US Olympic athlete files leaked in alleged WADA hack | Hacker News Reader

US Olympic athlete files leaked in alleged WADA hack

thenewdaily.com.au

47 pointsUdik56 comments

I'm surprised there is this exception mechanism and nobody brought it up before. if anything, this leak shows that the list of exceptions should be public. I assume it isn't already. For example, I would be interested to see how many exceptions an X time tennis champion has obtained, as I'm sure his competitors would also like to know.

in any case, this exception mechanism is a slippery slope. is it fair to healthy athletes? could the advantage of these banned substances be so big that it could motivate healthy athletes to get sick intentionally? I don't have any hope that wada will improve after this since now it is so easy for them to just say russia did this because they hate us. they also did not improve much after the russian doping scandal, which was only possible because the whole doping test system is flawed.

The problem with making the exceptions public is you're then making athlete's medical records public. There is a slippery slope here as well that as drugs continue to get added to the list of banned substances, an athlete has to report almost any ailment and it's remedy.

There should be audits of these exceptions and how they're granted, but I don't think it should be public.

You don't need to make the ailment public. Simply the exception that was granted.

If it's okay to to report when athletes are banned from a sport due to substance X in their blood/urine (e.g. sooo many cyclists and EPO), surely it should be okay to report that "substance X will be found, but this time they are being given an exception".

That's the same thing it's like reporting some one is taking a cocktail of anti virals instead of saying they got AIDS.

Steroids and other banned substances are constantly perscribed for medical issues and if an athlete takes a steroid cream for something that would appear on the exception list.

I'm sorry, but I think that if you want to run on a track against the best in the world while everybody else is watching, you have to be willing to give up some privacy.

Basically the world becomes interested in how your body works and you have to let them know.

In a competition which requires athletes to be in specific medical condition I think it's ok to require from athletes to disclose their medical records if they are the decisive argument on whether athlete should be allowed to take the drugs or not. It's voluntary for athletes to participate in competitions and agree to their terms, so it's not a violation of their rights.

Why is there such an exception at all? If there is a list of banned substances and they are found, it shouldn't really matter if they were prescribed by a doctor or not, they could still aid performance (which is why they were banned, right?).

I agree that the list of exceptions (at least the number of exceptions and the date granted per athlete) needs to be public.

Using steroids to fight an infection or getting hormonal treatment as part of a fertility treatments does not increases anyone's performances but they still will appear on their constant blood and urine tests.

Let's say some scientifically advanced team find the way to use weakened infection as the way to get clearance for using steroids. If played properly, this can be one-time boost for the whole team that may give them many medals in Olympics. Neither initial assessment, nor audit may not find the truth, but some other people with better motivation and more time could find it based on analysis of medical records. Do you think this scenario should be dismissed in favor of privacy?

they're typically different steroids, though... androgenic/anabolic steroids are a subset of all steroids, and they certainly aren't used to treat inflammation

TUEs are pretty common in athletics. You cannot exclude athletes from medication, when they are probably the ones who need them the most. TUEs are a way to regulate that to ensure they aren't abused for competitive gain.

Absolutely.

I think this is one of those "devil's in the details" things. In order to understand the significance of the US's TUEs we need context, and that context is what other countries are allowing, how commonly it occurs, and exactly what the process of getting a TUE is (e.g. is it rubber stamped, or a legit medical need).

For example, if we found out that the US has 50% more TUEs per athlete competing than the next highest country, that's a legitimate story. But if it turns out that the US has similar numbers to other countries (again, normalised per athlete numbers), then it is a non-story for the most part (except the hack itself).

Time will tell.

I'd say this is legitimate story because of lack of transparency. If it requires a hacker group to get this data, if it's not clear immediately, was it the due procedure to get a TUE and how often this happened, this can point either to mismanagement of WADA or corruption in higher ranks.

To be fair this is sensitive information relating to individual peoples health. WADA should have been protecting this information to the same level as healthcare providers have to.

How exactly are athletes "the ones who need them the most".

They have lots of injuries due to the strain on the body due to hard training.

Not only in US. About 50 % of Swedish and Norwegian cross-country skiers suffer from asthma symptoms.

Of course, as others have pointed out, there may be misuse/abuse as well.

"suffer from asthma symptoms"

This was a way to get clenbuterol for a long time. And still is. The "illness" is over-indexed by a large margin.

Right, another example is ADHD diagnosis for American Football players. It's used to hide steroid use.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/31/is-adderall-...

Kind of. The NFL does not release the drugs that players are testing positive for. Test positive for Adderall and it's the same as testing positive for Winstrol. Players are incentivized to take Winstrol (or other AAS), and if they test positive, they just come out and say it was Adderall without a use exception (TUE).

Since the NFL won't publicly rebut their arguments, NFL players are free to lie and make up ADHD diagnoses.

Apologies if you were saying this, but some people (including commenters to that article) are confused.

Yep that what I was trying to say

How comes that it's fine for some athletes to be genetically favoured- maybe because they put up muscle mass more easily, or because their blood has a higher concentration of red cells, and it's not allowed for others to use drugs to get to that same level; however athletes that have lower resistance to muscular or bone strain are allowed to get on par with the others through the continuated use of drugs?

On the other hand, people who are genetically too favoured may be banned from the sport - though they used no illegal performance-enhancing substances at all.

At least FIS has determined a hemoglobin limit for skiers, and UCI a hematocrit cap for cyclists. If your natural hemoglobin or red blood cell percentage is higher than the limit: tough, you can't participate.

Norwegian cross-country skier Sundby was using abnormal dosages of asthma medicine. The same method is used in cycling. You be the judge what's the reason for that sort of behavior.

The argument is also bogus from the pro-Russian perspective: if this is 'legalized cheating' and so awful and hypocritical, why weren't the Russians doing it, much less resorting to stealing urine samples? They have doctors who can write certificates too.

This brings up the larger question of what is and isn't considered 'normal' health. Professional athletes do have higher rates of disease. With strain and injury come health consequences. But there can be advantages. I'm interested in whether any of the male athletes suffer from "low testosterone", a very shady diagnosis. In short: if you don't have the testosterone of a 18yo football star, you are "low". That diagnosis allows docs to prescribe testosterone sups/patches/gels to the 50+yo men I see at the gym. The drug industry loves it. But athletes could use that diagnosis to gain legitimate access to performance enhancers. Some drugs meant to promote healing of injuries are also, imho, performance enhancing if they allow an athlete to continue training where a 'normal' person would be sidelined with a minor muscle or tendon strain.

Similarly, pain killers are near-universal amongst athletes and aren't considered performance enhancing. I'm going for a run this afternoon. A mild painkiller would certainly allow me to run faster/longer, and would probably get me out on days that I am sore and really don't want to run. Perhaps this database may shed light on the use of painkillers as training aids.

Doping is everywhere and eventually it will be impossible to tell if your values are genetic or from doping. I think we are very close to that point.

Where do we draw the line? Maybe sports as a competitive event will change in to more of a entertainment event and who wins will no longer matter.

Quickly browsing, methylphenidate is a key component of Ritalin. Are athletes unable to take medication such as Ritalin if they need it for a legitimate medical issue?

I can see this kind of thing being abused with the "right" doctor etc, but as far as the rules go, is this illegal?

Does the use of methylphenidate help otherwise unfocused and easily discouraged people to put more effort and concentration in their training?

Because if this is the case, I don't see how this could be allowed- after all the rhetoric around sports is about the reward of effort and focus on the long term goal. But if this focus is gained through the use of a drug, then, uhm...

Athletes are people too. If you would normally treat an issue with medication if the individual were not an athlete, why should they be barred from competing if a doctor deems using the medication appropriate? Rather than thinking of it as an unfair advantage, I would say it removes an obstacle which is disadvantageous for the person relative to their competitors (that is, it levels the playing field, in an ideal world).

You'd have to prove that the use of the medication brings them to a simply average level of performance in the specific domain, e.g. focus, or resistance to strain. (Which is in itself a contradiction, since by definition from an athlete you ask a performance which is well above average). Anything more than that would be an unfair advantage. Very hard to prove. On the other hand, being a professional athlete is not a basic right. Some people are simply not able to do it and I don't see the issue in that. Want a decent life? Take ritalin, but then don't ask to compete at the Olympic games.

Edit: I said average. That's wrong. It should bring them to the low end of the non-pathological performance spectrum.

I don't disagree, but the flip side would be a high level athlete who suffers, for example, an injury. They can continue competing at the same level only with medication. For me, this is analogous to someone with ADHD taking medication to perform closer to their level without ADHD (impossible to prove, per your point), but I would prefer to give them the opportunity rather than broadly disqualify such people from competing.

> Are athletes unable to take medication such as Ritalin if they need it for a legitimate medical issue?

So you believe this top, elite athlete who excels at focusing has ADHD or narcolepsy? Are you willing to go that far before admitting they may have cheated on that, and use psychostimulants, steroids and amphetamines for unethical competitive advantage?

It's actually really easy to believe that an elite athlete could be successful at following a highly scheduled, monitored training program with coaches and meal plans and parental support while struggling with the executive function necessary to e.g. successfully complete college classes. Are you familiar with ADHD? Heres some stories of athletes who have it: http://m.additudemag.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.additudemag.c...

But not easy to believe they just take them to get an unfair advantage, right?

I'm a little confused as to what you're trying to argue, because your last post suggested it is ridiculous to think an elite athlete could have ADHD, which is clearly an incorrect argument, and this post suggests that ... recognising ADHD in athletes is denying that any athletes cheat? Or maybe doubling down to say that you believe none of them have ADHD because it's more likely they are just cheating? Which also seems pretty nuts?

I argue that "having ADHD" is a very convenient excuse.

Here's the example of Balotelli, an athlete that might have ADHD. I've even found an article claiming precisely that: https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/football/618456/kop-stars-...

Well, his career is seriously troubled because of his behaviour. Which suggests that the ability to focus and manage impulses and delay gratification has an important impact on an athlete's success. Therefore any drug that can enhance focus has also an impact on the success of a professional athlete, I think there can be little doubt about that.

Well, duh. But ACL reconstruction or anti-psychotics can also be very beneficial, nobody in their right mind has ever argued that athletes shouldn't have access to modern medicine because we're pretending they represent primal humanity or whatever.

Wasn't there a case when German (?) female athletes were using hormonal boost of the first few weeks of pregnancy as a loophole to dope themselves?

The strive and pressure to win at Olympics make people do absolutely crazy shit, so it's reasonable to assume guilty until proven innocent when a blacklisted chemical is detected in a sample.

Soviet bloc athletes, yes, complete with abortions.

If you are prescribed the medication, you get a TUE (Therapeutic Use Exemption) and can compete using the medication.

I'd be kind of interested in seeing a competition where doping was allowed. How far/fast can the human body go with help from science?!

Read up on Todd Marinovich before you ask that question.

Sounds like that guy had a serious recreational drug addiction. How is that relevant to performance-related doping?

We will soon begin to find out!: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26766095

This was tried in 1988 - http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/update-all-drug...

I have the same idea, how are we going to push the human race to new limits without some pioneers who are willing to exceed our mortal boundaries with the help of science.

Let's not kid ourself that doping isn't rampant in professional sports.

Anyone surprised that americans were given preferences?

Not sure where you see that anywhere in the article. TUEs are a normal thing that athletes from every country receive for taking various medicines deemed medically needed. Are they possibly abused sure but so far according to the article nothing out of the ordinary in the leak.

I'm not qualified in this, was told by a guy who is that the abuse is against WADA rules but wasn't prosecuted. For now I don't now, let's wait the wider discussion

Since when is prednisone a performance enhancing drug? Should aspirin also be characterized as performance enhancing? What about alcohol (relaxes muscles and has psychoactive stress-reducing properties)? What about nutritious food?

But meldonium is exactly what you describe, it was in use since 80ties.

Alcohol is illegal during competition and the first doping suspension was for sneaking brandy during the 1904 marathon

> Since when is prednisone a performance enhancing drug?

Don't you know what corticosteroids do? Really?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17805102 "CONCLUSION: From these data, short-term Pred intake did seem to significantly improve performance during submaximal exercise, with concomitant alterations in hormonal and metabolic responses. Further studies will be necessary to elucidate the mechanisms of these hormonal and metabolic changes, and to determine whether the changes may be associated with the marked performance improvement obtained."

Prednisone does stimulate the adrenal gland, which is why they have you taper off it. I don't know what sort of effect it might have on performance. (I have taken it to clear up bad rashes, with edema, from poison ivy.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com