition (poor eye site) that untreated will not allow them to hit at the major league level. Letting them wear glasses gives them an unfair advantage compared to the way their body was made by nature.

Please explain how the two cases are different.

The difference is any player may wear glasses, while not every rider may use the same equipment or substance.

 

[sponsor]

Do you have an example?

"If an athlete CREATES the condition that requires a TUE to overcome and that TUE happens to also help that athlete win then I see a real problem."

Crashes, loses a body part/testicle that produces testosterone, gets a saddle sore that requires a banned substance to remedy, gets shot, training/weight room accident, has to take a banded diuretic due to a birth control pill they are taking.
TUEs are not supposed to ever be disclosed if I read it correctly and maybe I didn't.

IMO there are some prosthetic devices that would favor an athlete over their God given/or not given parts depending on event (running, swimming, golf), insect stings and all kinds of things that happen due to poor risk management or intent.

All of these - accident or on purpose were done by world class athletes that limited their abilities and then they were allowed exemptions.

 

[Ripper]

And of course, you could have a TUE for one thing, and be doing other, banned, things.

 

[zigmeister]

The fair thing is to leave the unfairness of life alone.

Apparently, this would exclude about 99% of people participating in sports at the amateur and pro level it seems. So, I don't personally feel this is a good option.

They have already set the standard of allowing certain things to be used, even without TUEs, hence, let's just make it apply to all things and set standards for those, hence, everybody that wants to compete and participate, can do so on a "more level" playing field.

I find the entire mantra of WADA/USADA (tygart) in particular, and their entire nonsense the last few years continually propogating BS mythis, misinformation and making idiotic claims/statements about what a PED is without addressing issues with any intellectual integrity.

Or maybe they are too stupid to comprehend and are just as much part of the problem?