The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Jarrod Mullen was injured, why can't he use medicine to get better?

Roar Rookie
19th January, 2017
Advertisement
There's been confirmation of Jarrod Mullen's positive drug test. (Source:AAP Image/SNPA, Teaukura Moetaua)
Roar Rookie
19th January, 2017
39
1738 Reads

Jarrod Mullen’s reported positive test made me reflect on the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) code and whether it should prevent athletes from using drugs that are performance-enhancing but also therapeutic.

Was Mullen making a last-ditch effort to overcome chronic soft tissue injuries that have plagued him over four years and maintain his highly paid rugby league career?

Had the Knights playermaker exhausted all legitimate and WADA-approved drugs and methods to overcome his issues?

And does the current WADA prohibited list prevent athletes and their physicians from using evidence-based therapeutic drugs to overcome chronic injuries? Maybe there are drugs that could be used under strict medical supervision for a short period to allow athletes to overcome chronic and recurring injuries?

WADA does allow athletes to take medications on the prohibited list for certain illnesses and conditions, with a therapeutic use exemption (TUE). Illnesses and conditions under TUE include androgen deficiency-male hypogonadism, growth hormone deficiency, asthma and musculoskeletal conditions.

TUEs have been debated at length of late, after the illegal release of many high-profile athletes’ – most prominently Sir Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome – medical records, including their TUEs. The debate focussed on the appropriateness of these exemptions and whether they had been used as performance enhancers.

But once you provide an exemption in life, a can of worms is opened and there is an increased possibility of exploitation. This is probably the reason WADA does not allow anabolic steroids as a TUE, as its muscle building and repair properties could be exploited.

However, many athletes are forced to retire early due to chronic injuries. Is this fair when they may be could have used an otherwise-banned therapeutic drug for a short period under strict medical supervision to allow them to overcome a chronic injury?

Advertisement

I wonder whether athletes such as Froome and Wiggins’ careers may have been significantly disrupted or finished prematurely if they were denied TUEs?

If Mullen’s B-sample comes back positive, he has broken the well-known WADA rules and deserves to be punished. However, while he sits in the stands, there may be players on the field that have been given WADA-approved pain-killing injections or have TUEs to allow them to compete.

To remove the complexity, is it time to ban pain-killing injections and cease TUEs? Or do we expand the complexity by allowing WADA-prohibited performance-enhancing drugs, that are proven to help athletes overcome certain injuries, be used under strict and independent medical supervision for a short period?

Do we move towards black and white rules, or more shades of grey?

close