As others have said - that’s totally fine… then don’t compete.
8 Likes
I found this interesting as tangentially, several of my older friend (65+ active racers) have had knee or hip replacements. While they have above average cardiovascular fitness, clearly their joints wore out.
According to racing rules, it’s OK to have joint replacement for aging mechanical connections (knees, hips), but not OK to address age related weakening of endocrine systems. Perhaps there is an opportunity to address that the WADA/USADA rules, which evolved to address cheating mostly in elite competition, might not fully address AG amateurs and particularly standard of care for older athletes.
Note - I don’t want to ban people with joint replacements. Folks racing into their golden years is great. I just find it interesting what is allowed and what is not under current rules and how it is not always consistent with evolution of medical care.
Yes it is. You might enjoy the recent paper by Mitchell et al in Nature: “Clonal Dynamics of Haematopoiesis across the human lifespan”.
1 Like
I see these two situations as vastly different. First there is no known performance advantage to a knee or hip replacement. When they start putting motors in them then it will be a different story.
And there is no FDA approval to take T just because you’d rather feel like you are 30 again despite the fact that some doctors will prescribe this off-label. And T is a known performance enhancer.
T is probably not the most potent performance enhancer for older athletes though it gets all the press. Probably anabolic steroids during build will probably yield more gains. As we know from the LA era, EPO will give you a large boost in VO2max.
7 Likes
There most certainly is a performance enhancement. It’s just different from VO2max, recovery or power improvements via pharmaceuticals.
These friends were having trouble walking, let alone pushing pedals prior to the joint replacements. After recovery and rehab they are good as new and pain free. Perhaps better than they were prior to surgery.
Floyd Landis is an example of a much younger rider. Regardless of the pharmaceutical PEDs, he was just about done prior to having hips done. Post-hip replacement (I rode with him at an event) he looked great and apparently felt great too. Not to drag Floyd into this as a doper, but an example folks here will know as a non-age grouper with joint replacement that made a big difference.
Back to the thesis – it’s OK to replace failing joints and race augmented, but not OK to replace failing endocrine systems. The guy that hits the aerobic engine genetic lottery but with bad joints replaced with man-made components now beats the average aerobic guy with his or her own natural good joints. Those new artificial joints sure seem like an artificial PED to me (redefining PED as Performance Enhancing Device).
Appreciate the discussion and response - Am genuinely curious how people view this sort of thing in context of competition. What is natural? What is augmented? What is artificial? Where do you draw lines and are they different Pros vs Joes? My cat 3 level view of the world is Joe’s aren’t Pro’s and more leeway is allowable. It’s a hobby. One can be “serious” but in context of a hobby. Have fun. Enjoy the competition. Follow the rules. If rules don’t make sense lobby the rules committee to change them (my LA has and been successful). Don’t hurt people. Be your best. Etc etc
4 Likes
Yes, I agree that a knee replacement is a performance enhancer for the individual that needed it but it’s not a performance enhancer for an otherwise healthy person.
Anabolics are definitely performance enhancing for healthy individuals.
9 Likes
A big problem is there are clearly plenty of doctors who’s criteria for low-t is a bit loose and they’re handing out trt like it’s candy. I don’t think the same can be said if joint replacement surgery.
5 Likes
Failing joints only happen to some people, the idea is that the “failing endocrine system” happens to everybody, which is why we have age categories.
4 Likes
And normal aging is not even “failing “. If someone truly has a failing system and there is a medication then they can probably take it and/or get a TUE.
This discussion made me wonder about disabled athletes that run with blades. Are those guys faster than those without? Do their records have an asterisk?
1 Like
I gotta tell you guys, I’m pretty healthy overall, but my 55 year old joints are not at all like my 45 year old joints - LOL. I shouldn’t ever need replacements but every little bit adds up over time. I view it as y’all do - there isn’t a good alternative to getting old.
But for the thread, aging happens to all your parts and at different rates. What we’re saying is we understand joint replacement, the criteria under which a patient gets them, and I think most of us have empathy too. But we aren’t OK with other augmentations. Mostly because in context we know those augmentations are often abused by racers who don’t need them for health reasons. Or at least not the common definitions of health. But there are guys who are fine except for X, Y or Z and if we can give that back to them why shouldn’t they race?
Point of bringing this up was honestly the discussion. I’m curious where and why different people draw different lines in the sands.
BTW - the TUE thing is a bit of a red herring. It’s almost impossible to get one as an amateur. You’d need to fight and complain and take on the battle. Most folks are not go to those lengths. And anyone who gets a TUE will have to face wrath of people who think they are cheating and make accusations. It’s a hobby so most clean folks who just want to enjoy some competition aren’t going to go through all that bother.
In terms of technology and sport, that’s a good one. It’s usually pretty clear when a technology leap has significant effect on performance. It’s up to the governing bodies to make their rules and include or exclude. Aficionados will then have something new to debate (before time and after time).
Tnx for engaging in the discussion on this tangent. I was curious where folks would come down.
I would say Landis is an exception to a rule (if that’s even true). Landis returned to a prior level following an injury replacement. The degeneration of his hip was not a natural occurrence with age.
In any event, Landis was arguably not better than before his injury manifested, and I’ve yet to meet anyone who considers joint replacement performance enhancing.
IMO, this comparison is a red herring.
1 Like
PEDs are specifically performance enhancing drugs.
It’s not a prohibited “performance enhancement” to repair a faulty knee any more than it is for an NFL player to have surgery to repair a torn ACL or for a bike racer to have a plate screwed on a broken collar bone. It’s medical treatment. No one is getting knee replacements of a healthy knee just to get the “new model.” And, if that ever starts happening, the new model artificial knee joint will be banned in competition too.
Performance Enhancing Drugs are banned in competition because they directly improve an athlete’s performance while also being in many instances potentially dangerous to athletes who them for performance enhancement as opposed to legit medical treatment. A policy decision has been made to keep performance enhancing drugs out of (most) sports to level competition and to reduce pressure to undertake risky use. And, even in the case of legit medical uses, the rules smartly require advance permission to use a specific drug (TUE). This is required so that individual race directors and officials don’t have to stand around post race outside the testing trailers trying to play doctor and decide who’s got a legit or non-legit positive test.
In the end, if starting from scratch dealing only with old men racing each other, there probably wouldn’t be any PED rules. But drug rules were written for high end (and young) athletes and only apply to old men because once such rules are in place and the same organizing body is running both high end and masters races they are never going to say “never mind” for some athletes since that would undermine the application to the athletes they really care about (e.g pros and Olympians and younger amateurs). PEDs are either bad or Ok and once you declare them bad, its very problematic to the whole anti PED movement to start making large numbers of exceptions.
6 Likes
Oscar Pistorius would have me believe yes. He was markedly improved with his blade.
1 Like
Exactly. So we make inconsistent exclusions and permissions and rules that can’t be practically enforced. And some that don’t make sense for where they are applied.
Back to the example I’m using which is purposefully going to apply mostly to older age groups. We can agree on things like drugs and motors as it’s easy to get one’s head around those being wrong. I’m asking what about other stuff that conveys advantage that isn’t “natural”. It’s perfectly fine that folks are perfectly fine with some stuff and not others. Just curious how folks get there.
TL;DR here’s where we are:
Old guy with tired knees? No problem, here’s your new ones!! Back at 'em tiger!!
Old guy with tired testicles? OMG you want to supplement with T? You lying cheating bastard!!!
(This should be a ‘change my mind’ meme for that other thread. I apologize to sensitive viewers)
1 Like
Here are the guidelines for getting a TUE for testosterone. https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/tuec_malehypogonadism_version6.2.pdf
To your example - “tired” testicles = no TUE but “broken” (or missing . . . ) testicles - you can get a TUE.
I’m not expert but skimming this, they divide causes of low testosterone into 2 group - “organic” and “functional.” Organic equals some sort of genetic abnormality or injury whereas functional appears to be things that either might occur naturally (aging is specifically listed) or things an athlete might have some control over (legal or illegal drug use for example).
You can get a TUE for organic causes but not for functional causes.
Since everyone gets old and getting old results in a natural decline in many areas, including testosterone, the rule makers treat that like all other natural decline/limits on performance and ban using specific drugs (I.e. Those on the banned list) to “fix” such issues.
One may disagree with the rule but it is not illogical and it fits well into the overall PED drug banning scheme.
5 Likes
The thing is that there is no such thing. A small percentage of people have true clinical symptoms and the rest just want it.
It’s also a self- fulfilling prophecy for endurance athletes. Train 10-15 hours per week and you will have lower T and often be tired. If you are functionally over reached you might have symptoms of depression. Voila, you have all the necessary symptoms for TRT.
1 Like
FWIW - its only cheating if a) you enter a formal event and b) the rules of that event ban the drug you are taking.
4 Likes
Again, a knee replacement doesn’t return you to a higher state of performance than should be natural for a 55 year old. It’s a red herring.
2 Likes
But is it competing if you’re not contending for a win? Go ahead and test the podium if you want and even the qualifiers for Boston/nationals/Kona etc.
Another thought is that if Al those people don’t compete, the racing scene will be non existent. There are economics involved in having a race. Excluding people who have no input in the wins, would dwindle the participation quite a bit. Following that, another bunch will quit because the atmosphere isn’t good enough. The already scant bike race of 40 dudes will become 20 guys. Eventually even less.
3 Likes
I can make the same argument for what is normal by using a lab test curve. By some logic, an athlete below what is defined as normal should be allowed to supplement.
The simple way to do this is like hematocrit: you cross this line and you are out. Do away with what’s natural and what’s artificial from the definitions and just tell people where the lines are.
Anyway, I do not want to make this too argumentative. I expected the answers received and thank folks again for the input and dialog!
3 Likes
To me the difference is that hormone and other PED use in an otherwise healthy person will increase performance above their baseline and can also have negative health consequences. I haven’t seen any information that knee / joint replacement in an otherwise healthy person will increase performance above baseline (at the moment.). Knee / joint replacement is correcting a ‘health deficiency’ and is also not considered a banned PED or method that we all agree to when participating in sanctioned races.
If someone is taking hormones or PEDs to address a health issue, I’m fine with that, just get a TUE or don’t race. I don’t have a ‘right’ to race. Racing is an entirely optional activity one can participate in and when we do so we are implicitly or explicitly agreeing to do so under a certain framework of rules. I don’t, personally, care about people taking PEDs and doing centuries and group rides.
To me it all comes down to rules. When entering races / certain events we agree to do so within certain rules, many of which includes PED restrictions.
4 Likes