OK, like everybody, I was pretty much in the dark about TUE’s. So I thought I’d have a look. I’m not a medical professional. I’m not a full time athlete

A disgruntled hacker has shone a light on what they are and selectively released detail on “clean” athletes. It is muddying the waters a bit and is not a logical or fair comparison to state controlled doping of the like we saw in East Germany in the 70’s and 80’s and has been uncovered by doping authorities in Russia in the last few years. That’s not the point. What it has done is shine a light on the managing of drug misuse in sport. I was naive to think that if an athlete got ill, and they needed to take medication to help with that illness; as part of that process they can get an exemption. From what I’ve read about Mo Farah; that’s exactly what happened with him. A short term use of a banned substance. Just twice in 15 years!!. Yup; that’s the point of the process. The issue to me, is that it has morphed into loads of athletes in all sorts of sports with what seem to be permanent TUE’s. Part of high performance sport is about marginal gains. Having a TUE for a condition (let’s assume it is not an imaginary condition) is one way of gaining a marginal advantage over your opponent.

So what is a TUE.   It is a Therapeutic Use Exemption. In simple terms an athlete may have an illnesses or condition that requires them to take particular medications. If the medication the athlete is required to take to treat that illness or condition happens to fall under the WADA Prohibited List, the only way an athlete can take that medication  is if they have a TUE

As with all these regulations, there is a process. It appears (as with testing), it is not as standard as you may think across the world

My two main concerns

1 – you can apply for a retrospective TUE !!

That’s right, if you think you might have not told the authorities, you can do so AFTER you’ve taken it. In fact it is even worse than that. For a UK athlete; any athlete requiring a retroactive TUE has five days AFTER the receipt of an adverse analytical finding (AAF) to submit a retroactive application

Run that by me again……..I’m an athlete. I have been bombarded (even Sharapova admits she was bombarded) with detail about what I can and can’t take. I know I’m taking something, but I’m not sure if it’s banned. I wont ask my sports medical authorities for advice. Blimey even Tennis’s ITF say they run a 24/7 helpline.  I compete. I get tested. I get an adverse finding. No problem, I have five days (if I’m a UK athlete) to get my paperwork in. I realise you might not get the paperwork approved, but the route is there. The fact we don’t hear of these events is either because they don’t happen, or you can get the paperwork in on time even with only five days to do it

No!

The system says you can compete without telling a soul, with a banned substance in your body. What is the difference between that and an athlete who really is taking a banned substance. I want to employ the  lawyer who would be able to get a winning argument against “strict liability” on that one

2 – you can compete having just taken a banned substance

sorry, even with my TUE, I am competing against other athletes with a banned substance in my body. I am cheating. The 100m runner beside me with slightly yellow tinged eyes is probably cheating. I think Ben Johnson eyes were red and yellow!. I have a medical condition and I am taking a banned substance. The TUE says it is OK to compete. Morally, it is not. I am cheating. I am only able to compete at that level because I am taking a banned substance

On average about 10% of the UK population may have asthma at some point in their life. In 2014, The Guardian newspaper published that 70% of top UK swimmers and third of Team Sky cyclists suffered from some form of condition, but especially exercise-induced asthma. I have no idea how many of them had TUE’s to support their condition or even if they took any medication for their condition. I’ve no idea if their condition was exacerbated by doing high performance sport or if they actually never had asthma to begin with and exercise really did cause their asthma. The fact is 70% of top UK swimmers had something you only expect 10% on average to have.

Loads of athletes can claim to have “exercise-induced asthma” and by default will be (with the right doctor) open to getting a TUE. As I said earlier, part of high performance sport is about understanding the art of marginal gains. Having a TUE for an asthma condition is one way of gaining a marginal advantage over your opponent.

Clearly there is advice for athletes on how to get a TUE. What is clear (and maybe this points to the issue) is that most of the advice sites I visited, as part of the information provided to the athlete as the site walked them through the process, split all conditions into two main types – “asthma”  and “others”

In the end, is a TUE there to treat a one-off condition or is it there to treat a chronic condition. I don’t think it matters. To keep the playing field fair, if you are able to get a TUE, I think you must exclude yourself from all competition for three months after the date the TUE becomes invalid.  That way, you can probably say, the TUE is not performance enhancing and was there to treat a medical condition