Looking for a factual answer, because I don’t understand anti-doping paradigms.
Here’s the set up:
Some sports obsessed parents get their kid on human growth hormone before his epiphyses close. He’s 4" taller than he otherwise would have been.
Does this count as doping? What I’m trying to get at is whether or not Performance Enhancing Interventions which render permanent advantage get counted as cheating once discontinued. IOW, is it only doping if I’m doing it right now?
I’m not trying to address whether or not you would get caught. I just want to know what the code says (if anything) about past interventions that render a permanent advantage. This might be something like the example I gave above, or perhaps the reverse (keeping a potential gymnast tiny) or perhaps something like DNA insertion…when I read through this, it looks like their definition of doping requires an ongoing sin. I don’t want to necessarily limit the question to WADA, but I don’t know where else to turn for factual guidelines.
Lionel Messi famously took HGH as a child. It was taken for apparently legitimate medical reasons. He’s now widely considered the best soccer player of the past 20 years and I don’t think anyone considers him a doper.
The question always comes down to context. If you take morphine for post-operative pain relief, are you a doper?
If you take HGH because you have a medical condition which means that ohewise you would be, say, abnormally short, then HGH is taken for valid medical reasons. If you take HGH to add 4 inches (height, that is) to improve your chances in sport or with women, then maybe you are doping in contradiction of the rles of the game(s).
The question would be, is it a legit use and would be prescribed by most doctors for that condition?
Another example - a number of athletes would get disqualified for taking, say, cold medication containing a banned substance. The authorities have no way to verify if in fact you had a cold or whether it’s residue from performance enhancement. OTOH, the approved reasons for taking most steriods or hormones are pretty limited and obvious, and since they are strictly controlled, should be documented by the prescribing doctor.
What I don’t understand is banning athletes who use marijuana. It seems to me to be the opposite of performance-enhancing. I think it is just the athletic world pandering to the US drug paranoia.
I think you might be missing the point of my scenario. Perhaps I stated it poorly. The reason for the HGH was to gain a sports advantage. However it is no longer being administered–a permanent advantage was already gained.
This is not like taking a medication for “legitimate” medical reasons. First, it is not currently being taken. Second, it was taken for illegitimate reasons–i.e., to secure a sports advantage; not to treat failure to grow normally.
So, in this scenario, is the individual in violation of “doping” guidelines or not? If they are in violation of doping guidelines, are they banned from competition, or not?
Depends what the guidelines for the sport say. If you don’t test positive… Some people caught doping are suspended for 2 years etc. then allowed back, so in general it seems an earlier transgression is not an automatic life bar.
Of course, not that many guys get the advantage of access to useful hormones at the right stage of body development, except maybe in Easter Europe 40 years ago.
I don’t know a GQ style answer, but I would say you’re not a doper, as, as a child, you could not have reasonably refused the drugs. As long as you stopped using them after the point when you had a choice, you aren’t a doper. Your parents are the dopers.
Your parents’ doping may or may not still disqualify you, but I believe it would be wrong to refer to use as a doper. If you did it after you were an adult, however…
I think generally, doping as part of a genuine medical need, and doping that has occurred long enough ago in the past to no longer be blood testable, is not considered actionable.
