ABSTRACT
Chapter six investigates the interaction between the therapeutic use exemption (TUE) policy and the legitimacy of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). TUEs granted by specialist physicians permit professional athletes treatment with substances that would otherwise be prohibited for their potentially performance-enhancing effects. The policy is rationalised on the argument that all athletes should have the right to the most appropriate medical treatment, should they require it. However, some stakeholders have argued that the TUE policy reinterprets the line of acceptable drug use, is implemented inconsistently due to physician prescribing and treatment habits and provides an opportunity for athletes to misuse substances. The chapter explores these arguments following events that have led to debate about the legitimacy of the policy. The debate can be summarised in three key discussion points: (1) accuracy of diagnosis, (2) moral ambiguity and (3) the political opportunism. It is concluded that WADA cannot simultaneously justify anti-doping on the argument that they protect athlete welfare and then not allow them medical treatment, limiting the scope for policy change.
