Drug policy exemptions for ADD?

[Pere]

I don't know anything about the pharmacology of the medications prescribed for attention-deficit-disorder, but apparently they are similar to amphetamines banned under the MLB PED policy. According to this article, players receiving these medications are "exempted" from the policy.

I'm not sure how to feel about this. I should note that I really like Adam LaRoche, an "exempted" player. His brother says,

It's something you need to be normal, to focus, to be like everybody else. It's putting you on an even playing field with everybody else. Steroids and amphetamines, they put you on a plane above everybody else.

Okay... but... major league baseball players are "on a plane above." Otherwise they wouldn't be in the major leagues. I know, he's just talking about ballplayers, not the general population. But what exactly is the qualitative difference between a player who has, say, borderline MLB talent, but feels the need to be stronger--to match his colleagues who are succeeding--and one who feels the need to be more "focused"? Moreover, there is the suggestion that the effects of the ADD drugs aren't limited to their therapeutic mental effect.

I mean, everybody has some kind of limitations. Some of us recognized around high school that a professional baseball career was not gonna happen. Some guys do play pro ball, but reach the limits of their abilities somewhere in the minor leagues. Some play in the big leagues, even struggling against rather significant limitations, like, say, Curtis Pride. *

As I say, I like Adam LaRoche. But is there really a logical rationale that allows him, and others, to have their limitations ameliorated by a treatment--a drug--which just happens to be a forbidden advantage for everyone else?

To put it another way, what if steroids were a treatment for deafness? Could Curtis Pride juice up?


* Let me say for the record that I have immense respect, on several levels, for Curtis Pride, and I mention his name in the tawdry context of PEDs only to serve as a kind of convenient thinking point. I am psyched that I'll be seeing him play in a couple weeks in the Atlantic League.

[BoofBonser26]

But what exactly is the qualitative difference between a player who has, say, borderline MLB talent, but feels the need to be stronger--to match his colleagues who are succeeding--and one who feels the need to be more "focused"?

The difference is that he wants to be able to interact with others on a more or less normal level - a social need. It's completely different than an athletic one.

[Pere]

The difference is that he wants to be able to interact with others on a more or less normal level - a social need. It's completely different than an athletic one.

LaRoche says he was diagnosed with ADD in high school, but avoided taking medication until, while playing for the Atlanta Braves, he made a couple errors on the field because he was "out of it"... so it seems clear that he began taking the drugs to address a competitive athletic need, not a "social" one. It happens to be a mental aspect of his play that is intended to be addressed, rather than a physical one... but why exactly should that matter?

Moreover, if the drugs are akin to the banned amphetamines, isn't he unavoidably deriving the other "advantages" too, the effects that are off-limits to others? The article suggests that some players might be interested in taking ADD drugs for the purpose of getting the "side effects."

[Williamsburg2599]

This is a tough one, as in a lot of cases in life, both sides need to realize the other has plenty of legitimate points.

Personally, I'm still on the fence. Even if the player has a prescription, the whole steroids era shows those aren't too hard to get. It's also hard to define where the whole "leveling of the playing field" thing should begin, after all, players also have chronically bad knees and tendons. Do those injuries not give them a disadvantage as much as a player suffering from ADD would have? I'd love for Hiddengem to chime in on this one.

[dgarza]

Many people who take meds for ADD do so to help cope with day-to-day functioning (I wouldn't call it "social," that sounds too recreational), beyond just athletics.

But it sounds (from the info I'm reading on this thread) like LaRoche may not have needed them for normal day-to-day activities.

The problem is, you can't police motives very well.

[dgarza]

To put it another way, what if steroids were a treatment for deafness? Could Curtis Pride juice up?

I think the ADA would say "Yes".

[west coast orange and black]

spark240: I'm not sure how to feel about this. I should note that I really like Adam LaRoche, an "exempted" player.

excellant topic, spark.
i want to know if your position of questioning would become denouncing if laroche were a player you did not care for or about.

[YOUgodofwalks]

I am not claiming to be an expert, it's just I happen to have been in a class recently which adressed this. In my abnormal pyschology class my professor was talking about ADHD. He is a long time practicing clinical pyschologist who has treated many college level athletes. He said that many athletes that he has seen REFUSED to take their medication on days of games and hard practices because while it did slow them down and help them focus, it makes them feel like they are "floating" and other side effects they actually feel are detrimental to playing. I'm not much of an athlete and never taken any of the medications for ADHD, but I thought I would at least pass this on as it is a different perpesctive on things.

[Mariano_Rivera]

If a person has ADD, gets treatment, and gets a promotion in a job other than baseball is that unfair and bad?

LaRoche explains it best, the treatment puts you on a level with everyone else, it doesn't put you above the field. It makes you`re brain work normally, the way everyone else's does. Its truly a disability to have ADD.

The simplest way I can explain it is that a part of your brain is retarded. It can't keep up with the rest of it. The medicine strengthens that part of the brain. If somebody who doesn't have ADD takes the medication then they will essentially have ADD along with several other awful symptomns. A misdiagnosis certainly does not help anything. Just ask Chris Kaman

[Pere]

i want to know if your position of questioning would become denouncing if laroche were a player you did not care for or about.

Well... I don't think so. He happens to be the only one with this exemption that I've seen identified. I guess I mentioned that I like him to highlight the fact that even though that makes it easier for me to identify with the ADD players, and feel that, in context, they're not seeking an "unfair" advantage, I still have doubts about the logical basis for the different standards.

[west coast orange and black]

^^
thanx, spark.

as i understand it, many symptoms of two distinct areas must be present for a certain length of time to result in a diagnosis of ADHD. i am curious if you know to what degree would laroche would be incapacitated but for his prescriptions.

[dgarza]

I still have doubts about the logical basis for the different standards.

To see the logical basis for the different standards, one would have to widen the scope, to look beyond just baseball. Because players are people who do not live just inside a stadium.

[Los Bravos]

This isn't any different than a player taking insulin, beta blockers or having Lasik done, as far as I'm concerned. I always felt this was a non-issue and I still feel that way.

[dgarza]

This isn't any different than a player taking insulin, beta blockers or having Lasik done, as far as I'm concerned. I always felt this was a non-issue and I still feel that way.

I was trying to think of a good analogy.
This works perfectly.

[Pere]

To see the logical basis for the different standards, one would have to widen the scope, to look beyond just baseball. Because players are people who do not live just inside a stadium.

No kidding.

But can you actually state the logic? It may be harder than you think.

Does anyone have a link to the actual rule language? If it's just deferring responsibility to a doctor's prescription, that obviously allows for abuse.

This isn't any different than a player taking insulin, beta blockers or having Lasik done, as far as I'm concerned.

Maybe... but I'm not aware of players who don't have diabetes being interested in insulin. Beta blockers could be comparable in that there are conceivable benefits for players other than treatment of heart problems. Beta blockers are banned by the IOC.