PDA

View Full Version : Doping among masters athletes



gull
August 25th, 2016, 01:30 PM
At least this isn't a problem in USMS, right?

http://velonews.competitor.com/2016/06/feature/totally-amateur_408457

jackback
August 25th, 2016, 01:49 PM
of course this is a problem in USMS ... why would our athletes be any different than masters athletes in cycling ... sadly we have neither a mechanism to report nor a will to intervene

pwb
August 25th, 2016, 01:58 PM
At least this isn't a problem in USMS, right?:rofl:

I think everyone has their suspects and while I'd like a clean sport, I doubt we have the resources (financial or people) to police this.

This paragraph captures the issue perfectly. Personally, I'm of the mindset of the friend ...


Early last November, a friend of Walters insisted that no amateur bike racer would stoop to doping. He couldn’t get past the ‘why,’ Walters says. Since there’s no money, doping to win cheap prizes and sparse cheers was, to his mind, laughable.

... but the realist in me agrees with Walters...


But Walters knew better. He’d seen with his own eyes the lengths to which athletes would go to step up a level. He had heard the rationalizations and justifications of dozens of men and women.

I derive enough satisfaction from training, the act of competition and using my own performances as a yardstick so the fact there are people doping in USMS (or via FINA Masters) doesn't detract from my own satisfaction. If nothing else, given the potential damage the dopers are doing to their bodies longer term, I figure I'll be well-positioned once I hit the 80+ age groups ;)

sunruh
August 25th, 2016, 02:42 PM
I figure I'll be well-positioned once I hit the 80+ age groups ;)

fantastic pwd, i'll need someone to race the last 25years then - 80 to 105
i may not remember what pool im at or what city im in, but i'll get on the blocks and go

i can name several masters that are swimming faster in their 40s then they did at any point before that. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

no200fly
August 25th, 2016, 02:43 PM
:rofl:

I derive enough satisfaction from training, the act of competition and using my own performances as a yardstick so the fact there are people doping in USMS (or via FINA Masters) doesn't detract from my own satisfaction. If nothing else, given the potential damage the dopers are doing to their bodies longer term, I figure I'll be well-positioned once I hit the 80+ age groups ;)

I agree with you. I don't really care if masters competitors use PEDs and I think it would be a mistake to try to test. I compete in meets to help motivate me to go to workouts and to push myself in workouts.

I have spent my whole life swimming with people who are a lot faster than me and it does not hurt my feelings that there are people who are faster than me now - regardless of how they do it. I know some people have a different view, but it does not bother me. In fact, I was looking forward to having the poster boy for PEDs, Lance Armstrong, in USMS events to show that our organization was inclusive. I understand the reason to exclude him, but it would not bother me to compete in a meet where he swam.

mmlr38
August 25th, 2016, 04:11 PM
I derive enough satisfaction from training, the act of competition and using my own performances as a yardstick so the fact there are people doping in USMS (or via FINA Masters) doesn't detract from my own satisfaction. If nothing else, given the potential damage the dopers are doing to their bodies longer term, I figure I'll be well-positioned once I hit the 80+ age groups ;)
Well said Patrick, and I couldn't agree more. I use swimming as a way to stay in shape. Competitions keep me motivated to train hard, thus keeping me fit. My swimming career started in the open water and the only way to completely accurately gauge one's performance there is placing, due to the fact that courses can change year-to-year and conditions can have a large influence on race times. But in a pool, conditions are much more controlled and I enjoy the aspect of trying to improve my times each time I swim; or at the very least, learning something from every race. For that reason, I'm really enjoying my time in the pool. I love racing the clock far more than any competitor! And, like you, I hope to be racing the clock well into my 80, 90s or 100s!

knelson
August 25th, 2016, 04:33 PM
I derive enough satisfaction from training, the act of competition and using my own performances as a yardstick so the fact there are people doping in USMS (or via FINA Masters) doesn't detract from my own satisfaction.

In general I agree, but imagine if you set a new world record but were beaten by someone who admitted to doping. If this happened to me I think I'd be a little pissed off.

Allen Stark
August 25th, 2016, 04:50 PM
I have heard rumors about certain people and I have had my suspicions about certain swimmers. I'd like USMS to do some testing, Maybe test 10% of top finishers at Nats.
It is great to swim mostly against yourself,but we don't give medals for most improvement. Lots of swimmers do care about where they rank against other swimmers. For swimmers to rank higher by cheating is not fair. I think most of the cheaters are not doing it for the glory,but are doing it to feel younger and more vital( listen to the ads for testosterone supplements.) I know that when the shiny suits were legal and I was swimming faster I felt younger, and that was without any muscular or cardiovascular improvement.
I think it is great to want to be your best,but I don't think it is wrong to want to be the best (or top ten or whatever your competitive goal is.) To be robbed of the opportunity by a cheater is wrong. Testing a few swimmers would not be cost prohibitive and it might make some cheaters think twice.

sunruh
August 25th, 2016, 05:23 PM
i am all for testing..provided there are harsh penalties for being caught.
1st offense - banned till after the next masters world championships
2nd offense - make it 2
3rd - lifetime

hand me a cup i'll take the test right now

pwb
August 25th, 2016, 07:32 PM
i am all for testing..provided there are harsh penalties for being caught.
1st offense - banned till after the next masters world championships
2nd offense - make it 2
3rd - lifetime

hand me a cup i'll take the test right nowAgreed.

I am all for testing, but I just imagined that the financial/staff constraints prohibited this.

arthur
August 25th, 2016, 11:37 PM
I'm all for stopping doping but there are a lot of medications masters aged swimmers take for their heart etc. that have no performance enhancing ability but are masking agents. I'd probably have a much smaller list of banned substances.

The Americas Masters Games happening this weekend and next week in Vancouver says they are doing random doping: "At least 1 event, heat, and lane will be selected randomly for doping control."

Sojerz
August 26th, 2016, 08:49 AM
I haven't worried much about what's on the list of banned substances, because I only use a protein shake, multi-vitamin and fish oil (I'm not even sure if these are really helpful). They are readily available on the web or many health and drug stores.

I recall one Olympic athlete stating that she tested positive for a banned substance that was in something she bought at the Vitamin shop - WTH. As Allen stated above, I see the adds for low T supplements (I'm 67, do I have low T as compared to when I was 20?) and for supplements like glutamine, BCCAs, and Creatine and other stuff and wonder what is "legal". What's the difference between "legal" supplements and banned substances? I've also wondered why there hasn't been more said about PEDs by USMS.

Presumably, elite athletes have a coach and trainers who deal with the issue of PEDs. I don't and I'm not a biochemist or physician. I do occasionally have scripts that contain topical or other sort of steroidal substances, would these show up in a PED test?

So if USMS heads down this path, I and many others would need quite a bit of education.

robertsrobson
August 26th, 2016, 09:19 AM
fantastic pwd, i'll need someone to race the last 25years then - 80 to 105
i may not remember what pool im at or what city im in, but i'll get on the blocks and go

i can name several masters that are swimming faster in their 40s then they did at any point before that. riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

To be fair, I'm doing that over 50-100m breast. Not only am I not doping, but I'm not living the life of an elite athlete. I'm a senior manager, I have a family, and I like a drink and other 'nutritional' indulgences. Oh, and I'm in the pool for 3 hours a week. Ok, so I quite right before college but I was a youth international. Point is, why shouldn't we be going faster than 20-odd years ago when the sport has moved on (especially strokes with rule changes).

If we did have testing in masters, the medial exception forms would be a nightmare to administer!!

gull
August 26th, 2016, 09:52 AM
If we did have testing in masters, the medical exception forms would be a nightmare to administer!!

Not really.

Testing for anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and EPO would be sufficient.

Random testing would not be cost prohibitive, and it might serve as a deterrent.

sunruh
August 26th, 2016, 10:05 AM
Not really.

Testing for anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and EPO would be sufficient.

Random testing would not be cost prohibitive, and it might serve as a deterrent.

i think masters (of all sports not just swimming) should help set the example for elite and kids to NOT dope.
and do it by top 3 + random and all record breakers.
part of the record submittial is your test

when someone at age 45 goes as fast as they did at 22.....in the 200 fly/400im/800free.....yeah right

Allen Stark
August 26th, 2016, 10:06 AM
Not really.

Testing for anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and EPO would be sufficient.

Random testing would not be cost prohibitive, and it might serve as a deterrent.

Yes.

The Fortress
August 26th, 2016, 10:13 AM
Not really.

Testing for anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and EPO would be sufficient.

Random testing would not be cost prohibitive, and it might serve as a deterrent.

Exactly!

But isn't testosterone technically classified an anabolic steroid? Wouldn't we then have a raft of medical exemptions for that from 50+ guys?

gull
August 26th, 2016, 10:21 AM
But isn't testosterone classified an anabolic steroid? Wouldn't we then have a raft of medical exemptions for that?

Unlike hypogonadism, which is real but uncommon, Low T is not an actual medical condition. But if you want to "treat" it and compete in Masters swimming, apply for a TUE.

Let's swim clean.

jpetyk
August 26th, 2016, 11:39 AM
Based on the list of banned substances, I would fail from 2 of the 3 prescriptions I started before I joined masters. These in NO way enhance my swimming, other than giving me the ability to function is real life. (one is considered a masking agent the other is albuterol).

However, I will admit, after having taken steroids for pneumonia, and felt like superwoman in the pool, I can see how easily tempting it can be to keep taking them.

knelson
August 26th, 2016, 12:26 PM
Unlike hypogonadism, which is real but uncommon, Low T is not an actual medical condition. But if you want to "treat" it and compete in Masters swimming, apply for a TUE.

Let's swim clean.

Since testosterone is a naturally occurring hormone I assume a positive test simply means you have a level that wouldn't have occurred naturally, correct?

gull
August 26th, 2016, 12:46 PM
Since testosterone is a naturally occurring hormone I assume a positive test simply means you have a level that wouldn't have occurred naturally, correct?

I believe that they initially look at the testosterone:epitestosterone (T:E) ratio. If that ratio is several times higher than expected (to account for individual variability), they look for the presence of exogenous testosterone.

Water Rat
August 26th, 2016, 01:54 PM
I am swimming faster now than I did in HS. I quit my senior year and did nothing athletic in college, so the comparison is much easier for me. I could have swum D-1 but I was much more interested in other, less productive activities.

I really just don't care if someone else is doping in my age group or not. It doesn't concern me. Sure, I'd like to place first in all my events but what I really care about is beating my own clock.

MartinK
August 27th, 2016, 12:25 PM
I am 37 years now and I am doing great with any doping! Doping is against my own ethic code.
I swam last year a personal best in 50m backstroke and have finished on 4th place at the European Masters in my age group in 200m backstroke with a good time (2:18) and I don't really care if some else is doping in my age group or not. I am looking on my results first and try to get better on a legal way. I know one person of my age group who is wondering, why I am getting faster and faster but i don't really care what someone think...
I would never ever considering any kind of doping.

sickfish
August 27th, 2016, 07:00 PM
when someone at age 45 goes as fast as they did at 22.....in the 200 fly/400im/800free.....yeah right

Why not? We already know the benefits of regular training. And we have better strokes than we did 23 years ago.

Once you come out and say "this person is too fast he must be doping" there is no way for him/her to change your mind, and you poison the well for everyone else. This is my problem with it. If someone doesn't fail the drug test, it's not proof that they didn't cheat, it just means they didn't get caught. So what's the point of the test?

Show me proof of a problem, and maybe I'll support testing. Until then, I'll stick with what I know is true: some people are just whiners.

sickfish
August 27th, 2016, 07:07 PM
I am 37 years now and I am doing great with any doping! Doping is against my own ethic code.
I swam last year a personal best in 50m backstroke and have finished on 4th place at the European Masters in my age group in 200m backstroke with a good time (2:18) and I don't really care if some else is doping in my age group or not. I am looking on my results first and try to get better on a legal way. I know one person of my age group who is wondering, why I am getting faster and faster but i don't really care what someone think...
I would never ever considering any kind of doping.

That's the right attitude. You're getting faster because you're training better and smarter and 37 is not "too old". Ervin went faster in 2016 than he did in 2000, why can't we?

swoomer
August 27th, 2016, 07:51 PM
I just think that Masters sports in general make this pretty complicated. A lot of people of a certain age require "banned" substances to maintain their health. How do you separate that from performance enhancement? I take a beta blocker for PVC's. Would that disqualify me from archery or shooting? I was once prescribed Prednisone for a short period of time for an inflammatory condition and was an animal in the water! So sometimes older people require medications which might otherwise be considered cheating. I sometimes wonder why so many top-tier masters swimmers are asthmatic, however.

gull
August 27th, 2016, 08:34 PM
If someone doesn't fail the drug test, it's not proof that they didn't cheat, it just means they didn't get caught. So what's the point of the test?

To act as a deterrent.

Unless, of course, USMS doesn't care about it. In which case anything goes.

sickfish
August 27th, 2016, 09:10 PM
To act as a deterrent.

Without evidence of a problem? Despite the fact that all sorts of swimmers take all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons? Should someone's record be overturned because the GNC is on the way home from work? Should we decline recommended medications from our doctors because we're afraid of drug testing? Do we really want USMS swimmers to have to care about that?

These are hypothetical scandals. We shouldn't go around making rules to solve problems that may not exist.

And yes, I realize you may ask "how do we know this problem doesn't exist?" Well, the burden is on you to figure that out. Don't preemptively punish the rest of us just because you think some 45-year-old is too fast.

knelson
August 28th, 2016, 12:03 AM
And yes, I realize you may ask "how do we know this problem doesn't exist?" Well, the burden is on you to figure that out.

Isn't this a bit of a Catch-22? You can't tell if people are cheating unless you test, but you don't want to test unless you know people are cheating.

gull
August 28th, 2016, 07:57 AM
It is naive to think it doesn't exist in masters swimming when masters athletes in other sports like cycling and track and field have been caught and suspended for doping.

Chris Stevenson
August 28th, 2016, 09:23 AM
Who is going to pay for this drug testing? I don't think it is fair to take it out general membership since only 25% of our members participate in pool meets in any given year, so it is fair to say that the majority of our membership doesn't care about doping in competition since they don't even compete. And even of those 25%, I would venture to say that only a small fraction really cares about catching dopers.

I heard a call here for random testing at nationals. Would the people posting here be willing to pay an extra fee for that? Or maybe the fairest thing would be a voluntary contribution from people going to nationals, and the number of random tests actually administered would depend on how much people put into the pot.

gull
August 28th, 2016, 09:40 AM
USATF has instituted a testing program for masters which does not appear to be costly.

StewartACarroll
August 28th, 2016, 09:46 AM
I heard a call here for random testing at nationals. Would the people posting here be willing to pay an extra fee for that? Or maybe the fairest thing would be a voluntary contribution from people going to nationals, and the number of random tests actually administered would depend on how much people put into the pot.

As suggested by gull earlier if the tests were for anabolic steroids, human growth hormone, and EPO costs could be controlled. If the tests were randomly done for nationals meets it would send a message from USMS that they care about masters being drug free and would act as a deterrent. Further, if we made these tests a requirement to get a national record we could ensure that the very best times going forward were clean. A drug testing fee could be applied to all entries at nationals to cover random testing at nationals and the cost of the test for a record can be made the responsibility of either the meet the record was achieved at or the individual achieving the record time.

And yes, I for one would not have a problem paying an extra fee to ensure we have a clean sport.

ElaineK
August 28th, 2016, 10:46 AM
Just think if Michael Phelps joins Masters. He wouldn't need to dope to completely destroy every USMS record in his 30-35 age group. :D

orca1946
August 28th, 2016, 12:10 PM
Sure - test for those BIG drugs that give a real advantage. Please do not test for caffeine ,aspirin or any of my 5 pills the docs. say I need to stay healthy or my non record times will plummet!

orca1946
August 28th, 2016, 12:12 PM
I'm not sure if we have to pay to catch the cheaters and then they are "reinstated" in 1- 2 seasons will deter those that choose to cheat.

sickfish
August 28th, 2016, 12:31 PM
Isn't this a bit of a Catch-22? You can't tell if people are cheating unless you test, but you don't want to test unless you know people are cheating.

Yep. We also can't tell if people are actually Cylons unless we test.

But my real question is: what good will testing do? Will it be a net positive? Of course cheaters exist, but is anyone really concerned that cheaters are getting all the Masters records? Does anyone think they got second place at Nationals because the first-place swimmer cheated?

What I see in all of these discussions about doping is a bunch of armchair experts who say "swimmer X dropped too much time", "swimmer Y's muscles are too big", "swimmer Z is too old to go that fast". These are not valid reasons to institute drug testing.

This is a solution in search of a problem, and implementing it will just cause more problems. There will be false positives, people who took stuff before it was banned, people with medical necessities, etc. And what happens when there is a false positive? Even if exonerated, that person's achievements will be tainted forever. Is it worth it?

knelson
August 28th, 2016, 03:31 PM
But my real question is: what good will testing do? Will it be a net positive? Of course cheaters exist, but is anyone really concerned that cheaters are getting all the Masters records? Does anyone think they got second place at Nationals because the first-place swimmer cheated?

I don't know. And I think limited testing is doomed to have limited results. To be effective testing needs to be extensive and random, and I really don't think we need to resort to that.

Allen Stark
August 28th, 2016, 03:59 PM
I understand that first place and records aren't important to everyone, but they are certainly important to some. If it is important to you, then you probably want the competition to be fair. It is naive to think there are not swimmers being displaced from records and placing by cheaters. I know I would be upset about that if it happened to me.

Allen Stark
August 28th, 2016, 04:06 PM
USATF has instituted a testing program for masters which does not appear to be costly.

Does anyone know the particulars of this program?

gull
August 28th, 2016, 06:37 PM
Does anyone know the particulars of this program?

I know that they test at nationals and selected regional meets. Apparently USADA decides who is tested. My understanding is that several athletes tested positive when the program was initiated.

sunruh
August 28th, 2016, 07:17 PM
Sure - test for those BIG drugs that give a real advantage. Please do not test for caffeine ,aspirin or any of my 5 pills the docs. say I need to stay healthy or my non record times will plummet!

you cannot drink enough of anything (ie coffee, cola...) to fail the wada test for caffeine.

Sumorunner
August 28th, 2016, 07:28 PM
you cannot drink enough of anything (ie coffee, cola...) to fail the wada test for caffeine.

Right. You'd have to drink about 20 cups of Joe to register for caffeine, but a few NoDoze pills can do the trick. Different drugs work in different sports. I was surprised many years ago when I discovered one of the drugs I take for my heart might register on some tests. It's a beta-blocker for heart rhythm since I have an artificial aortic valve. I was throwing shot and discus at the time and while a beta-blocker will slow you down running or jumping, it has a calming effect that can help some field events. It's especially banned for stuff like shooting or archery since it smooths the heart beat.

orca1946
August 29th, 2016, 12:12 AM
OK good news on the coffee. I also take pills for high blood pressure.

ande
August 29th, 2016, 08:32 AM
When masters swimmers break national or world records, require drug testing in order for those records to count & stand.

Rob Copeland
August 29th, 2016, 10:50 AM
I don’t think anyone will argue that doping is good for our sport, or any sport. To me the question is how much money and effort should be diverted from our mission to address this endeavor.


When masters swimmers break national or world records, require drug testing in order for those records to count & stand.Testing everyone who sets a national record would require drug testing in place at every sanctioned or recognized event, since national records can be set at any of these. I believe this would be cost prohibitive, at least for most event hosts. I run a small meet and I know there is no way I could pay thousands to handle drug testing and I doubt my participants would want to spend an extra $20-$40 in entry fees to cover this expense.


Does anyone know the particulars of this program?Apparently the answer form this forum is no. But even if someone did, it would be comparing apples to oranges. T&F Masters is under USATF, while USMS is an independent organization. USATF is a USOC member and USADA signatory, USMS is neither. For USMS to have a similar program we would need to disband and be absorbed into USA Swimming.

There has been a suggestion of random testing at Nationals, which on the surface might work. The issues I see are that any competent drug cheats will have flushed their system prior to the event so the only people caught will be those on prescribed medicines and those who don’t know what’s in the supplements they take. The other issue is that there would be huge expenses with setting up a doping control infrastructure; since we are not under WADA/USADA and FINA doesn’t support testing Masters Swimmers we would be on the hook for what could be hundreds of thousands of dollars. I’d guess WADA/USADA have spent millions of not billions so far.

It seems like the simplest most cost effective solution is to remove the incentive to cheat. If Masters would just stop keeping records and Top 10’s, then the cheaters would have 1 less reason to cheat and everyone who is offended by cheaters taking records away from clean athletes wouldn’t need to worry. WIN – WIN.

jackback
August 29th, 2016, 11:06 AM
i could live with no records or top tens or event rankings

gull
August 29th, 2016, 11:14 AM
T&F Masters is under USATF, while USMS is an independent organization.

If we are independent, why are we not allowed to compete in the full body suits, and why was Lance not allowed to swim at Zones?

smontanaro
August 29th, 2016, 11:31 AM
When masters swimmers break national or world records, require drug testing in order for those records to count & stand.

It's not clear to me how this would work. Consider an admittedly extreme case. Suppose Phil Dodson's 95+ yo mom sets a new national record for the 50 free at YMCA nats. Is someone going hop on a plane to Sarasota and get a urine sample from her? Would someone go to Y nats just in case a national record is broken? Or would USMS (or some other organization) contract with a local lab? What's the maximum time after a swim during which a sample could be collected?

More generally, most LMSCs host quite a few swim meets each year. As long as the meet is sanctioned and the pool measures correctly for record-setting purposes, national records could potentially be set at any of those meets. Based on the relatively small number of records broken each year, it would seem to be a small cost, but covering all the potential meets, just in case, could get expensive.

Finally, if USMS sets up to collect samples at a meet (just in case), and no national records are broken, do we call that a "false positive?" ;)

Rob Copeland
August 29th, 2016, 12:16 PM
Is someone going hop on a plane to Sarasota and get a urine sample from her? Would someone go to Y nats just in case a national record is broken? Or would USMS (or some other organization) contract with a local lab? What's the maximum time after a swim during which a sample could be collected?Current doping control protocols call for the doping control officer to maintain contact with the test subject from the time she completes her swim until the time she produces the sample. The DCO's generally try to get the sample within a few minutes after the swim, but it can take longer.

jackback
August 29th, 2016, 12:29 PM
this was posted back in 2013 on a thread in regards to lance armstrong not being allowed to compete in the zones in texas

Rob Butcher, executive director of U.S. Masters Swimming, who are staging the event, told CNN: "The word back is that he is not eligible to participate in our competition because FINA follows the WADA code -- the World Anti-Doping Authority code.
"And, as such, we are bound -- through a couple layers of separation down -- to our events as well.
"So the takeaway is: while he has entered and you'll see him on a heat sheet, he is not eligible to participate in that event. Or any other U.S.M.S competition."

there is certainly more info in the old thread but with a quick look at the thread i thought this waspertinent

ande
August 29th, 2016, 12:48 PM
I've never been tested and we all can think of a few who we'd like to be tested.
Is doping banned in masters swimming?
http://www.fina.org/sites/default/files/rules-print-pdf/7595.pdf

is doping mentioned in USMS rules?
http://www.usms.org/rules/

WADA and USADA prevented Lance from swimming in a masters meet after he confessed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/sports/cycling/armstrong-plans-to-enter-swimming-competition.html?_r=0

Consider random testing among those who place top 10 at nationals and worlds & required testing for anyone who breaks a national or world record, incompetition testing should be part of the protocol like filling out the paperwork and shooting the race courses before & after each sessions for pools with bulkheads.

Consider testing anomalies,
swimmers who are unusually muscular for their ages,
elite masters swimmers who have abnormal time progressions, and
ones who have sudden improvement spikes.

I'm sure programs could be written to show normal time progressions from an athlete's lifetime best times at ____ age then how their times should progress as they age.

It's unusual for swimmers in their 50's to suddenly start doing times they did in their 30's or early mid 40's.

Maybe some are doping to enhance their sexual stamina?

gull
August 29th, 2016, 01:07 PM
Fundamental Rationale for the Code and FINA’s Anti-Doping Rules

Anti-doping programs seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport. This intrinsic value is often referred to as “the spirit of sport”. It
is the essence of sport; the pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection of each person’s natural talents; it is how we play true.
The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is reflected in values we find in and through sport, including:
• Ethics, fair play and honesty
• Health
• Excellence in performance
• Character and education
• Fun and joy
• Teamwork
• Dedication and commitment
• Respect for rules and laws
• Respect for self and other Participants
• Courage
• Community and solidarity

Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport.

ALM
August 29th, 2016, 01:30 PM
To get an idea of how many USMS national records are set in a year, I downloaded the reports from this page:
http://www.usms.org/comp/recordexport.php

...and then added up all of the records that were dated 2015. The totals were:

Individual records (SCY, LCM, SCM): 257
Relay records (SCY, LCM, SCM): 59

Note that the relays each contain four swimmers, so that would be a total of 59x4 = 236 swimmers who set relay records.

So that is a total of 493 swimmers who set national records during the 2015 year. (Of course some of them are the same people who set more than one record, but this at least gives an estimate for the potential number of tests that would have to be conducted.)

gull
August 29th, 2016, 01:38 PM
Adding $5 to our membership dues would cover the cost of testing 500 swimmers/year.

Rob Copeland
August 29th, 2016, 01:48 PM
Adding $5 to our membership dues would cover the cost of testing 500 swimmers/year.Where did this number come from??? Please provide details and attribution.

sunruh
August 29th, 2016, 01:54 PM
FINA prevented Lance from swimming in a masters meet after he confessed.


bzzzz wrong ande

WADA and USADA prevented lance, not fina.

gull
August 29th, 2016, 02:07 PM
Where did this number come from??? Please provide details and attribution.

I believe that the tests run between $500 and $800. We have 60,000 members. Do the math.

Rob Copeland
August 29th, 2016, 02:28 PM
I believe that the tests run between $500 and $800. We have 60,000 members. Do the math.So the tests are on the honor system? Please pee in a cup and send your sample to a testing lab.
Or does the $500-$800 include doping control and administrative expense. And what about the cost of stationing doping control personnel at all sanctioned swim meets? Is this factored in?

gull
August 29th, 2016, 02:44 PM
So the tests are on the honor system? Please pee in a cup and send your sample to a testing lab.
Or does the $500-$800 include doping control and administrative expense. And what about the cost of stationing doping control personnel at all sanctioned swim meets? Is this factored in?

My understanding is that most of the costs associated with a doping program are related to the actual tests themselves. I suspect that USATF and USA Cycling would be willing to share what they have learned with USMS.

__steve__
August 29th, 2016, 03:53 PM
It's unusual for swimmers in their 50's to suddenly start doing times they did in their 30's or early mid 40's.
Unless they didn't know how to swim in their 30's or 40's

The Fortress
August 29th, 2016, 05:12 PM
Consider testing anomalies,
swimmers who are unusually muscular for their ages,
elite masters swimmers who have abnormal time progressions, and
ones who have sudden improvement spikes.



Wow, so we should target people based on supposition, innuendo, and appearance? Maybe have USMS members report people that they deem suspicious? This sounds awful.

I know I dropped some time when I started using a nose clip and staying underwater for 15m during my races. I'm sure there are many people who have similar stories. Do most USMS members even begin competing in their 30s?

I can definitely see testing for the big three -- HGH, EPO and steroids. No good reason to be on those. But my understanding is that USATF tests for everything with no "masters exceptions," which as Rob has said could be a logistical nightmare for USMS when only a tiny % of people even care.

gull
August 29th, 2016, 07:00 PM
Pilot the program at nationals. Testing swimmers who break world records makes sense (since the rest of the world might actually care). Random testing of other swimmers could be an effective deterrent, with the number of tests determined by a prespecified budget.

no200fly
August 29th, 2016, 09:53 PM
Testing everyone who sets a national record would require drug testing in place at every sanctioned or recognized event, since national records can be set at any of these.


What about the person who has to explain to the 90 yr old lady that they need to watch her pee in a cup since she swam so fast.

orca1946
August 30th, 2016, 12:07 AM
Is that much different than a 72 year old getting carded for buying a beer? OK - Much more personal but, in the same concept.
test all or random it turns out to be a test for all to be interested in the outcome.

Rob Copeland
August 30th, 2016, 08:18 AM
What about the person who has to explain to the 90 yr old lady that they need to watch her pee in a cup since she swam so fast.Or the 100 year old lady… A couple of months ago Anne Dunivin set the national record in the women’s 100-104 200 free at a meet here in Georgia. While I’m the wrong gender, I’d hate to be the person who would have to drag her to bathroom and watch over her.

And back to the issue of being very costly. To bring a male and a female doping control officer to Athens Georgia for a 1 day meet, between travel, lodging and compensation, could easily run over $1,000; before even factoring in the cost of the actual testing.

sunruh
August 30th, 2016, 09:01 AM
or
have several members of usms trained on doping control that attend the nationals

so then rob you are saying only "younger" people that break world records should be tested?

is there difference between shaving 0.01 off the WR vs say the 4+ seconds that was erased from the womens 50 free i witnessed? ie over 10%

Rob Copeland
August 30th, 2016, 09:20 AM
so then rob you are saying only "younger" people that break world records should be tested?No. I hope that any rules written by USMS would NEVER discriminate on the basis of the age of the adult.


is there difference between shaving 0.01 off the WR vs say the 4+ seconds that was erased from the womens 50 free i witnessed?Yes. Every swim is different. If it’s a new swimmer going a PR 2:00 100 free or an new WR or a 100 year old lady swimming the first ever 200 LCM Free or Anthony Ervin’s Olympic 50 free.

gull
August 30th, 2016, 09:27 AM
And back to the issue of being very costly. To bring a male and a female doping control officer to Athens Georgia for a 1 day meet, between travel, lodging and compensation, could easily run over $1,000; before even factoring in the cost of the actual testing.

Right. And they might want some snacks and bottled water on deck.

Look, Rob, you are against drug testing masters swimmers. I get that. And personally I don't believe there is the will to do it within the organization. But the reality is that it would be feasible, and the cost to introduce it at nationals would not be prohibitive

Rob Copeland
August 30th, 2016, 09:57 AM
Look, Rob, you are against drug testing masters swimmers. I get that.Now that’s just wrong. I’m not opposed to doping control in Masters Swimming. I’ve been trying and obviously failing to point out that you don’t just show up at nationals with a bunch if Dixie cups and expect drug testing to magically commence. There need to be rules written, programs developed, people trained, money invested, etc. There needs to be a plan, not just rhetoric. There needs to be a champion, not just soapboxers. Show me a real plan on how to fund, build and implement doping control and I’ll take it to the board.

USATF has been suggested as a model for testing, and beyond the before mentioned issues with USADA and USOC, as far as I can tell there have been 3 Masters T&F Athletes banned for steroid use since the program’s inception. You must be very naïve to believe there were only 3 cheats in Masters T&F. As mentioned before PED cheats can easily test clean when they know when they will be tested.

gull
August 30th, 2016, 10:05 AM
Show me a real plan on how to fund, build and implement doping control and I’ll take it to the board.


Create a task force. Assuming, of course, that the organization really wants to pursue this.

Chris Stevenson
August 30th, 2016, 11:15 AM
There needs to be a plan, not just rhetoric. There needs to be a champion, not just soapboxers. Show me a real plan on how to fund, build and implement doping control and I’ll take it to the board.


Create a task force. Assuming, of course, that the organization really wants to pursue this.

Oh goody, yet another task force. Isn't it funny how the people who demand action want others to do it for them?

"The organization" responds to the will of its members (ideally). All I've heard so far is a few people on the forum think it would be a good idea to charge the entire membership $5 in order to do testing that just might possibly improve the experience of maybe 5% of the membership.

Convince me this is a widespread concern among USMS members. Better yet, help with the work.

gull
August 30th, 2016, 11:43 AM
I would be willing to serve on a task force. But if, as you say, the organization has no interest in pursuing this, then what's the point?

smontanaro
August 30th, 2016, 11:50 AM
Can I digress just a little? USATF has been held up as another masters-oriented organization which does test its members. I know from direct experience in USMS that the majority of its members never compete. Is the fraction of competitive masters T&F athletes in USATF similar to USMS? Or does (mostly) everyone compete? Or is it somewhere in the middle?

I would think the calculus would be different for an organization in which nearly everyone competes. If USATF is such an organization, holding its doping practices up as an exemplar for USMS might not be that helpful.

Bobinator
August 30th, 2016, 11:55 AM
My main gripe with drug testing in athletics is that it's ineffective. When you look at people like Armstrong, Efimova, Gaitlin, and other world class athletes who have tested positive multiple times they somehow seem to wait out their ban but come back as juiced as ever and ride it to victory. It seems like the drug master's are constantly 1 step ahead of the anti-drug agency and are able to get away with their doping practices and come out looking like winners. Until a sure fire method of testing becomes available I think it's ineffective to spend the money for what we are getting now. Cheater's are never winners and my hope is they never experience the soul-filling satisfaction of completing their competition fairly and on their own power of strength and motivation.

gobears
August 30th, 2016, 12:13 PM
IMO, a person who is insecure/dishonest enough to cheat to win is insecure/dishonest enough to plan their doping around testing. Seems like a lot of work for little return.

jroddin
August 30th, 2016, 01:48 PM
If we are independent, why are we not allowed to compete in the full body suits?

We are not allowed to compete in full body suits because our own rulebook restricts their use. From Jan 1 - May 30, 2010 we did allow the use of full body suits when they were banned elsewhere. That is because the organization permitted their use to finish out the SCY season. It would be technically possible for a USMS rules change proposal to allow their use again even if they are banned elsewhere. I am not a fan of this idea, I'm just answering your question.


If we are independent, ...why was Lance not allowed to swim at Zones?

As has been previously reported, it was because we are a member of FINA and FINA banned his eligibility to compete.

orca1946
August 30th, 2016, 01:49 PM
How about we think this through a bit and relax the upscale rhetoric for a while? Yes, in a perfect world, testing would be covered by some rich org. but till then we can do little to catch the drug companies that spend Millions on the things we rant against.

gull
August 30th, 2016, 01:57 PM
As has been previously reported, it was because we are a member of FINA and FINA banned [Lance's] eligibility to compete.

Yes, and FINA is a signatory of the World Anti-Doping Code.

Rob Copeland
August 30th, 2016, 02:09 PM
But if, as you say, the organization has no interest in pursuing this, then what's the point?As far as I can tell, you are the only one saying the organization has no interest in pursuing this. To the best of my knowledge “the organization” has not even considered the question.

And what’s the point…
In the 70’s Ransom Arthur and others championed an idea that “the organization has no interest in pursuing”, because of their efforts we now have U.S. Masters Swimming.
In the 90’s Mike Collins and others championed an idea that “the organization has no interest in pursuing”, because of their efforts USMS now has an 18-24 age group.
Change takes champions.

gull
August 30th, 2016, 03:00 PM
I'll contact Dawson Hughes. Thanks for the feedback.

smontanaro
August 30th, 2016, 03:42 PM
If we are independent, why are we not allowed to compete in the full body suits...

In addition to @jroddin's comment, I suspect at this point, the market for old-style tech suits would be pretty small. (I'm not referring to the neoprene stuff triathletes wear, but the old swimming tech suits many top level USMS competitors used to wear).

ElaineK
August 30th, 2016, 05:45 PM
When masters swimmers break national or world records, require drug testing in order for those records to count & stand.

I think this is an excellent idea on the surface. Drug testing for the majority of us would be an unnecessary waste of money; however, I would hate to see record-holders lose a record to a cheater. Here's the problem, though: For drugs that are typically banned but medically necessary for some Masters swimmers, where do you draw the line as to which drugs should be allowed? :confused:

orca1946
August 30th, 2016, 06:33 PM
That is my question as well. A "doctor's note" just won't do as some of are required to be on some drugs that allow us to stay active but might be on some list as "aiding" in some fashion or other.

gull
August 30th, 2016, 06:46 PM
That is my question as well. A "doctor's note" just won't do as some of are required to be on some drugs that allow us to stay active but might be on some list as "aiding" in some fashion or other.

You would need to apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption.

sickfish
August 30th, 2016, 06:54 PM
To act as a deterrent.

I think the fact that people still test positive is very good evidence that it's not an effective deterrent. At best it will give armchair experts the opportunity to smugly look down on people who test positive. At worst it will punish someone who doesn't deserve it.


just might possibly improve the experience of maybe 5% of the membership

and will annoy the heck out of another 20%.


Convince me this is a widespread concern among USMS members.

Count me as a vote for "not a concern".

sickfish
August 30th, 2016, 06:55 PM
You would need to apply for a Therapeutic Use Exemption.

People love paperwork! Do you think this will attract more people to compete at meets?

Doug Martin
August 30th, 2016, 08:56 PM
I'm with Ande and others: random testing of top finishers at Nationals. Yes there would be logistical issues, and yes some would evade getting caught, but at least there would be a deterrent. I know a lot of our members couldn't care less, but a good number of us do, and it's important for the integrity of our sport.

I'm on a forum with some older swimmers and there has been a debate about testosterone supplementation. There are members who do so for very valid lifestyle reasons, and at least one admitted septuagenarian supplementer that has set several world records. My opinion is supplement if you want, compete if you want, but don't have your times count for WR.

Rob Copeland
August 31st, 2016, 08:15 AM
I'll contact Dawson Hughes. Thanks for the feedback.And a little more feedback…

Since doping control will require changes to USMS rules and policies, you should probably contact the president or Rules Committee chair. Dawson would be involved in implementation, but the USMS House of Delegates and Board of Directors would be the groups that vote on any rules and policy changes.

aztimm
August 31st, 2016, 12:07 PM
I'm with Ande and others: random testing of top finishers at Nationals. Yes there would be logistical issues, and yes some would evade getting caught, but at least there would be a deterrent. I know a lot of our members couldn't care less, but a good number of us do, and it's important for the integrity of our sport.



So long as this is paid for out of the fees for nationals, this sounds fine to me.
I would not be in favor of this coming out of USMS fees that are imposed on all members.


I think there's only 25-30% of USMS members who even compete (in at least 1 meet per year), and this would impact just a fraction of those, so yes you can count me in the category who doesn't care. Why take up time and USMS resources for something which benefits so few.

quicksilver
September 1st, 2016, 01:52 PM
Why not make it simple. A broken record can't be made official without a test. If an athlete declines, then they forfeit their result. This saves needless worry and money regarding the occasional record breakers who may or may not be cheating.

There's really no need for USMS to become the steroid police. Everyone can draw their own conclusions by whether or not the athlete wants to have their swim validated.

Rob Copeland
September 1st, 2016, 03:12 PM
A broken record can't be made official without a test.This thread is feeling like a broken record. Can we get it tested?

__steve__
September 1st, 2016, 04:02 PM
This thread is feeling like a broken record. Can we get it tested?
Test Result:
* positive *
for an about to be banned constituent

quicksilver
September 1st, 2016, 07:45 PM
Test Result:
* positive *
for an about to be banned constituent

Agreed. :) Lessons learned from thread...


Don't look too buff. You'll be accused of doping.
If you happen to break a world record, just pee in the pool and tell everyone to have a nice day.

__steve__
September 1st, 2016, 09:52 PM
If you happen to break a world record, just pee in the pool and tell everyone to have a nice day.

Good idea! Both cost effective and easy - All NWR stand if sample of pool water taken at conclusion of competition is clean.

jpetyk
September 2nd, 2016, 10:21 AM
People love paperwork! Do you think this will attract more people to compete at meets?

Yes! Because that one meet a year that participate in (usually Nationals) will be so much more appealing.:nono: I can't wait to go explain to my doctor why a 44 year old woman needs a medical exemption to play at sports. Oh, and yes, I want to spend more money too. The ironic thing is, the drug that would fail me is an androgen blocker (used as a masking agent). Without it, I would probably be stronger and faster, but with it, my everyday life is more normal.
Tell you what. You can keep my medal, just let me swim. :rant3:

Chris Stevenson
September 2nd, 2016, 10:58 AM
Yes! Because that one meet a year that participate in (usually Nationals) will be so much more appealing.:nono: I can't wait to go explain to my doctor why a 44 year old woman needs a medical exemption to play at sports. Oh, and yes, I want to spend more money too. The ironic thing is, the drug that would fail me is an androgen blocker (used as a masking agent). Without it, I would probably be stronger and faster, but with it, my everyday life is more normal.
Tell you what. You can keep my medal, just let me swim. :rant3:

I suspect, but don't know for sure of course, that people with a reaction similar to this one significantly outnumber those who would welcome random or non-random drug testing.

I like competing against people in meets, but I could care less whether my competition smokes, drinks to excess, drives too fast, sings off key in the shower, or uses legal or illegal supplements that are not medically necessary. I suppose I feel some measure of pity for those who take masters swimming so seriously they feel the need for PEDs. I suppose I would feel some measure annoyance at those who inconvenience me because they take masters swimming so seriously that they feel the need to test their competitors for PEDs.

Just my my own personal $0.02. While still a VP I'll do whatever the members feel benefits the organization best.

orca1946
September 2nd, 2016, 11:37 AM
I like the idea of testing record breaking swimmers. Cost and the number of swimmers involved would be greatly reduced.
PS ---I guess I would never be tested with this rule since I'm old and fat and will never break a record , maybe gas but, never a record!

gull
September 2nd, 2016, 02:24 PM
I have been unable to find a position statement from USMS regarding the use of performance enhancing drugs. Apparently this was discussed at the 2010 convention in Dallas. An organization that promotes adult health and fitness should at the very least draft a position statement on this issue.

quicksilver
September 2nd, 2016, 05:37 PM
This article (http://masterstrack.com/rex-harvey-on-masters-doping-penalties-should-be-even-tougher/) from masters track talks about how they address the issue, in the form of suspension.

At the end of the day I like what Chris said. It's really sad that some people feel the need to possibly gain an edge, and unfortunately they may be doing it at the risk of their their own health.

knelson
September 5th, 2016, 02:51 AM
If someone such as gull believes this issue is serious enough to pursue then, by all means, pursue it, but I do have a feeling most USMS members either couldn't care less or would be less likely to compete if they needed TUEs and/or knew they could be subjected to drug tests.

jackback
September 5th, 2016, 07:47 AM
This idea of PED use is distressing … a while back one of our great 70+ year old sprinters stated that 2 masters swimmers admitted to him of taking PED’s to “level the playing field” and then within this thread another discussed admitted PED use of USMS swimmers on a PED site. I spent a couple of hours sweeping thru those sites the other day and recognized 2 names as as probable usms swimmers … distressing
With the inability of the world sports authorities to prevent this I doubt we would make a much dent in our problem. It might make us feel better if we did something, maybe a “position” statement in relationship to this issue or even random testing. Our problem is how do we convince current PED users not to use. They are convinced its improving there lives and certainly improving times ( me i’d just like to recover from day to day like the old days). They can ignore the health risks that will come further down the road, they feel good now ! Myself I actually enjoy the struggle, despite my complaining. I love swimming and I will remain a “Natural” swimmer. ( a term i’m borrowing from weight lifters who don’t use )

gull
September 5th, 2016, 02:47 PM
I suppose I would feel some measure [of] annoyance at those who inconvenience me because they take masters swimming so seriously that they feel the need to test their competitors for PEDs.

We must wear a FINA approved suit. The meet must be sanctioned by USMS. And of course the pool must be properly measured or our swims won't count.

But doping? No problem. USMS doesn't even have a position statement.

jpetyk
September 6th, 2016, 09:17 AM
Our problem is how do we convince current PED users not to use. They are convinced its improving there lives and certainly improving times ( me i’d just like to recover from day to day like the old days). They can ignore the health risks that will come further down the road, they feel good now ! Myself I actually enjoy the struggle, despite my complaining. I love swimming and I will remain a “Natural” swimmer. ( a term i’m borrowing from weight lifters who don’t use )

A position statement can't hurt. Want to test record setters? Fine. How are you going to govern the folks in the rest of the world who are setting records?

Want to get on your high horse and be "natural." So be it. I know the prescriptions I take DO improve my quality of life. I started them BEFORE I joined USMS. Don't judge the majority of us that are swimming to stay fit, and taking prescriptions to get out of bed in the morning. So 1 or 2, maybe a handful of people are "cheating." Just like in age group swimming when someone would complain to the coach that someone was cheating on a set, the reply was always "they're only hurting themselves."

scyfreestyler
September 6th, 2016, 03:30 PM
A position statement can't hurt. Want to test record setters? Fine. How are you going to govern the folks in the rest of the world who are setting records?

Want to get on your high horse and be "natural." So be it. I know the prescriptions I take DO improve my quality of life. I started them BEFORE I joined USMS. Don't judge the majority of us that are swimming to stay fit, and taking prescriptions to get out of bed in the morning. So 1 or 2, maybe a handful of people are "cheating." Just like in age group swimming when someone would complain to the coach that someone was cheating on a set, the reply was always "they're only hurting themselves."

I don't think doping in competition is anything at all like age groupers cheating on a set. The former can make you faster in competition while the latter will likely make you slower, or at least provide a lesser training benefit than those doing the set as prescribed. While there might not be any financial gains for winning a USMS National Championship or setting a Master's WR (or maybe there could be, I do see a number of USMS'ers on advertisements for things like P2Life) if somebody is winning by way of cheating, that is effectively hurting the person who finished behind them.

knelson
September 6th, 2016, 06:13 PM
Want to get on your high horse and be "natural." So be it.

You really think it's being on a "high horse" to be against doping?

The Fortress
September 6th, 2016, 06:35 PM
You really think it's being on a "high horse" to be against doping?

I think she was on her "high horse" regarding jack black's blanket comments about "enjoying the struggle" and denouncing people on potentially medically necessary "PEDs" as "convinced it's improving their lives."

Obviously, as in the case of jpetyk, many masters would qualify for TUEs.

jpetyk
September 7th, 2016, 07:37 AM
I think she was on her "high horse" regarding jack black's blanket comments about "enjoying the struggle" and denouncing people on potentially medically necessary "PEDs" as "convinced it's improving their lives."

Obviously, as in the case of jpetyk, many masters would qualify for TUEs.

Right. Thank you.

ande
September 7th, 2016, 11:43 AM
I think this is an excellent idea on the surface. Drug testing for the majority of us would be an unnecessary waste of money; however, I would hate to see record-holders lose a record to a cheater. Here's the problem, though: For drugs that are typically banned but medically necessary for some Masters swimmers, where do you draw the line as to which drugs should be allowed? :confused:

Elainiak there are
Therapeutic Use Exemptions (https://www.wada-ama.org/en/what-we-do/science-medical/therapeutic-use-exemptions) for medically necessary drugs.

ande
September 7th, 2016, 11:46 AM
I'm with Ande and others: random testing of top finishers at Nationals. Yes there would be logistical issues, and yes some would evade getting caught, but at least there would be a deterrent. I know a lot of our members couldn't care less, but a good number of us do, and it's important for the integrity of our sport.

I'm on a forum with some older swimmers and there has been a debate about testosterone supplementation. There are members who do so for very valid lifestyle reasons, and at least one admitted septuagenarian supplementer that has set several world records. My opinion is supplement if you want, compete if you want, but don't have your times count for WR.

Hi Doug,
Thanks for your comments.

ande
September 7th, 2016, 12:16 PM
I have been unable to find a position statement from USMS regarding the use of performance enhancing drugs. Apparently this was discussed at the 2010 convention in Dallas. An organization that promotes adult health and fitness should at the very least draft a position statement on this issue.

It would be interesting if USMS Meet Information include the text that Participants could be tested. Like the Austin Arena Pro Meet Does.


"Doping Control
Doping Control may occur at Grand Prix meets. Athletes must check the status of all medications prior to competition at
www.globaldro.com
Some medications require documentation be submitted in advance:
contact USADA at 1-800-233-0393 to check requirements for reporting.
For more on Doping Control, visit our Doping Control section."


Comparison of Doping Language in Rule Books

The USMS Rule Book states:

102.12 Swimwear for Pool Competition
102.12.1 Design
E "No swimmer is permitted to wear or use any device or substance to enhance speed, pace, buoyancy, or endurance during a race (such as webbed gloves, fins, power bands, adhesive substances, snorkels, neoprene caps, etc.). Goggles may be worn, and rubdown oil applied if not considered excessive by the referee. Medical identification items may be worn. Any kind of tape on the body is not permitted unless approved by the referee."

Guidance for therapeutic Tape
http://www.usms.org/rules/20160626_therapeutictape.pdf

but I didn't see any mention against doping.

The 2016 USA Swimming Rule Book (http://www.usaswimming.org/_Rainbow/Documents/01b28cab-25a6-4dbf-a5df-4b89d9488a14/2016%20Rulebook.pdf) contains this on page 4
"DOPING CONTROL
All athletes should check the status of all medications they plan to take PRIOR to taking them. This includes over-the-counter and prescription medications. It is the responsibility of the athlete to ensure that no prohibited substance enters his/her system. The United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) offers a Drug Reference Line (719-785-2000) and a Drug Reference Online (www.globaldro.com) where athletes, coaches, parents and medical professionals may check to ensure that proper documentation is on file for their medications and that they are consuming medications that are permitted. Dietary supplements are considered “Take at Your Own Risk” as claims made by the manufacturers/distributors of dietary supplements regarding the effectiveness or contents of their products are not strictly regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Any commercial dietary supplement is susceptible to containing substances that may appear on the Prohibited Substance list(s) of FINA and/or the World Anti-Doping Agency. These substances may not be listed on the ingredients label of the product. Athletes are also strongly encouraged to check every ingredient of every product they plan to consume as prohibited substances may be listed as ingredients. To comply with the 2015 World Anti-Doping Code, FINA, USOC and USADA have all amended their anti-doping rules. The rules are available at the offices of USA Swimming or may be found online at the following websites:
WADA www.wada-ama.org
FINA www.fina.org
USOC www.usoc.org
USADA www.usada.org
The 2016 List of Prohibited Substances and Methods is available on the websites listed above. This List will take effect on January 1, 2016."

Then Article 303 Eligibility on Page 103 of USA Swimming's Rule Book states:
ARTICLE 303 ELIGIBILITY
303.1 It shall be the responsibility of all USA Swimming members to comply with the rules and regulations of USA Swimming and the Rules, Constitution and Bureau decisions of FINA, as well as to avoid acting in any manner which brings disrepute upon USA Swimming or upon the sport of swimming.
303.2 Except as provided for in 203.9, only athlete members of USA Swimming are eligible to compete.
303.3 As a member National Governing Body of the United States Olympic Committee (USOC), and as a member Federation of Federation Internationale de Natation (FINA), USA Swimming is obligated to adhere to the anti-doping rules of the USOC and FINA. In addition, USOC Bylaw Chapter XXIII, Section 2(G) provides that, as a condition of membership in the USOC, each National Governing body shall comply with the procedures pertaining to drug testing and adjudication of related doping offenses of the independent anti-doping organization designated by the USOC to conduct drug testing. The USOC has designated the United States Anti-Doping Agency (“USADA”) as that organization. The current anti-doping rules of the USOC, FINA and USADA are available at the offices of USA Swimming or on line at the following websites:
WADA www.wada-ama.org
FINA www.fina.org
USOC www.usoc.org
USADA www.usada.org
As a condition of membership in USA Swimming, it is the responsibility of each athlete member of USA Swimming to comply with the anti-doping rules of FINA, USOC and USADA and to submit, without reservation or condition, to in-competition and out-of-competition doping controls conducted by either FINA or USADA. (Out-of-competition doping controls by USADA may take place at USA Swimming elite-level camps, training sessions at USOC facilities, or with no advance notice any time for athletes designated by USA Swimming and USADA for inclusion in USA Swimming’s no advance notice testing pool.) Pursuant to USOC Bylaw Chapter XXIII, Section 2(G), the management of positive and elevated test results for USA Swimming athletes has become the responsibility of USADA. Any inconsistent provisions elsewhere in USA Swimming rules are hereby superseded. USA Swimming will, without further process, enforce and publish any sanction communicated to USA Swimming by USADA resulting from adjudication of a doping control under the USADA Protocol for Olympic Movement Testing.
303.4 A swimmer shall cease to be eligible to compete in events conducted by USA Swimming or its LSCs, or by any FINA Federation, while under suspension or if expelled by USA Swimming for violations of this Part Three.
303.5 No Individual Member or Group Member of USA Swimming shall coach, train or provide swimming-related advice or service to any swimmer who is serving a period of ineligibility or provisional suspension for an anti-doping rule violation.
303.6 If a swimmer is required to forfeit any medals, points or prizes earned at an event on account of an anti-doping rule violation, then any compensation paid by USA Swimming to the swimmer’s coach(es) on account of that swimmer’s result shall also be forfeited and shall be returned to USA Swimming.
303.7 A swimmer may be registered for USA Swimming and Masters Swimming at the same time. Membership in U.S. Masters Swimming does not imply or presume membership in USA Swimming.
303.8 A swimmer declared ineligible for any reason may be reinstated pursuant to the provisions of Article 404."

ARTICLE 304 CODE OF CONDUCT
304.1 The mission of USA Swimming is to encourage participation and the pursuit of excellence in all aspects of swimming. USA Swimming grants the privilege of membership to individuals and organizations committed to that mission. The privilege of membership may, therefore, be withdrawn or denied by USA Swimming at any time where USA Swimming determines that a member or prospective member's conduct is inconsistent with the mission of the organization or the best interest of the sport and those who participate in it. In order to assist all members to better serve the interests of those who participate in swimming, USA Swimming has adopted this Code of Conduct."

304.3 The following shall be considered violations of the USA Swimming Code of Conduct:

.2 Violation of the anti-doping provisions set forth in 303.3.

.8 The sale or distribution of illegal drugs or the illegal sale or distribution of any substance listed on FINA's recognized list of banned substances.
.9 The use of illegal drugs in the presence of an athlete, by a coach, official, trainer, or a person who, in the context of swimming, is in a position of authority over, that athlete.

MAJOR LEGISLATION AND RULE CHANGES FOR 2016
(currently effective except as otherwise noted)

8. Prohibition of privately coaching an athlete suspended for doping.


FINA DOPING CONTROL RULES (http://www.fina.org/content/doping-control-rules)

INTRODUCTION
DC 1 DEFINITION OF DOPING
DC 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS
DC 3 PROOF OF DOPING
DC 4 THE PROHIBITED LIST
DC 5 TESTING AND INVESTIGATIONS
DC 6 ANALYSIS OF SAMPLES
DC 7 RESULTS MANAGEMENT
DC 8 RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING
DC 9 AUTOMATIC DISQUALIFICATION OF INDIVIDUAL RESULTS
DC 10 SANCTIONS ON INDIVIDUALS
DC 11 CONSEQUENCES TO TEAMS
DC 12 SANCTIONS AND COSTS ASSESSED AGAINST MEMBER FEDERATIONS AND OTHER PERSONS
DC 13 APPEALS
DC 14 CONFIDENTIALITY AND REPORTING
DC 15 APPLICATION AND RECOGNITION OF DECISIONS
DC 16 INCORPORATION OF FINA ANTI-DOPING RULES AND OBLIGATIONS OF MEMBER FEDERATIONS
DC 17 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS
DC 18 FINA COMPLIANCE REPORTS TO WADA
DC 19 EDUCATION
DC 20 INTERPRETATION OF ANTI-DOPING RULES
DC 21 ADDITIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF ATHLETES AND OTHER PERSONS
APPENDIX 1
APPENDIX 2

FINA MASTERS (http://www.fina.org/content/general-mgr)
MGR 2 Except for specific exceptions in the FINA Rules and regulations all other FINA Rules and Regulations shall apply to Masters Competitions.

smontanaro
September 7th, 2016, 01:58 PM
This article (http://masterstrack.com/rex-harvey-on-masters-doping-penalties-should-be-even-tougher/) from masters track talks about how they address the issue, in the form of suspension.

Thanks for posting that link, quicksilver. I found this statement by Rex Harvey interesting, but think he got some details wrong:


The current system of convicted dopers being given a certain period of suspension from competition does not serve masters athletes well at all. It is well-known that aging beyond a certain age results in a loss of muscle mass at an ever increasing rate.The Age Grading tables (Sheahen style not Repenning style) show this very clearly.

So if I dope and increase my muscle mass at any point in my life, I have not only an immediate increase in strength but also a bump-up in my normal aging muscle mass curve. And even if I then completely stop doping for the rest of my life and start the normal muscle loss curve again, I am starting at a higher muscle mass and therefore remain at a relatively higher muscle mass than someone who never doped. And this effect I feel is longer termed than most imagine. It is almost like “once a strength doper, always a strength doper.”

...

Are the 2- and 4-year penalties appropriate? I don’t think they are long enough to dissipate the advantage gained.


While he's correct that at the point where the athlete stops taking PEDs, s/he will have higher performance in some dimension (oxygen uptake, muscle strength, whatever), the body is going to fairly quickly return to its baseline values. (How "quickly" will depend on which dimension(s) increased.) For instance, someone taking EPO is probably going to return to their "normal" levels in the time it normally takes to replenish your red blood cells. EPO itself will disappear from the bloodstream very quickly, with a half-life of about five hours (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erythropoietin). If I remember correctly from my college days, red blood cells have a lifespan of about 120 days. So, after stopping EPO treatment, the athlete's hematocrit should be back to normal within a couple months.

I believe anabolic steroids work by enhancing recovery of muscles from overload, allowing the athlete to exercise again after a shorter rest, and to exercise at higher levels while still retaining the ability to recover in a reasonable amount of time. There are so many different natural and synthetic anabolic steroids that it's probably impossible to state a precise half-life for them in your system, but they will eventually get metabolized or excreted, and fail to offer positive effects during recovery. (Besides, they and their metabolic byproducts have to disappear from the blood and urine rather quickly so as not to be detected by USADA and the like.) The doping athlete's ability to recover from overload will return to normal, and their muscle mass will as well. This might take longer, as the doping athlete can continue to provide some overload stimulus, but sooner or later the loss of the anabolic steroid's benefits will catch up to the no-longer-doping athlete and s/he will fail to preserve their artificially large muscle mass and/or injure themselves trying to maintain the overload levels they attained while taking drugs.

To support my contention that these benefits are short-lived, I offer comment #3 in the Master's Track link from Randy Harris (emphasis mine):


When I began my 6 week cycle, I weighed 200 lbs,and my max bench press was 275 from about 2 years of weight lifting. After 6 weeks of the juice, I weighed 220 and my max bench was 330! I was thrilled, but I wanted to stop the drugs and keep what I gained from it. I ate like mad, ingested 200 grams of protein per day, and worked out hard 3 days a week. No matter, I continued to get weaker every workout until My weight had fallen back to 200, and my max bench actually went down to 265 which was 10 lbs lower than my starting max!

Just my two cents...

ande
September 7th, 2016, 03:09 PM
This idea of PED use is distressing … a while back one of our great 70+ year old sprinters stated that 2 masters swimmers admitted to him of taking PED’s to “level the playing field” and then within this thread another discussed admitted PED use of USMS swimmers on a PED site. I spent a couple of hours sweeping thru those sites the other day and recognized 2 names as as probable usms swimmers … distressing
With the inability of the world sports authorities to prevent this I doubt we would make a much dent in our problem. It might make us feel better if we did something, maybe a “position” statement in relationship to this issue or even random testing. Our problem is how do we convince current PED users not to use. They are convinced its improving there lives and certainly improving times ( me i’d just like to recover from day to day like the old days). They can ignore the health risks that will come further down the road, they feel good now ! Myself I actually enjoy the struggle, despite my complaining. I love swimming and I will remain a “Natural” swimmer. ( a term i’m borrowing from weight lifters who don’t use )

The previous thread was the discussion that ensued after this SFF Tip
http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?4229-Ande-s-Swimming-Tips-Swimming-Faster-Faster&p=302513&viewfull=1#post302513

Where Rich Rich Abrahams Commented:

"If you're diagnosed with Low T and take testosterone or HGH or any substance on WDAs list and continue to compete, you're probably cheating unless you can get a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUEs)."

Andy, I'm glad you brought this up. I know two masters swimmers (both world record holders) who take testosterone. Their justification is that their natural level is low and they need it to "level the playing field." I have told them I strongly disagree. Take it if you want, but then don't compete. It is cheating. Masters Track and Field tests, especially those setting records. I wish Masters Swimming would as well.

http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?4229-Ande-s-Swimming-Tips-Swimming-Faster-Faster&p=302555&viewfull=1#post302555

Then we had in interesting discussion on Doping that transformed into USRPT
http://forums.usms.org/showthread.php?4229-Ande-s-Swimming-Tips-Swimming-Faster-Faster/page97

Personally, I think the majority of Masters are clean and swim fair.

swoomer
September 7th, 2016, 09:17 PM
At SC Nationals a few years ago, we observed a younger female swimmer who was obviously "pumped up." We thought she would blow away the competition handily, but the results were surprising. She was pretty average in terms of the competition. So extraordinary muscle mass may not necessarily make a difference.

gull
September 8th, 2016, 11:00 AM
So extraordinary muscle mass may not necessarily make a difference.

No, but the ability to train harder and recover faster will.

quicksilver
September 8th, 2016, 02:16 PM
No, but the ability to train harder and recover faster will.

Exactly. Muscles mass could be a detriment, maybe with the exception of sprint races. Big muscles do not always mean faster, ...only when excellent technique is in place.

Being able to train consistently back to back however, without the need for lengthy recovery, is what's going to make someone stronger and faster.

Chris Stevenson
September 8th, 2016, 02:35 PM
Being able to train consistently back to back however, without the need for lengthy recovery, is what's going to make someone stronger and faster.

Putting aside the fact that I cannot currently swim more than about 300 yards without my shoulder preventing me from going further...

I can't speak for others, but recovery time between bouts of intense training is not the limiting factor for me in masters swimming. It is finding the time to train. Have they found a pill for that? Because if so, I'm all ears.

gull
September 8th, 2016, 02:55 PM
Being able to train consistently back to back without the need for lengthy recovery is what's going to make someone stronger and faster.

It is postulated that anabolic steroids not only increase strength but also allow you to recover more quickly. That's the point.

Gary P
September 8th, 2016, 04:07 PM
If someone such as gull believes this issue is serious enough to pursue then, by all means, pursue it, but I do have a feeling most USMS members either couldn't care less or would be less likely to compete if they needed TUEs and/or knew they could be subjected to drug tests.


Absolutely. If one of my competitors wants to use PED's to win a $3.00 medal at USMS Nationals, so be it; even if it bumps me out. It's Masters, not the friggin' Olympics. Nobody outside our small circle cares. If it means that much to you, then you can have it.

Testing and TUE's would drive a lot people out....not because they want to cheat, but because it's too much of a hassle just to participate in a pretty much meaningless competition.

gull
September 8th, 2016, 04:22 PM
Testing and TUE's would drive a lot people out....not because they want to cheat, but because it's too much of a hassle just to participate in a pretty much meaningless competition.

If it is meaningless, then why bother doing it at all?

quicksilver
September 9th, 2016, 07:17 AM
If it is meaningless, then why bother doing it at all?

Agreed. There's no point at all, unless that $3.00 medal helps fill some kind of emotional void.

At the end of the day, cheaters will ultimately reap what they sow. Men can drape their top ten medals between their new found cleavage, and women can admire them while shaving their beards.


From the Mayo Clinic:
Andro is available legally only in prescription form and is a controlled substance.Manufacturers and bodybuilding magazines tout its ability to allow athletes to train harder and recover more quickly. However, its use as a performance-enhancing drug is illegal in the United States. Scientific studies that refute these claims show that supplemental androstenedione doesn't increase testosterone and that your muscles don't get stronger with andro use.
Risks

Side effects of andro in men include:


Acne
Diminished sperm production
Shrinking of the testicles
Enlargement of the breasts

In women, side effects include:


Acne
Masculinization, such as deepening of the voice, facial hair, and male-pattern baldness

Chris Stevenson
September 9th, 2016, 02:00 PM
Men can drape their top ten medals between their new found cleavage, and women can admire them while shaving their beards.

No medals, but there is this:

http://www.usms.org/content/tt_patches

That's right, achieving a TT time affords you the chance to buy your own TT patch. It's the little things that get you out of bed (or motivate a doper to take PEDs)!

But setting a USMS record is a HUGE step up: you get a certificate mailed to you. And you don't even need to pay for it. <sarcasm>And the sponsorship offers just roll right in, too.</sarcasm>

Gary P
September 9th, 2016, 02:46 PM
If it is meaningless, then why bother doing it at all?


Because it's fun. For an aging constituency, having to manage every prescription, OTC medication, and supplement against a banned substance list (and get TUE's for those that are on the list but medically necessary) takes a lot of the fun out of it. Getting a needle stuck in your arm to give a blood sample would take the rest out.

gull
September 9th, 2016, 03:10 PM
Getting a needle stuck in your arm to give a blood sample would take the rest [of the fun] out.

Actually it is a urine sample.

Many of you seem to take masters swimming pretty seriously, considering that it is all "meaningless."

Chris Stevenson
September 9th, 2016, 06:46 PM
Because it's fun.


Many of you seem to take masters swimming pretty seriously.

These two statements are not contradictory.

This thread reminds me a little of the saying about academics: the arguments are heated because the stakes are so low.

gull
September 9th, 2016, 07:26 PM
These two statements are not contradictory.

The argument that "it's only masters" and that our competitions are "meaningless" is inconsistent with what I have seen at nationals. I think you're being disingenuous when you use this to justify your opposition to drug testing. That's my point.

The Fortress
September 9th, 2016, 08:26 PM
The argument that "it's only masters" and that our competitions are "meaningless" is inconsistent with what I have seen at nationals.

Hard to believe it's "meaningless" when people are throwing down $500 for Speedo suits and major dollars in travel expenses ... I've seen/experienced plenty of very intense masters swimmers.

"It's only masters" is a odd turn of phrase to me. Does life only exist/have meaning when you're young? We're masters and I assume what we choose to spend time doing matters somewhat to us.

__steve__
September 9th, 2016, 08:29 PM
I believe most masters records were accomplished legitimately, but there is really no way to know are for sure for everyone.

Anyway, I would much rather see our public servants in washington engage in random drug screen testing.

Chris Stevenson
September 9th, 2016, 09:26 PM
The argument that "it's only masters" and that our competitions are "meaningless" is inconsistent with what I have seen at nationals. I think you're being disingenuous when you use this to justify your opposition to drug testing. That's my point.

Some people take it very seriously. 75% don't compete at all in a given year. My personal opinion is that there are better ways to spend the resources to further USMS' mission.

What is unquestionably meaningless is griping about it on the forums, with nothing further. As Rob said long ago in this thread, if someone truly wants this to happen it needs a champion. Is that you?

gull
September 9th, 2016, 10:32 PM
A position statement does not require a champion. Nor does it consume resources. But it does send a message.

Chris Stevenson
September 10th, 2016, 04:25 AM
A position statement does not require a champion. Nor does it consume resources. But it does send a message.

A position statement. Now that's really swinging for the fences.

gull
September 10th, 2016, 06:37 AM
A position statement. Now that's really swinging for the fences.

Yes, and even that failed at convention in 2010. Go figure.

orca1946
September 10th, 2016, 11:53 AM
Does anyone at USMS have any interest as to our concerns?

swoomer
September 10th, 2016, 11:03 PM
How many elites have genuine asthma and have to use inhalers? It must be a disproportionate malady among really great swimmers, because a lot of them seem to have a malady that requires an inhaler. Is this a form of performance enhancement?

Gary P
September 11th, 2016, 09:15 AM
How many elites have genuine asthma and have to use inhalers? It must be a disproportionate malady among really great swimmers, because a lot of them seem to have a malady that requires an inhaler. Is this a form of performance enhancement?Albuterol, the most commonly prescribed inhaler, is a "borderline" substance. "Borderline" means you don't need a TUE unless you're a heavy user (more than ~14 puffs a day at the normal dosage-per-puff). In normally prescribed concentrations, it does not enhance an athletes performance. It does prevent performance degradation due to Exercise Induced Bronchoconstriction (commonly, but improperly, called exercise induced asthma) which is a real thing. Certain airborne allergens, including chloramines, can trigger or aggravate EIB. This may be why its so common among swimmers.


I sometimes suffer from EIB, especially in "allergy season," so I have a prescription for Albuterol. I typically take two puffs before exercise. If I forget, and there are no triggering allergens, I don't even notice. I can perform at the same peak level. If there are allergens in the air, however, I lose performance and, in some cases, have to abandon my workout all together.

smontanaro
September 11th, 2016, 10:27 AM
It does prevent performance degradation due to Exercise Induced Bronchoconstriction (commonly, but improperly, called exercise induced asthma) which is a real thing. Certain airborne allergens, including chloramines, can trigger or aggravate EIB. This may be why its so common among swimmers....

.... If there are allergens in the air, however, I lose performance and, in some cases, have to abandon my workout all together.

I can't correlate it very well with my current setup, but way BITD (1970s), as a student at UCLA, I was a runner. The air quality was so poor at times that taking a deep breath could be painful. I always associated it with air pollution. As I live in the Chicago area now, I have nothing to compare it with. For one, the completely different geography and meteorology (no hills/mountains to trap the crap, fewer temperature inversions) keeps the pollutants from reaching such high concentrations. Also, the pool I swim at now (McGaw YMCA (http://www.mcgawymca.org/)) has an ozone(?)-based system. The difference is like night and day compared to a more traditional chlorine-based system. No more sinus irritation, no constant itchy skin during the winter. I suspect it has a positive effect on the EIB Gary describes (and what I perhaps suffered from in the old days).

robertsrobson
September 12th, 2016, 07:24 AM
Hard to believe it's "meaningless" when people are throwing down $500 for Speedo suits and major dollars in travel expenses ... I've seen/experienced plenty of very intense masters swimmers.

"It's only masters" is a odd turn of phrase to me. Does life only exist/have meaning when you're young? We're masters and I assume what we choose to spend time doing matters somewhat to us.

For me, "it's only masters" has resonance. I work hard and try to prepare well, and some would see my commitment as pretty intense, but I only race because I enjoy it and it is a distant third on the list of priorities after family and work. The idea of doping is a compete antithesis to my concept of masters swimming, which for me is not only about fun but about personal achievement. Quite frankly, if someone else wants to put their health at risk, that's their look out, and if I don't win a medal but swim well, it doesn't really matter to me anyway.

Gary P
September 12th, 2016, 08:40 AM
For me, "it's only masters" has resonance. I work hard and try to prepare well, and some would see my commitment as pretty intense, but I only race because I enjoy it and it is a distant third on the list of priorities after family and work. The idea of doping is a compete antithesis to my concept of masters swimming, which for me is not only about fun but about personal achievement. Quite frankly, if someone else wants to put their health at risk, that's their look out, and if I don't win a medal but swim well, it doesn't really matter to me anyway.

Thanks for saying what I was having trouble expressing.

Do I want to swim well at Masters Nationals? Yes, I want to swim as well as I can. But are the results in any way life changing? Not in the slightest. If I medal or win or even set a new Masters World Record, its a nice "Facebook moment" and nothing more. My life the next day is the same as if I had finished DFL. There's no financial compensation for winning. There's no potential scholarship riding on how well I do, nor are there any potential endorsement deals on the line. There's no "next level" meet to try to qualify for. Its a big meet, but it's just a meet. And when its over, its over. I go back to my family and my job and my local group of swim friends (who will congratulate me the same no matter where I finish) and real life goes on.

orca1946
September 12th, 2016, 01:06 PM
I think Gary has put it out here for us all. Nice way of describing how many of us feel. Nice to meet you face to face at Nationals.

Chris Stevenson
September 12th, 2016, 04:51 PM
For me, "it's only masters" has resonance. I work hard and try to prepare well, and some would see my commitment as pretty intense, but I only race because I enjoy it and it is a distant third on the list of priorities after family and work. The idea of doping is a compete antithesis to my concept of masters swimming, which for me is not only about fun but about personal achievement. Quite frankly, if someone else wants to put their health at risk, that's their look out, and if I don't win a medal but swim well, it doesn't really matter to me anyway.

+1

A great statement, the only problem I have with the phrase "it's only masters" is that it seems to denigrate those who expend considerable time, emotional and physical energy, and even money on the sport. And of course there are many extremely impressive masters swimmers, and I certainly wouldn't want to disrespect their accomplishments.

But I don't think that's the intent of most when they say it, it is just a way to keep some perspective and keep it fun.

And yes, introducing drug testing would take some of the fun out of it for me. Others can take it just as seriously as they want, but when they force me to take it just as seriously, it becomes a shade less enjoyable . And I don't gain the "upside" of knowing that my competitors might get caught because I don't really care if they are doping or not.

The Fortress
September 12th, 2016, 06:50 PM
I think Gary has put it out here for us all. Nice way of describing how many of us feel. Nice to meet you face to face at Nationals.

What? Didn't you just say: "Does anyone at USMS have any interest as to our concerns?" You opinions are all over the place. You seem to be in favor of testing as long as you're personally not tested.

I agree with robertsrobson as well. Well stated. My only point above is that to the extent you spend any time on doing any particular thing, it is not "meaningless." Obviously, work and family are way more important than masters swimming. I can say from personal experience, not everyone seems to feel that way. To some, that is how they "identify."

fmracing
September 12th, 2016, 07:58 PM
This whole thread has me wondering how much faster I could go if I started a lil doping action on the side... Can't get caught anyways..... Always was intrigued by blood doping lol.

knelson
September 12th, 2016, 11:41 PM
I agree with robertsrobson as well. Well stated. My only point above is that to the extent you spend any time on doing any particular thing, it is not "meaningless."

I agree, It sure as hell isn't meaningless to me and I wouldn't just shrug off the thought that others are cheating to beat me. The notion of testing at events like USMS Nationals resonates with me, but I do feel like any kind of testing would be off-putting to many masters competitors and I think that's a legitimate concern for an organization that claims to be inclusive.

quicksilver
September 13th, 2016, 09:17 AM
To some, that is how they "identify."

Agreed. It's hard to place a reason behind it, but super competitiveness exists. Maybe having one's ego massaged is the end to the means, and that's why a small percentage may ingest something to gain what they perceive as an edge.

Interestingly this mindset is very apparent in sports like triathlon where having the latest carbon fiber technology can provide the make or break. I also see it in stand up paddle racing, as well as other sports where costly equipment upgrades supposedly provide a performance boost.

Obviously these are totally acceptable examples of striving for better results, and are a far cry from performance drug use, but the desire to excel shares a similar thought process in certain individuals. Winning is everything. It's a little sad, but true.

__steve__
September 13th, 2016, 10:16 AM
This whole thread has me wondering how much faster I could go if I started a lil doping ....probabaly not much if any since swimming fast has so much to do with the technique one uses

Glenn
September 13th, 2016, 11:42 AM
probabaly not much if any since swimming fast has so much to do with the technique one uses

Amen! Technique is, by far, the most important factor in swimming fast.

ElaineK
September 13th, 2016, 04:04 PM
Interestingly this mindset is very apparent in sports like triathlon where having the latest carbon fiber technology can provide the make or break. I also see it in stand up paddle racing, as well as other sports where costly equipment upgrades supposedly provide a performance boost.

Don't forget tech suits in swimming, especially the full-body suits before they were banned.

robertsrobson
September 13th, 2016, 06:02 PM
+1

A great statement, the only problem I have with the phrase "it's only masters" is that it seems to denigrate those who expend considerable time, emotional and physical energy, and even money on the sport. And of course there are many extremely impressive masters swimmers, and I certainly wouldn't want to disrespect their accomplishments.

But I don't think that's the intent of most when they say it, it is just a way to keep some perspective and keep it fun.

And yes, introducing drug testing would take some of the fun out of it for me. Others can take it just as seriously as they want, but when they force me to take it just as seriously, it becomes a shade less enjoyable . And I don't gain the "upside" of knowing that my competitors might get caught because I don't really care if they are doping or not.

Maybe, "it's only swimming" or "it's only sport" is more to the point.

gull
September 13th, 2016, 06:59 PM
Count me among those who actually care about the "three dollar medals" at Nationals. I know. Pathetic, right?

ElaineK
September 13th, 2016, 08:51 PM
Count me among those who actually care about the "three dollar medals" at Nationals. I know. Pathetic, right?

No, it's not pathetic. Any medal you earn is a symbol of the hard work you put in to being the best swimmer you can be. It's great to achieve a goal and be reminded of that achievement when you see your medal. Besides, it's a great souvenir to bring home from Nationals! I love my medals from Mission Viejo; they had the best design!

10712

Gary P
September 14th, 2016, 07:28 AM
Count me among those who actually care about the "three dollar medals" at Nationals. I know. Pathetic, right?

I care, too. Was disappointed to have missed one by 0.49 in the 400 free at Geneva. Didn't care enough to have wanted everyone in front of me tested for PED's, however. Because I know that with our demographics, the management of TUEs would be untenable.

jpetyk
September 14th, 2016, 02:24 PM
the management of TUEs would be untenable.

New question: If the rules are changed to catch potential dopers, and a committee is willing to handle the TUE paperwork, how does this fit in with a bunch of random volunteers and HIPPA? I am personally an open book. Want to know what I take and why? I will tell you. I believe I am the exception to this, however. There are still some illnesses and reasons for taking medications that carry a stigma, and/or folks are private about their business. If this topic is pursued beyond this thread, privacy issues are a very real concern.

fmracing
September 15th, 2016, 12:12 PM
probabaly not much if any since swimming fast has so much to do with the technique one uses

I certainly realize this. Presuming technique is already good and stays constant. I've always wondered how much faster we're talking about. I'd imagine it has more to do with better stamina than with some miracle strength burst pill or something. Might be worth a shot if one could get a handful of tenths per hundred. lol

aquajock
September 15th, 2016, 04:03 PM
It is enough for me that people have to live with the guilt of knowing they are cheating.

Gary P
September 15th, 2016, 05:13 PM
I certainly realize this. Presuming technique is already good and stays constant. I've always wondered how much faster we're talking about. I'd imagine it has more to do with better stamina than with some miracle strength burst pill or something.

Yes, its much more about Stamina than brute power. I have pretty decent technique on the first 100 of a 400 free race. It's pretty ragged by the last 100.

swoomer
September 15th, 2016, 09:58 PM
I think that anyone who is an extraordinary outlier will always raise suspicion. So if you're the cream of the cream, you're probably accustomed to that sort of scrutiny. There is probably a small percentage of top performers who use stuff, but I believe that by and large, most masters are honest. Of course, this comes from someone who will never set a USMS record of any sort, unless I happen to live to the age of 120. I'd like to believe that that we are pretty honest in our endeavors. I honestly have to believe that when I lose, it's because other folks just swim faster than I do. Full disclosure: I'm older than dirt, so perhaps the suspicious stuff occurs among younger swimmers.

Gary P
September 16th, 2016, 10:15 AM
I think that anyone who is an extraordinary outlier will always raise suspicion. So if you're the cream of the cream, you're probably accustomed to that sort of scrutiny. There is probably a small percentage of top performers who use stuff, but I believe that by and large, most masters are honest. Of course, this comes from someone who will never set a USMS record of any sort, unless I happen to live to the age of 120. I'd like to believe that that we are pretty honest in our endeavors. I honestly have to believe that when I lose, it's because other folks just swim faster than I do. Full disclosure: I'm older than dirt, so perhaps the suspicious stuff occurs among younger swimmers.

I've talked to a couple of the people who were "outliers" in my age group. Turns out, they were "outliers" in college, in high school, and as age groupers, too. When I compare what their times are now to when they were in their primes, the difference (by percentage) is pretty damn close to the difference in my current times to when I was in my prime. They were faster then, they are faster now, and PED's almost certainly have never had anything to do with it.

orca1946
September 16th, 2016, 11:10 AM
They can test me anytime they want and will find caffeine and meds for my 5 hip surgeries in me.

ande
September 16th, 2016, 02:40 PM
https://swimswam.com/international-anti-doping-summit-makes-recommendations-wada/

gull
September 19th, 2016, 08:37 PM
From the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, published in Circulation in December of 2015:

"As a matter of general policy, the use of performance-enhancing drugs and supplements should be prohibited by schools, universities, and other sponsoring/participating organizations as a condition for continued participation in athletic activities."

At the end of the day, the real question in my mind is why the leadership of USMS is unwilling to champion a position statement prohibiting the use of these drugs unless they have been prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a legitimate medical condition. What is the compelling argument against doing so?

Chris Stevenson
September 20th, 2016, 04:50 AM
From the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, published in Circulation in December of 2015:

"As a matter of general policy, the use of performance-enhancing drugs and supplements should be prohibited by schools, universities, and other sponsoring/participating organizations as a condition for continued participation in athletic activities."

At the end of the day, the real question in my mind is why the leadership of USMS is unwilling to champion a position statement prohibiting the use of these drugs unless they have been prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a legitimate medical condition. What is the compelling argument against doing so?

"Unwilling to champion" is overstating things. To my knowledge, such a position statement has never been proposed or submitted to the board or HOD to consider. It just hasn't come up. Maybe it has in the past when I wasn't on the board. (You said something about it coming up at convention but I don't recall it, and anyway I'm not talking about actual drug testing but a position statement.)

Complaining about it on the forums is just water-cooler whining. If this is near and dear to you, draft a position statement and a justification for adopting it, and submit it to Patty, who controls the board's agenda. It should take you less time then you've spent writing about it on this forum.

If she is unwilling to devote time to the matter (it isn't as if we lack for things to do) then find a delegate from your LMSC willing to propose it from the floor of an HOD meeting at convention. Which is this week.

gull
September 20th, 2016, 06:01 AM
"Unwilling to champion" is overstating things. To my knowledge, such a position statement has never been proposed or submitted to the board or HOD to consider. It just hasn't come up. Maybe it has in the past when I wasn't on the board. (You said something about it coming up at convention but I don't recall it, and anyway I'm not talking about actual drug testing but a position statement.)

Complaining about it on the forums is just water-cooler whining. If this is near and dear to you, draft a position statement and a justification for adopting it, and submit it to Patty, who controls the board's agenda. It should take you less time then you've spent writing about it on this forum.

If she is unwilling to devote time to the matter (it isn't as if we lack for things to do) then find a delegate from your LMSC willing to propose it from the floor of an HOD meeting at convention. Which is this week.

I have contacted Patty Miller. And Dawson Hughes. As well as a member of the Rules Committee. And an LMSC delegate.

But why don't you, sir, as a Vice President within USMS, hold this issue near and dear as well? How do you justify not supporting a position statement?

It was 2010, at convention. The issue was a position statement, not drug testing.

Rob Copeland
September 20th, 2016, 08:18 AM
I have contacted Patty Miller. And Dawson Hughes. As well as ...Okay, I’ll bite…
Can you post a copy of your proposed position statement that you shared with Patty and Dawson?

Rob Copeland
September 20th, 2016, 08:31 AM
From the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology, published in Circulation in December of 2015:

"As a matter of general policy, the use of performance-enhancing drugs and supplements should be prohibited by schools, universities, and other sponsoring/participating organizations as a condition for continued participation in athletic activities."Does the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology somewhere define performance-enhancing drugs and supplements? And do they address TUE’s?

Do commonly used hydration and recovery drinks count? They are supplements that offset performance degradation, enhancing performance.

And what about aspirin, vitamin supplements or coffee? At least WADA defines limits of commonly used performance enhancing drugs and supplements. A blanket statement that universities should ban coffee and aspirin seems a bit if an overreach.

gull
September 20th, 2016, 08:48 AM
I quoted one of the Class I recommendations from the publication, which is quite lengthy and exhaustively researched. The authors reference WADA for the definition of performance enhancing drugs, as you would expect.

Try this. Given that USMS cares about the health and safety of its members, the use of performance enhancing drugs and supplements as defined by WADA, unless prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a medical condition, is strictly prohibited.

Rob Copeland
September 20th, 2016, 09:04 AM
The authors reference WADA for the definition of performance enhancing drugs, as you would expect.Thanks! That's good to know.

Chris Stevenson
September 20th, 2016, 04:00 PM
But why don't you, sir, as a Vice President within USMS, hold this issue near and dear as well? How do you justify not supporting a position statement?

So that's two questions. The answer to the first, about why doping is not an issue "near and dear" to me is that I think it is an unimportant issue in masters swimming. That's my own personal opinion.

As for "justifying not supporting a position statement," there is nothing to justify, since I have never in fact been asked to support such a statement. I have no problem with "Given that USMS cares about the health and safety of its members, the use of performance enhancing drugs and supplements as defined by WADA, unless prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a medical condition, is strictly prohibited" or some reasonable variation.

gull
September 20th, 2016, 04:42 PM
I have no problem with "Given that USMS cares about the health and safety of its members, the use of performance enhancing drugs and supplements as defined by WADA, unless prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a medical condition, is strictly prohibited" or some reasonable variation.

Outstanding. Thank you for your support.

ElaineK
September 20th, 2016, 05:40 PM
Try this. Given that USMS cares about the health and safety of its members, the use of performance enhancing drugs and supplements as defined by WADA, unless prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a medical condition, is strictly prohibited.

I think this would be an excellent position for USMS to adopt. :applaud:

Allen Stark
September 20th, 2016, 09:47 PM
I certainly endorse that position statement. I had always assumed that was USMS defacto position, since USMS is a member of FINA and FINA is officially anti-PEDs.I assumed we just didn't test because it is too complicated/expensive, much like we don't scan swim suits to make sure they are FINA compliant.

swim365
September 23rd, 2016, 12:54 AM
:rofl:
I think everyone has their suspects and while I'd like a clean sport, I doubt we have the resources (financial or people) to police this.
This paragraph captures the issue perfectly. Personally, I'm of the mindset of the friend ...
... but the realist in me agrees with Walters...
I derive enough satisfaction from training, the act of competition and using my own performances as a yardstick so the fact there are people doping in USMS (or via FINA Masters) doesn't detract from my own satisfaction. If nothing else, given the potential damage the dopers are doing to their bodies longer term, I figure I'll be well-positioned once I hit the 80+ age groups ;)
My sentiments exactly, and I hoping to get some top 10 times when I hit my 80s. :)

no200fly
September 23rd, 2016, 11:20 AM
Here is a link to the USADA Athlete Guide to the 2016 Prohibited List so that members can check their medications/supplements and not be labeled as "dopers" in this forum.

http://www.usada.org/substances/prohibited-list/athlete-guide/
Some things I found interesting were:

Insulin is prohibited in and out of competition (TUE needed)
Anything with pseudoephedrine is prohibited during competition (no more Advil Cold and Sinus)

Albuterol and other asthma treatments are allowed at certain use levels; but

Any level of albuterol or pseudoephedrine is prohibited at all times if the person also takes a diuretic

Any level of cannabinoids are prohibited in competition (no TUE allowed)

Narcotics are prohibited in competition (check if you are being treated for chronic pain)

Glucocorticoids are prohibited in competition

Some Parkinson's medications are prohibited during competition

Many commercially available supplements and diuretics contain prohibited substances ("Some dietary supplements that claim to be “natural” water pills may contain prescription diuretics not listed on the label" check with www.Supplement411.org (http://www.supplement411.org/) )

The USADA website also warns athletes to consult with their doctors and advise them that they are an athlete before any surgery so that a TUE can be obtained or an alternative treatment can be proposed, if a substance would be used that would violate the WADA rules. http://www.usada.org/substances/surgery/

It does appear that WADA/USADA has decided that there may be a difference between the scrutiny that should be given to Masters vs. other athletes. Apparently, as a result of an arbitration filed by a Masters athlete (who received three denials for a TUE for the use of testosterone), USADA has created a “Recreational Competitor TUE”, which apparently has a lower threshold for granting TUEs to Masters athletes.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/prescription-steroids-get-a-quiet-exemption-1461365753

I don’t know if this is USADA’s way of saying “it’s just Masters” or if the TUE process is not really prepared for 50,000 USMS swimmers to start reviewing their medications and applying for TUEs and arbitrating their denials. Many of the issues/positions expressed in this thread apparently have been discussed in other Masters sports. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/21/AR2010062103639.html

An interesting point in the WP article is the statement by the Chairman of the USATA Masters Division that he was taking a prohibited medication for his blood pressure and did not know it was prohibited when he competed in the world masters championships in Riccione, Italy. I assume he was not taking it for a competitive advantage, but instead for health reasons. I liked his quote that if we would have been tested, he would be embarrassed to finish 20th while taking (performance enhancing) drugs.

Regarding the proposed USMS position statement, I wonder if its adoption or even enforcement would placate the people who are most concerned with it? Clearly what they/we want is a level playing field where athletic performance is not enhanced by drugs taken for the purpose of a competitive advantage. I presume that, with the possible exception of cannabinoids, (at least in most states) and over the counter cold medications, the performance enhancing drugs taken by Masters athletes are prescription drugs taken pursuant to the instruction of doctors for a stated medical conditions. Gull has already stated earlier in this thread that “Low-T” is not an actual medical condition so I assume the “unless prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a medical condition, is strictly prohibited” would then need to be limited to medical conditions approved by USMS. If these athletes were to take testosterone prescribed by Dr. Teeple (who apparently does not agree with Gull that Low-T is not an actual medical condition) who sells his book “I’m Still Sexy, So What’s Up With Him? Learn How Testosterone Can Change Your Relationship” on his website www.teeplestestosterone.com (http://www.teeplestestosterone.com/) and states that he was instrumental in the creation of the Recreational Competitor TUE, I assume that even with the granting of a RCTUE, there would still be the complaint that those competitors were “dopers.” I have to admit that I do view in a different light, the athletes that were shown by the Fancy Bear hack to have TUEs to use amphetamines in competition. What I don’t see, is the condemnation of them in this forum, that has been lavished on others (Sun Yang, Efimova, etc.) I understand that their drug use is authorized, but I can’t imagine that it does not give them a competitive advantage.

I do not take PEDs - actually I do not regularly take any medication. I attribute this, at least in part, to my return to swimming 17 years ago. I do confess that I have taken Advil Cold and Sinus before a meet or two when I was congested from allergies or a cold (I did not know it was banned until I started researching the WADA list because of this thread). Now that I know that is not proper, I will not do it again; however, I guess under the proposed position statement my conduct was prohibited and I am a “doper.” Hopefully this post will point everyone to the WADA website so that you can avoid being a “doper” like me.

orca1946
September 23rd, 2016, 11:59 AM
I did not know,like you, that many of my doc. prescribed meds are on that list! To maintain my health is more important than another ribbon.

gull
September 23rd, 2016, 12:22 PM
Testosterone levels decline with age. Solvay Pharmaceuticals created the term "Low T" to sell AndroGel. And it worked.

jpetyk
September 23rd, 2016, 12:25 PM
Does "prohibited at all times" mean practice too? If so, does this not directly contradict USMS's mission statement? Like Orca, my health is more important, but regular swimming workouts is helping to achieve better health. I don't HAVE to compete. :cry: It just gives me motivation to show up to swim practice in the morning.

gull
September 23rd, 2016, 12:46 PM
If your health is important to you, then you will not be using a banned substance without a doctor's prescription.

james lucas
September 23rd, 2016, 01:24 PM
Solvay Pharmaceuticals created the term "Low T" to sell AndroGel. And it worked.
From this report, I'd guess the molecule is more likely to make men (we're not talking about East German women here) look good more than swim fast ...
http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2016/09/22/have_low_t_taking_testosterone_probably_wont_help_ 109759.html


The authors evaluated 156 randomized controlled trials in which testosterone was compared to placebo to treat a variety of conditions. Testosterone did not consistently prevent or treat cardiovascular disease, nor did it consistently improve sexual function or satisfaction, with half of the studies showing positive effects and the other half not showing any effects. It was altogether ineffective at treating erectile dysfunction. The majority of studies showed no effects on psychological well-being or cognitive function.Testosterone did offer a few benefits. The review indicated a small boost to libido and a robust increase in muscle mass. However, the increase in mass was not accompanied by increases to strength.

On the whole, when you add in the health risks, it seems it's been over-sold, at least to men.

To repeat Gull's comment: "If your health is important to you, then you will not be using a banned substance without a doctor's prescription." And, I'd add: "... and, even if you can talk a doctor into prescribing some of these substances - which isn't very hard to do if you go doctor-shopping - you probably shouldn't..."

gull
September 23rd, 2016, 01:38 PM
Physicians can and do prescribe medications for off label uses. The FDA approved indication for AndroGel is for the treatment of primary hypogonadism and hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, not "Low T."

orca1946
September 24th, 2016, 06:13 PM
I'm sure big pharma is as good as a good used car salesman in selling you something that you NEED!
There is always someone trying to sell us something that will make us thinner, younger and more attractive with any work on our part!

guppy
September 25th, 2016, 12:40 PM
I quoted one of the Class I recommendations from the publication, which is quite lengthy and exhaustively researched. The authors reference WADA for the definition of performance enhancing drugs, as you would expect.

Try this. Given that USMS cares about the health and safety of its members, the use of performance enhancing drugs and supplements as defined by WADA, unless prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a medical condition, is strictly prohibited.

How about adding, besides health and safety of USMS members, the integrity of USMS competition?

gull
September 25th, 2016, 12:48 PM
How about adding, besides health and safety of USMS members, the integrity of USMS competition?

I like it.

fmracing
September 26th, 2016, 10:43 AM
Given that USMS cares about the health and safety of its members, the use of performance enhancing drugs and supplements as defined by WADA, unless prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a medical condition, is strictly prohibited.

I would suggest the word strictly is removed. But shouldn't it more truthfully read "is discouraged" rather than "is strictly prohibited"... given there's no resolve to pursue any violation anyways?

gull
September 26th, 2016, 12:17 PM
So we prohibit full body tech suits but discourage performance enhancing drugs?

Rob Copeland
September 26th, 2016, 01:32 PM
At the 2016 US Aquatics Sports annual convention USA Swimming awarded Travis Tygart with the USA Swimming award. Tygard wasn’t there but Edwin Moses (yes that Edwin Moses 2 time Olympic gold medalist in the 400M hurdles, world record holder, undefeated in 122 consecutive championship races , …) his USADA board chair was there to accept on his behalf. Great acceptance speech!

Anyway… While there were some hallway conversations around doping control, there wasn’t much in the way of meaningful action taken by the USMS House of Delegates. So for those who are passionate about this I suggest you contact your LMSC leadership to make your feelings known.

And to the suggested
…the use of performance enhancing drugs and supplements as defined by WADA, unless prescribed by a licensed physician for the treatment of a medical condition, is strictly prohibited.

I’ve got a couple of concerns;

First I believe the “for the treatment of a medical condition” is somewhat different than the WADA TUE so I’m not sure we could do this if we sign on with WADA/USDADA. And trying to develop a standalone doping control protocol/agency has its own world of obstacles.

Second, the shift from competition only to general membership health and safety is a quantum shift in both the nature and scope of testing. As suggested testing is not a precursor to membership and not related specifically to competition. By my rough estimate this takes the cost of the program from from the hundreds of thousands of dollars to the millions of dollars. I was told that it would cost around $25,000 per sanctioned event to conduct USADA certified doping control. This would not include the necessary administration costs associated with a doping control program. Expanding this from the 10-15 tests conducted per event to 65,000 tests would cost each member $200 or more in annual membership dues. And I’m willing to make the assumption that the cost and mandatory drug testing will adversely impact membership.

I’m fully behind the USMS mission to promote health, wellness, fitness and competition for adults through swimming, but I also realize the need to make Masters Swimming economically feasible so we can reach out to more adults.

fmracing
September 26th, 2016, 02:20 PM
So we prohibit full body tech suits but discourage performance enhancing drugs?

It would appear that is the set of rules currently in place, wouldn't it?

gull
September 26th, 2016, 02:24 PM
In the absence of a position statement from USMS are we to assume that anything goes?

fmracing
September 27th, 2016, 11:04 AM
In the absence of a position statement from USMS are we to assume that anything goes?

Position stated or otherwise, if no action actually takes place after discovery, then that assumption would be true.

I was merely pointing out that, to add "strictly prohibited" in the proposed statement will not mean much if its not really prohibited at all. Hence why I suggested discouraged

The Fortress
September 27th, 2016, 11:33 AM
In the absence of a position statement from USMS are we to assume that anything goes?

Wouldn't doping constitute unsporting conduct under the rules?

gull
September 27th, 2016, 11:56 AM
Given that USMS cares about the health and safety of its members and is committed to preserving the integrity of the sport of swimming, the use of performance enhancing drugs and supplements as defined by WADA, unless prescribed by a licensed physician, is strictly prohibited. Violations may result in permanent suspension from future competition.

Allen Stark
September 27th, 2016, 02:30 PM
Given that USMS cares about the health and safety of its members and is committed to preserving the integrity of the sport of swimming, the use of performance enhancing drugs and supplements as defined by WADA, unless prescribed by a licensed physician, is strictly prohibited. Violations may result in permanent suspension from future competition.

Sounds good to me,but as a position statement only, it is like posting speed limits but not ticketing speeders. Given the level of concern about testing, a position statement(without testing) is a good start.

scyfreestyler
October 15th, 2016, 02:34 PM
Regarding TUEs...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-away-with-doping.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

ElaineK
October 15th, 2016, 03:12 PM
Regarding TUEs...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/opinion/sunday/how-to-get-away-with-doping.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share

Gripping, excellent article--and, very sad.

cinc3100
October 15th, 2016, 09:21 PM
Gripping, excellent article--and, very sad.
The saddest story was Rick Demont, in the 1972 Olympics that won the 400 meter freestyle but lost the medal because he was using an ashama medicine. He also couldn't swim the 1500 freestyle.

thaartz
October 19th, 2016, 02:06 PM
Re: Masters Swimming Doping:
Rob, all valid points on which I would like to expand. The subjects of medically necessary prescriptions for Masters swimmers, some of which are or do contain banned substances AND doping has been a topic of discussion for probably 40 years now. Why USMS maintains such a low profile on this subject is because USMS and its medical committees recognized early on that with a membership age base of 17 to over 100 years old, many, many members would be taking prescribed medications for many, many reasons over short and long durations of their lifetimes, some of which would not and currently do not meet the World doping guidelines.

Yes, it was recognized back then, as now, there would some who would resort to fraud to improve their competitive stature and that there would be physicians who would supply prescriptions that enhanced performance when not medically necessary. Now compare the benefits to those who can safely participate in Master Swimming to the costs of testing for banned substances. Rob has provided some estimates and it can be assumed that these costs have nowhere to go but higher and conceivably destroying a 60,000 member program. Is this our goal, I think not. I would add that some years ago FINA, the international governing body for aquatic sports, looked at Masters aquatics and also concluded that drug testing would overwhelm their capacity to manage Masters aquatics in this area.

Yes, what goes around, comes around time and time again and I would urge the naysayers to recognize and understand that USMS is not the Olympics and that the recreational and competitive swimming with USMS is guided by what produces the best results for the most members.

Ted Haartz, Past President, USMS (1978-1981)

gull
October 19th, 2016, 04:13 PM
And the compelling argument against issuing a position statement is what, exactly?

sunruh
October 20th, 2016, 12:29 PM
oh that is easy, because whenever fina is brought up it is only a big dark secret. no info from fina is ever actually written down anywhere. only if you are in "fina club" can those talk about "fina club" and you cannot be in "fina club" unless you are IN "fina club".
"fina club" makes the Illuminati/Sith/Cabal look like an open book with everything written in the down. besides Latveria must have an equal vote in "fina club", a country with 60k swimmers vs 60 cannot simply have more sway thats totally not acceptable.

Rob Copeland
October 20th, 2016, 05:08 PM
Latveria:confused::confused::confused:
And I suppose Victor Von Doom is the head of their swimming federation

jpetyk
October 24th, 2016, 09:41 AM
:confused::confused::confused:
And I suppose Victor Von Doom is the head of their swimming federation

You should see him swim! It's electrifying.

ellehardy
February 16th, 2017, 01:37 AM
Hi there, I'm a writer looking at this issue, and am wondering if you'd be interested in sharing your thoughts with me in more detail? You can contact me at ellenhardy4@gmail.com. Best, Elle