Therapeutic Use Exemption (Page 3)

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.