Home Chat General Chat

Should Age Groupers who qualify for Hawaii be drug tested?

Yes. It is no more right for an age-grouper to use performance enhancing drugs than an elite athlete. Although common sense could be applied for positive tests where there is evidence of misunderstanding/negligence for drugs in common over the counter medications, or prescription medication (with a valid prescription) when banning someone from the sport.


  • You got a guilty conscience fella?

    Is there drug tasting... errr testing, in any other amateur sport? Er, apart from the Olympics that is...

    But aren't the triathletes at the Olympics pro's? So should they be at the Olympics at all as boxers and others are all amateurs - if they go pro they are unable to compete right?

    As someone who is anti-drugs then I say test everyone at any level. But don't charge me an increased entry fee to pay for all the extra admin. So therefore no, as it would be unworkable.

    My head hurts - I need some headache-reducing pills, or maybe just a beer!

  • The cost for testing age-groupers as well as the elite would be very expensive and at the end of the day would it be worth doing.
    Someone who is off to Hawaii as an age grouper (i take it you mean up to 80 years old) would generally not be considered a threat to the prize money, and as an age grouper having to find what...£2000 to go and do Hawaii is taking drugs really worth it for the possibility of an age group win, would the prize be worth it unless your a pro, if your not a pro then you get a nice shiney trophy?
    If you've got a chance of bringing home 30k then people are going to do it but not someone going 10, 11 or 12 hours. Lather Loder got a 2 year ban and he's gone sub 8 hours, he did 9.15 in Bolton this year.
    I'd be very suprised if someone looking to go under 10 hours for the first time would be on drugs, as a 45 year old myself, i think someone of similar age or older is taking a big risk in playing with their health. Even the fittest people have died from taking drugs.
    EPO was a favourite with cyclist's until 1 or 2 professional cyclist's went to bed and didn't wake up. The idea with that was you had to get up in the middle of the night and go and do some form of exercise because the drug would slow your heartrate down so much that in some cases it stopped.
    If Joe Bloggs comes in in 765th place winning the over 55 age group, is he going to be taken to a pen where he cannot have contact with anyone and given 45 minutes to produce a urine sample. He will also be watched by an official to make sure he hasn't got a bottle of urine that he's been given half a mile before the finish, or has a false bladder., although there are different testing methods such as the one where you are given liquid to drink i.e water with a numbered marker in it, when you urinate the urine is tested and if that marker is not in the urine then you've used someone else's urine.
    I think the answer to the question is, depends how much money the organisers have to burn, myself i don't think it's worth it past the age of 35.
  • jibby26jibby26 Posts: 261
    Californiakid wrote:
    £2000 to go and do it is taking drugs really worth it for the possibility of an age group win
    Where did you get that figure? It cost Texas $120 per test (50,000 tests) in 08-09 for college athletes. I don't think the cost would be too prohibitive.
  • I ment £2000 to go and do the Hawaii Ironman and would taking drugs be worth it to come back with an age group prize.
  • FatKnacker said "Is there drug tasting... errr testing, in any other amateur sport? Er, apart from the Olympics that is..." (Sorry, I don't know how to do the proper context quote thing)

    The short answer is yes. I've been drugs tested on a number of occasions at both World and European championships in athletics, always as an age grouper.

    The World Masters Athletics Association has signed up in full to the WADA "no drugs in sport" philosophy, to the extent that age-group athletes in track & field are subject to virtually the same in-competition testing regime as professional athletes undergo at their equivalent events.

    That means random tests on medallists of all ages, and a smaller selection of the also-rans, right up to the guys and girls in their 90s!

    There's no money at all in the sport, and there are very few positive tests.

    There are a couple of ways in which our tests differ from the professionals though:
    1) No out-of-competition testing.
    2) Therepeutic Use Exemption. That's an acknowledgement that as we get older, we're more and more likely to need drugs simply to maintain an acceptable standard of health, and that those drugs are sometimes on the banned list. You have to get signed off by a WMA-approved doctor and then endorsed by the WMA medical council.... before the competiton starts.

    So, in reply to the original question.... you shouldn't be automatically drugs-tested, but you should be in the list for potential testing at the event just as any other or professional participant would be.
  • diddsdidds Posts: 655
    iId never put anything past anyone that for whatever reasons is desperate/obsessed enough.

    That said, i think its non starter... someone has got to stump up that $120 a head to start with - which would be the athlete them,self presumably. So now you are further down the road of pricing some competitors out. (And so nicely merging two debating threads!)

  • GHarvGHarv Posts: 456
    Why shouldn't they be tested?

    There's all sorts of stuff you could get your hands on on tinternet.

    Why should a heat get the chance to go to the world champs?

    If you get a shot to go to the world champs and you have to pay 100 for a test or not go - you find the money.

  • Didds is right in saying you can't ignore the fact that some people are obsessed enough to do anything, especially when they find the 3k bike they've just bought is no quicker than the 1k bike they got rid of.
    If age groupers are found guilty of taking drugs then perhaps the BTF should not just ban them but strongly advice they see a shrink!
  • danny_sdanny_s Posts: 235
    What good does in competition testing do? If you want it enough to bother with doping and are already well invested in doing whatever it takes to win your AG, then you'll be taking EPO or EPO-like derivatives. Those have a short halflife and wouldn't need to be present for even the week leading up to a race. The kind of things have a long term effect and long term use before the event. A negative test in competition has nothing to do with the presence or absence of a long term EPO regime.

    To do it properly, you'd need to be subject to random out of competition testing, where you need to fill in a form, telling the authorities where you would be for part of each day and they can come test you. Without any out of competition testing, all of the most effective doping regimes will fly completely undetected.

    This is of course big money and huge organization. Whether the cost is worth it is another debate, but I think in competition testing for age group athletes is a small step in the right direction, but certainly not an effective solution. They only need to do 10 random tests per race or so to make the deterrant present. That will increase the fees a bit but it is one expense I am willing to pay extra for. Clean competition is very important.
  • diddsdidds Posts: 655
    GH: If you get a shot to go to the world champs and you have to pay 100 for a test or not go - you find the money.

    Well, you're not wrong per se of course. But I do know a dedicate AG triathlete, MOPer, who didn;t sign for IMDE next year simply because having clicked through to parting with 450 Euros (!) they THEN wanted another 20 Euros "admin charge" ... and he just couldn't do it!

    He felt they were taking the doo-dah and just couldn't finish the process.

    He admits it makes no sense - but it just didn't "work" for him. This isn't about this bloke - but this bloke is an indicator that for some people additinal charges, however illogically maybe, would be the final straw that prevented them from going.

Sign In or Register to comment.