Privacy Matters: TUEs Shouldn’t Be Public

American pro Jocelyn McCauley was denied a TUE she requested for fertility treatment. Photo: Kevin Mackinnon

We noticed in late March that Sam Laidlow launched a campaign on social media to make all therapeutic use exemptions (TUEs) public. His call for more transparency in anti-doping came in response to the International Testing Agency’s (ITA) releasing of their new interactive dashboard which publicizes TUE statistics from its partner federations, of which IRONMAN and World Triathlon are included. In the data, triathlon recorded 78 TUE applications submitted between 2019 and 2025 (16 for IRONMAN, 62 in World Triathlon) with 28 approved, leaving the rest withdrawn, deemed “not needed,” pending, or, in one case, denied. The list is public, but no athlete names are attached, leaving it somewhat anonymous.

Laidlow’s efforts have since gone quiet, but there were strong voices against him–and for good reason. Of course, we all want clean sport and anything that promotes anti-doping and increases transparency is, in principle, a good thing. But it’s not that simple.

TUE 101

A TUE allows an athlete to take a banned substance for legitimate medical reasons without violating anti-doping regulations. For example, common medications for ADHD and asthma often require a TUE. The process (which involves filling in forms and submitting comprehensive medical documents to a committee of physicians) exists so that athletes don’t have to choose between their health and their sport.

“Although only around 1–3% of athletes require a TUE, the system is often debated and sometimes misunderstood,” the ITA explains on its website. “TUEs are occasionally perceived as controversial, but in reality, they follow strict international rules and are carefully assessed by the ITA’s independent International TUE Committee (iTUEC). This body brings together highly qualified…

Source