Therapeutic Use Exemption (Page 2)

nc452010 - 2010-06-24 8:01 PM Since you seem set in your opinion no matter what anybody says, we should have a doctor chime in.  Would that help? 

Absolutely.  I'd never discount an expert's opinion (much respect, actually).  If they tell me testosterone (which, I believe is on the banned substances list) is not a PED......I'll accept that.  No emotion, here.

nc452010 - 2010-06-24 9:09 PM

I don't disagree with anything you said.  In fact, I also gave the OP props for his candor.

Blueberries, though, aren't on the banned substances list.  I'm looking at this with NO emotion.  If they treat each case, individually, I say BRAVO!

But (devil's advocate), is a "doctor's recommendation" the line in the sand?  Again....I'm asking if that's the line of demarcation?  IF it is, you're potentially opening up a huge can of worms (again - personal opinion).  That's all.

nc452010 - 2010-06-24 8:09 PM

I don't disagree with anything you said.  In fact, I also gave the OP props for his candor.

Blueberries, though, aren't on the banned substances list.  I'm looking at this with NO emotion.  If they treat each case, individually, I say BRAVO!

But (devil's advocate), is a "doctor's recommendation" the line in the sand?  Again....I'm asking if that's the line of demarcation?  IF it is, you're potentially opening up a huge can of worms (again - personal opinion).  That's all.

DerekL - 2010-06-24 7:13 PM

Testosterone when used for therapeutic replacement purposes is not a PED. 

lodewey - 2010-06-24 8:17 PM

HeHe. Saw that one coming a mile away (DerekL is a doc, an actual MD, practicing in the trenches, not some fancy-pants Phd doc.)

nc452010 - 2010-06-24 8:27 PM  

Derek - I sort of figured you were an MD, as well.  If you tell me that a substance on the banned substance list isn't a PED (though, that's why it's listed, there)......it changes my previous view in one way.

nc452010 - 2010-06-24 8:41 PM

We're splittin' hairs, Derek....(Doc)....and it's just a twist on words. 

nc452010 - 2010-06-24 9:41 PM

We're splittin' hairs, Derek....(Doc)....and it's just a twist on words.  My opinion (in calling them PED's) is that no matter who takes them....they're enhancing THAT person's performance.  Whether that constitutes an unfair advantage, or not, is irrelevant (to my statement). 

If the OP can get the governing bodies to accept his situation and issue the TUE, then I applaud him/them.  I wish him luck, sincerely. 

DerekL - 2010-06-24 8:24 PM

Yeah, sorry bout that.  Just having a little fun.   

acerbins - 2010-06-24 8:31 PM Yes, I did read part of the thread on that forum, and yes, you guys are much nicer. 

I don't know how comfortable I am spilling my medical history online. I'm probably spilling too much as it is. But, just as a sort of defense (not that you are being accusatory at all), I will say that I have a disease that has caused certain systems in my body to shut down, one of those being my Testosterone levels. My doctor assured me that this was a result of that disease. I was only in my 20's when I noticed all of the symptoms, and Replacement Therapy brought me back to normal. Even on therapy, my levels are by no means high. I went from being below an acceptable level for my age to a low-normal level. I certainly didn't turn into some muscle bound dude.

nc452010 - 2010-06-24 9:41 PM

We're splittin' hairs, Derek....(Doc)....and it's just a twist on words.  My opinion (in calling them PED's) is that no matter who takes them....they're enhancing THAT person's performance.  Whether that constitutes an unfair advantage, or not, is irrelevant (to my statement). 

If the OP can get the governing bodies to accept his situation and issue the TUE, then I applaud him/them.  I wish him luck, sincerely. 

gr8gorilla - 2010-06-25 7:43 AM

I agree with you here. The idea of competition sports in general is that we take what we are born with and see what we can do with it.

If Test doesn't count as a PED in the OP's case then I can argue that since Brian was born with better genetics than I was that I should be able to use some drugs to bring my levels up to his. Brian has an unfair advantage vs. me because my genetics are not as good as his. Therefore either I should be able to "adjust" my natural genetics or Brian should not be allowed to race.

Now I don't think that the OP should not be allowed to race but I also don't think that if he won he should receive any awards for it.

Because if you start saying well he had a medical condition, then thats like well he won because his VO2 was higher than mine, or he has a higher hemocrit count than me so I was blood doping to level the field, etc.

Those cases are all exactly same, OP's condition and my genetics being less than Lance Armstrongs, so if he can use PED's then so can I. Because I promise you that an elite athlete's levels of just about everything are above "normal."

Get it? 

gr8gorilla - 2010-06-25 8:43 AM

I agree with you here. The idea of competition sports in general is that we take what we are born with and see what we can do with it.

If Test doesn't count as a PED in the OP's case then I can argue that since Brian was born with better genetics than I was that I should be able to use some drugs to bring my levels up to his. Brian has an unfair advantage vs. me because my genetics are not as good as his. Therefore either I should be able to "adjust" my natural genetics or Brian should not be allowed to race.

Now I don't think that the OP should not be allowed to race but I also don't think that if he won he should receive any awards for it.

Because if you start saying well he had a medical condition, then thats like well he won because his VO2 was higher than mine, or he has a higher hemocrit count than me so I was blood doping to level the field, etc.

Those cases are all exactly same, OP's condition and my genetics being less than Lance Armstrongs, so if he can use PED's then so can I. Because I promise you that an elite athlete's levels of just about everything are above "normal."

Get it? 

DerekL - 2010-06-25 7:53 AM Sticking robot legs with rocket engines on somebody with normal legs is a whole different situation.

Road Phoenix - 2010-06-25 7:12 AM

Thank you for sharing that.  Again, I certainly didn't mean to come as across as accusatory as another poster seemed to infer (relax John).  I just wanted to have a better grasp of the reason so that I can offer my thoughts in an unbiased manner.

I think you have more than ample reason to jump through the hoops needed to get a TUE.

But here is my thought.  I would not even worry about it unless you are getting to the point where you are really competitive and placing in larger races.  I appreciate the extreme honesty with the racing organization but you are only doing tris for fun and fitness.  And it appears obvious so far that you are not taking in levels that would dramatically affect your performance and ability to recover.

Because let's face it, testosterone is used as a PED in endurance sports for recovery, not for muscle mass and increases in overall abilities.  That is what EPO and blood doping are used for.

I would personally say just don't bother with going for a TUE (unless it is already too late and there is a mark in your file).  Any time you have to do something like that there are going to be time and monetary costs involved to meet all the criteria a governing organization are looking for.

Experior - 2010-06-25 6:09 AM

Sure I get what you're saying, but it is a pretty extreme view of what counts as 'therapeutic use' as opposed to 'performance enhancing use'.  Indeed, you seem to be saying that TUEs should not be allowed at all.  In the end, I think that your view is untenable.  The substances that are on the banned list are not there simply because they enhance performance -- lots of things enhance performance.  They are there (in part) because they have the potential to be used solely (and dangerously) for the purpose of enhancing performance.  That's why TUEs exist -- to handle the cases where they are being used not solely for performance-enhancement.

In any case, nobody (at least I can't imagine anybody) who thinks that there is a legitimate place for TUEs would agree that boosting your XYZ to bring it up to someone else's levels just because that person's levels of XYZ are higher is a therapeutic use.  Nor is there a slippery slope leading to that conclusion.  Therapy has to do with treatment of a disease condition, and nobody thinks that 'not being able to race like so-and-so' is a disease condition.

Sure, there may be gray areas, and we could have a long and interesting discussion about just what counts as disease (and therefore what counts as therapeutic versus performance enhancing use).  I could even point you to some literature on that if you are really interested.

jdwright56 - 2010-06-25 11:15 AM Are you speaking of me or tkd - John.  I ask becasue I did not mean to infer that anyone was out of line and if it came across that way, I guess I was and I certainly apologize. 

tkd.teacher - 2010-06-25 11:23 AM

Seriously? Are we now debating the genetics issue over this? Phhht.

If you get right down to it, electrolyte replacement is performance enhancing. Maybe we should ban NUUN, Infinit, etc. If you aren't naturally half camel, tough.

And the bike. Definitely not fair that some people can afford the BMC TTX with SRAM Red, while I'm on an old aluminum P3. Ban everything but 1980's era 8 speed Treks. With cages.

If you really want to take it to extremes, maybe we should figure out an "anti testosterone" drug, to administer to athletes who have naturally HIGH levels of testosterone. After all, that's not fair to us "normal" folks to have to compete with the freaks.

To the "not receiving awards" thing, are you serious? That's just...well, words fail me.

Say you have a testosterone level of 400. His WITH THE REPLACEMENT THERAPY comes to 300. Still less than yours. He beats you for first place in a race. Even though his levels are lower than yours, you still think that because he takes a supplement he should be dq'd?

That's narrow minded and short sighted at the very best, I won't say what I really think of it.

John

Road Phoenix - 2010-06-25 8:26 AM

Not you John, the other one (in response to my question earlier in the thread).

Not questioning the reason you have from the doctor per se, but why do you need to supplement so that we have an understanding of the need?

MultisportMinistries - 2010-06-25 9:18 AM I apologize in advance, as I am defintiely not trying to hijack this thread...I really clicked on it out of boredom but then realizes it applies to me also.  I am also taking a prescribed testosterone replacement (Androgel) and I'm a Kona Lottery Winner for this year.  Being someone that has battled health issues this 9 months (DVT's, Pulmonary Embolisim & Sleep Apnea -all diagnosed within 3 months of one another) I was prescribed the test. gel to bring my levels back to a normal range, as they were well below the normal levels.  As my 6:30:00 HIM time can attest from 3 weeks ago, I am not a podium guy at all and will most likely get chicked by Chrissie Wellington at Baggage Claim at the airport in Kona.  I am ok with that.  Surviving blood clots in the lungs reminded me how lucky I am to be standing, let alone be racing in Kona this year.  Do I need to get a letter from my doc and also fill something out?  I did not even think about it until I saw this thread. 

Thanks in advance and best of luck to the OP.

Brian