Hacker News Reader

Comment by bps4484 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com