biker jk wrote:Drug cheat David Millar says TUEs shouldn't be allowed in competition. I totally agree.
A T.U.E. should allow access to a performance-enhancing drug only if that drug is required for proven medical reasons. Then a T.U.E. should permit its use — but only out of competition. If any traces of the drug are found by in-competition testing, then that should result in a ban. For an athlete's own well-being, it is better to face the fact of sickness or injury and withdraw from competition. And for the sport's well-being, it is better to avoid a system open to abuse and exploitation.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/david-m ... mes-essay/
Yep, I reckon this is the only way. Too many doctors willing to state an athlete has a particular condition so a TUE can be issued.
Let's face it, if you have a medical condition which prevents you from being the best in a particular sport, then it is unlikely you will be at the top of that sport. If you can't see properly then archery is unlikely to be a sport you will be good at, if you are short and have a slight build then cycling might suit you better than rugby, if you are asthmatic then sports which rely on high aerobic capacity probably don't suit you. We are all limited to not being brilliant at many pursuits by our genetics, given I sink I doubt I would be the fastest swimmer going, not the sport for me I suppose, that's life.
I still find it exceedingly strange the number of pro cyclists who seem to be asthmatics. I would have thought not being an asthmatic would be an advantage. Given the performance enhancing qualities of some asthmatic drugs they should be only available, with a TUE, outside of competition.
DS