Hacker News Reader

Comment by turingbombe | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

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.

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

> 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...

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com