TargetTalk

Perhaps , my being a surgeon , a doctor.... makes me lean towards alleviating physical suffering.. after all its my professional duty !

So I still think that anyone with serious 'match jitters' should be allowed some means to make him/her more comfortable as he practices the sport he enjoys.

Jittery shooters are not gold medallists by any means.... so if they will not unfairly snatch the gold or silver from some deserving shooter, why should we watch them suffer in our midst ?

Treating the above posters' (yes, more than one) Hypertension & migraines is clearly "alleviating human suffering", the professional duty of Dr. Elmas & his cohorts

Match Jitters is something different. Treating THAT comes from gaining so much confidence that the "match" is no more intimidating than just another dry firing session.

This is in part the professional duty of the coach

but also, it is the goal of all of us shooters, like Steve says

Controlling anxiety is a fundamental challenge in mastery of this sport folks. It wouldn't be the same without it. This issue is beyond just a technical improvement in the accuracy or reliability of the equipment.

and

It's supposed to be HARD

But I agree with the good doctor, it seems absurd that so many beneficial medicines are on the banned list. Hopefully the theraputic exemption rules are user-friendly enough that no one is in a serious medical risk by obeying the list.

Poole
http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/

Bill Poole wrote:Hopefully the theraputic exemption rules are user-friendly enough that no one is in a serious medical risk by obeying the list.

With the proper medical history you can get a TUE (therapeutic use exemption) for most of the substances on the prohibited list.

Beta blockers however are considered to have such strong probable advantages for shooters that a TUE will not be granted or accepted by the ISSF as rule 5.5.2.1:-
“In all ISSF In-Competition Testing it is mandatory to analyze for Beta-Blockers. They are prohibited and no Therapeutic Use Exemptions for Beta-Blockers will be granted or accepted by the ISSF.”

Beta-Blockers are also banned by WADA for out-of-competition use in shooting and archery.

It is of course always open to the organisers of matches below Olympic MQS level to allow the use of any drugs.

I agree with Dr. Elmas but only to the extent he argues that the banned drug list is guilty of overreaching. This is especially true in cases like Steve Swartz and countless others who have an independent and legitimate medical reason for using prescribed medication.

However, when Dr. Elmas proposes that:

. . . anyone with serious 'match jitters' should be allowed some means to make him/her more comfortable as he practices the sport he enjoys.

he goes too far. In fact, if he acted in accordance with that opinion in this country, he would end up without a license and doing time somewhere.

That is not meant to be insulting to Dr. Elmas - it's an accurate assessment of the present state of the law in this country.


F. Paul in Denver

Going all the way back to the posting that equated AP shooting to the book Zen and The Art of Archery.

There are two reliable ways to deal with the jitters--focused concentration and awareness (mindfulness).

1) Focus on the breath or chant a phone number, a candle flame, or just about anything and let the mind concentrate. Distracting thoughts will naturally fall away over time. Do this on a regular basis and when its time to freak out your mind should be able to drift back to concnetration and peace with a bit of prodding.

2) Be mindfull--instead of fleeing the adverse feelings move to them. Feel all their dimensions. If you can not do this fully eventually you may need to give your self some reassurancing comments

F. Paul in Denver wrote:I agree with Dr. Elmas but only to the extent he argues that the banned drug list is guilty of overreaching. This is especially true in cases like Steve Swartz and countless others who have an independent and legitimate medical reason for using prescribed medication.
F. Paul in Denver

As has been previously mentioned, exemptions are available for most of the banned drugs, given appropriate medical justification. Have all these 'countless people' actually asked for TUE's and got turned down, or just not bothered trying ?

Rob.

RobStubbs wrote:Have all these 'countless people' actually asked for TUE's and got turned down, or just not bothered trying ?

We could as easily ask if there's anyone who's actually gotten a TUE and what sort of hoops they had to jump through to get it. I did ask (by email and in several voice messages) for information about getting a TUE for something I take and couldn't even get the courtesy of a return phone call or response by email. After a couple of months of this fruitless exercise of putting messages in a bottle, I finally figured, to hell with it. I'm not competing at the national level anyway and the particular med in question is only banned just because it might (they're not sure) 'mask' tests for other drugs (which I definitely am not taking), not because there's any reason to believe it enhances performance on its own.

My own personal view: This whole thing about banned substances and imaginary TUEs is a big smelly turd.

Nicole Hamilton wrote:We could as easily ask if there's anyone who's actually gotten a TUE and what sort of hoops they had to jump through to get it. I did ask (by email and in several voice messages) for information about getting a TUE for something I take and couldn't even get the courtesy of a return phone call or response by email.

Well a very simple answer is yes. I don't know the process for getting one but I know one GB shooter who obtained one for a bronchodilator he was prescribed. I believe he got that via our governing body who in turn contacted the ISSF and filled in the required paperwork. He subsequently got dope tested at our national championships, I believe just at the time he got the official TUE certificate. Without the paperwork he could well have received a ban.

So I hope that answers the question. Contact your governing body for details on how it works over there.

Rob.

Nicole Hamilton wrote:My own personal view: This whole thing about banned substances and imaginary TUEs is a big smelly turd.

I know several people who have been granted TUEs over the years, admitedly here in the UK not in the US. Those (two) I have spoken to about the process said it wasn't too difficult, although a bit long-winded.

I presume you have seen the WADA exemptions web pages

RobStubbs wrote:Contact your governing body for details on how it works over there.

I thought I was clear: I have attempted contact with them and it doesn't work.

David Levene wrote:I presume you have seen the WADA exemptions web pages

Yes, of course. Now if only the people were as responsive as their web pages.

Nicole Hamilton wrote:

RobStubbs wrote:Contact your governing body for details on how it works over there.

I thought I was clear: I have attempted contact with them and it doesn't work.

Then don't complain about the system, complain about the governing body that isn't applying it correctly. Other governing bodies have no problems.

Perhaps that's another thing that's different in the US. Here, I get to complain about anything I want.

Nicole Hamilton wrote:Perhaps that's another thing that's different in the US. Here, I get to complain about anything I want.

You are of course correct, you are fully entitled to complain about anything you want, even if it is more logical that you should complain about USADA.

David Levene wrote:You are of course correct, you are fully entitled to complain about anything you want, even if it is more logical that you should complain about USADA.

I think it goes more like this: I'm entitled to complain about anything I want, even if someone over in England disagrees.

Uh-oh ..... i sense a dual ...... pistols at dawn ? ...... come on England ;)

Nicole Hamilton wrote:I think it goes more like this: I'm entitled to complain about anything I want

I totally agree, I just find it more sensible if the complaint is aimed at the cause of the problem.

If USADA were not correctly applying or supporting the TUE system and it was affecting me then they are the people I would be complaining about.

Turning serious, I think you're focusing on my difficulty trying to get a response as my whole objection. But I wasn't happy even before I tried, because I really dislike the idea of having to dump out my private medical history, hoping some pissant bureaucrat will decide it's "okay" for poor little me to take a medication that my doctor and I have decided is appropriate for what we view as valid medical reasons. I don't really want their opinion of whether my reasons or my doctor's are "good enough." I don't like sharing this kind of information for any reason. It's nobody's business but mine. I find the whole notion of banned substances, TUEs and having to pee in a cup just to go shoot a match offensively intrusive.

Nicole Hamilton wrote:I find the whole notion of banned substances, TUEs and having to pee in a cup just to go shoot a match offensively intrusive.

When I was competing internationally I would have been extremely upset to find myself competing against someone who was taking drugs purely to enhance their performance. I am therfore totally in favour of WADA's efforts to remove such abuse of drugs from sport.

In my opinion WADA have taken a common sense approach in recognising that some people must rely on taking specific therepeutic drugs to maintain a quality of life and have provided a mechanism to allow that therepeutic use to continue. There are exceptions of course, notably the total banning of Beta-Blockers in shooting by the ISSF. They are considered by the experts to provide such an advantage that fair competition would not be possible.

As I previously said however, it is open to the organisers of matches (below those where an Olympic MQS can be obtained) to allow the use of therepeutic drugs without requiring a TUE. It would then only be those in a nation's named testing pool who would still be required to comply with WADA regulations and obtain TUEs. These are the people who are competing for international representation and they are therefore expected to remain within the WADA rules at all times.

David Levene wrote:When I was competing internationally I would have been extremely upset to find myself competing against someone who was taking drugs purely to enhance their performance. I am therfore totally in favour of WADA's efforts to remove such abuse of drugs from sport.

I guess I don't see a whole lot of difference between people for whom winning is so important that they think everyone should pee in a cup and people for whom winning is so important that they'd want to use drugs to do it. Once you're done pursuing either of these strategies, what exactly are you left with that you call winning?

Of course winning is important, otherwise we wouldn't enter competitions. Look at all the high profile doping cases in athletics for example. Now sure big money influences them and that'll never happen in shooting (well not ISSF shooting at least), but there are massive drivers to win medals.

I agree 100% with David in that the dope rules are about right, given the massive logistical and ethical issues aroung drugs in sport. I too would be damn annoyed if I knew I was not competing on a level playing, should I happen to be competing at that high level.

The bottom line is that you can moan all you like (at whoever you fancy). But if you are competitng on an international stage then you abide by the rules - or face the consequences if you don't. You don't after all have to compete, the choice is purely voluntary.

Rob.