Mike Murray
With regards to:
1. If this is taken broadly to include all use in all setting we would also
need to eliminate not only 20.7 but also 20.2, 20.5 and 20.6 since these are
all things that doctors and other medical providers do all the time. In
addition something would need to be inserted into the rules to allow
sanctions against coaches, doctors, etc. who actually do participate in
doping. Personally I am not really worried about the current wording being
applied too broadly but I am open to any specific wording changes. Simply
eliminating 20.7 is inadequately specific.
2. Removing "for medical diseases" would allow doctors to prescribe
prohibited substances for any reason, including doping. Unfortunately
recent events have demonstrated that it is not sufficient to trust that all
physician prescribing is going to be ethical. The citing of HIPPA is
smokescreen. HIPPA prohibits medical providers from releasing medical
information without patient consent. It does not extend to prohibit sports
organizations from asking for medical information or to prohibit people from
releasing their own information. OBRA and/or WADA are not dictating
prescribing practice. Doctors can prescribe anything they are legally
allowed to. The doping rules are to prohibit participation by athletes
using specific substances or methods even if they are prescribed legally.
Since I, or other doctors, could legally prescribe EPO or other prohibited
items even if there is no actual medical need this is necessary.
Unfortunately an Rx with a signature is not enough.
I have to point out that the current OBRA rules are considerably less
restrictive than WADA rules. OBRA rules allow riders to produce proscription
after the fact while WADA requires formal filing of a Therapeutic Use
Exemption prior to the event. This is significant as there are LOTS of
riders using, for example, albuterol inhalers who have not filed a TUE.
This is not against OBRA rules but could net a sanction at a USAC race.
OBRA also allows use of substances that WADA will not issue TUEs for. The
penalties in the OBRA rules are also significantly less.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: obra-bounces@list.obra.org [mailto:obra-bounces@list.obra.org] On
Behalf Of Judy Richardson DMS01
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 18:48 PM
To: obra@list.obra.org
Subject: [OBRA Chat] tampering with doping rules
Since Mike brought up the Anti-doping policy, as a
physician and a cyclist, I have two requests for
consideration:
1. Rule 20.7 "Administration or Attempted administration
of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method to any
Athlete....(constitutes and anti-doping rule violation)"
So if I treat an athlete with insulin or albuterol (both
on the banned list), if that athlete is not in prior
position of a note from a prescribing physician I'm in
violation of this rule, and subject to the penalties
described. It seems like the spirit of rule #7 is to
discourage co-consipiritors in doping, but rule #1 puts
the responsibility for possessing or using these
substances squarely on the athlete. Can we get rid of 20.7?
2. "Exceptions will be made for therapeutic drugs as
prescribed by a licensed physician for medical diseases."
Should really exclude "for medical diseases". I take issue
with OBRA or WADA or any non-licensed official dictating
my prescribing practice, and think it's a violation of
HIPPA (addressing medical privacy) for a note to stipulate
the disease for which a medication is being used. An RX
with my signature should be adequate.
_______________________________________________
OBRA mailing list
obra@list.obra.org
http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org