Doping scandals have plagued professional sports for as long as I can remember, and in the past decade have come close to dominating sports media at times.
Newspapers, sports and health magazines, broadcast news media, online news, and even the occasional front-page story condemn the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports. But why?
I don’t ask this because I am in favor of their use; I just don’t see a clear, logical argument in either direction.
I remain undecided on the issue and very disappointed in professional sports organisations that jump to punish athletes that are convicted, or in some cases merely suspected of using performance enhancing drugs.
I admit that I am writing this as a response to what I have been reading lately in the news about Lance Armstrong. He is not particularly a hero to me, I know very little about him, however I wonder about the purpose of stripping seven Tour de France victories from an obviously very gifted athlete, with or without drugs, in order to send a message.
The man won seven times. He did not come out of obscurity and win something that his previous or subsequent performances would call into question. He won something for which he was always considered a contender.
In other words, he did not take a pill and become a super human overnight to win a race; his training made him a super human. If drugs are used in the course of training with the purpose of enhancing an athlete’s performance, how is that any different from the incorporation of any other technology for the same purpose?
So we arrive back at the initial question: why are performance enhancing drugs “bad” in professional sports?
In order to get at an answer, first we need to ask what is the purpose or goal of professional sports for the individual professional athlete? There is an association between athletics and health and often this is the assumed purpose of athletics, to help an individual get or be healthy.
It is important here to draw a line between professional, amateur and recreational athletics. I am a recreational runner – I run upwards of a dozen or so races per year typically between about April and October – mostly half and full marathons.
That’s close to two races per month during my race “season” – and I know individuals who do far more than that. My half marathon times are typically between 1:30 and 1:45 while my marathon times are between 3:45 and 4:00 – admittedly I’m far from the most competitive runner on the course. I just like to run; it’s healthy.
Contrast my performance to that of a professional male marathoner: a half marathon time around 1:00 and a marathon time between 2:00 and 2:15. That dances around a five-minute per mile average speed.
A typical professional marathoner will only run a couple of marathons a year. Why? Because their body is trashed after running 26.2 miles at a five minutes per mile pace and they need the time to recover. Their performance is mind-blowing, but the results are hardly “healthy” by any stretch of the imagination.
Also consider the aftermath of a single professional rugby match, American football game, or boxing match. Consider the results of a career in professional rugby, American football, or boxing. Consider everything having to do with professional power-lifting. Most will agree that there is no way, by any definition, that a 300+ lbs female or 400+ lbs male power-lifter that can lift her or his own weight is “healthy”.
That is not to say that their accomplishments and performance are not staggering; their dedication and strength are just as mind blowing as the super endurance of a professional marathoner. Nor is this to say that professional athletes are not healthy, just that health is not necessarily the highest priority.
I would argue, then, that the purpose and goal of the professional athlete tends toward performance over health while the goal of the recreational athlete tends to be health more than performance. Amateur athletes fall somewhere in the middle range of that spectrum.
This makes the stigma against performance enhancing drugs in professional sports all the more perplexing.
Perhaps performance enhancing drugs give an athlete an unfair advantage? This assumes that there is differential access by professional athletes to performance enhancing drugs, some can’t get them while others can. This is not true. As the media and the scandals are showing most, if not all, professional athletes have access to such drugs.
Do these drugs give a major boost to the user over other athletes? If so, then why is it so difficult to identify athletes that use the drugs from their performances? No drug can turn an individual into a world-class athlete. Only when incorporated into the total training regime do they offer an “edge”, not a leap.
That is the same reason why so many varied technologies are incorporated into the training and performance analysis of professional athletes. Each training tool contributes an “edge” and all those tools together have the possibility of turning a talented individual into a world-class athlete.
Consider advances in medical knowledge and technology. Training routines, warm-ups, cool-downs, recovery and injury prevention methods, specific exercises to target different movements or ranges of motion—all are based on the scientific understanding of human physiology.
Consider advances in engineering and mechanical technology. These account for the entire sport of cycling and new improvements on these technologies come out yearly. Electronic shifting is becoming more common and wireless electronic braking is being developed at a German university.
Twenty years ago carbon frame bikes were not frequently encountered; now they are commonplace. And where would companies like Nike, Brooks, Asics, Saucony, New Balance, and Solomon, to name a few, be without the technology that goes into athletic footwear?
Consider advances in computers and electronics. Analysis programs are routinely used to quantify an athlete’s performance and determine necessary alterations to training, or are used during training to track and indicate various performance thresholds such as heart rate, speed, distance, changes in terrain, or to see normally imperceptible variations in repetitive movements that inherently do not have a high tolerance for variation such as pitching, jumping, passing, hitting, foot strike, etc.
I watched a documentary several years ago where scientists at a university used sensors placed in strategic places on the body of an American rodeo roper to create a simplified stick model of the roper and analyse their technique relative to a computerised optimum.
By analysing the variation between the human roper and the computer generated optimum the roper was able to see exactly how they needed to alter and develop their technique in order to gain that performance edge. Such analytic technology has been used in a wide range of sports.
Consider advances in textiles. Speedo’s “shark skin” swimsuits, competitive swimwear that utilises special materials as well as directionality and orientation of those materials in construction to reduce drag and promote correct form in the pool, gave a competitive edge to swimmers after they were released and approved for competition.
Also the development of compression clothing – clothes that compress major muscle groups in certain directions to optimize muscle efficiency and reduce energy loss – have been used to increase performance and speed recovery.
Professional athletics readily incorporates any advancement that may provide a competitive edge to an athlete… except advances in performance enhancing pharmaceuticals.
The rejection of pharmaceutical advancements while other technologies are readily accepted establishes a Catch 22 with two opposing conditions.
Condition 1: an athlete must perform at the highest level possible. Condition 2: The athlete is condemned for using certain ingested or injected chemical substances that allow them to meet the first condition but applauded for the application of any other technology that encourages such performance.
So then, why are performance enhancing drugs illegal? Because it’s cheating. But why is it cheating? Because it’s against the rules. Oh, of course, but why is it against the rules? Because it’s cheating.
Ummm… Does this seem like we’re going in a circle to anyone else? That I can see, there is no logical reason behind the professional athletic rejection of performance enhancing drugs.
In the end, I still wonder why? Why are performance enhancing drugs anathema to professional athletics? Why are athletes punished formally for their use and punished informally by stigma and public alienation when use is alleged or suspected?
Why is an athlete who is convicted of performance enhancing drug use suddenly not given credit or magically no longer responsible for their accomplishments? Drugs or no drugs, Mark McGuire hit 70 home runs during the 1998 Major League Baseball season – and I guarantee that he trained at least as hard as the competition and a lot harder than his critics.
In the end, performance enhancing drugs, legal or not, seem to be another tool in the training kit of professional athletes. The edge that an athlete gets from their use is only beneficial if they are using all the other tools in the box to their full extent.
Unfortunately, regardless of what Hollywood may have us believe, there is no drug that will turn a Steve Rogers into a Captain America, a Bruce Banner into the Hulk, or a Dr. Jekyll into a Mr. Hyde. Performance will always be a comprehensive result of all the tools being used together with the highest performance being achieved by the most skillful application of the most tools.
While I really can’t speak for anyone else, to the McGuires and the Armstrongs in the crowd I still want to say, simply, I’m sorry. I feel for you. While I won’t ever be using performance enhancing drugs myself and don’t really know how I feel about their use, I understand why you may have.
And to the professional athletic associations I urge: either accept and regulate performance enhancers or come up with a logical reason for rejecting them.
joeb
Guest
DaSilva mate, why trying to keep up with the cheats is a lost cause: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/wada-warns-of-financial-worries-for-doping-battle/story-fnb64oi6-1226515793960 Heck, now they're charging to read this in full. Stay tuned, will return. (It's only $2.95/week charged in 4-week blocks. Reasonable value.)
NickF
Guest
I'm pretty sure there have been some deaths related to the use of EPO. When theuse of EPO creates too many red blood cells and the heart cannot cope. That alone is a pretty good reason the ban the use (or abuse) of EPO. Then there is the use of blood transfussions. where the blood cells die before transfussion. or the wrong bag of bllod being used for the wrong rider. Both can cause illness all the way to death. Someone else might enlighten me in the negative effects of testosterone and steroids.
sittingbison
Guest
completely incorrect. This has been discussed at length. SOL has been tolled previously. CAS has even ruled on it. UCI did not appealed Reasoned Decision to CAS. WADA have now accepted the USADA case as well. Judge Sparks accepted USADA jurisdiction and every particular of their case including tolling SOL. For the love of god everyone, USADA has acted exactly according to the WADA Code and their own rules. They have behaved impeccably in every circumstance. Any suggestion to the contrary is complete rubbish. #unconstitutional and witch hunt are a joke.
joeb
Guest
"Even if cycling does eventually go open slather." In reality DaSilva, if we think about it, in cycling it has been “open slather” for at least the past 10 years, if not for the last 20 or 30 or more years? And in any case haven’t athletes since the dawn of the Olympic Games ingested and experimented with substances to artificially improve and increase their performance levels? (Interesting too how Viagra is openly promoted for higher performance in the bedroom, yet no one complains it’s stretching the normal physical stamina and limitations of menfolk. Perhaps this is why – and it pays to be conscientious about this – quite a few of us drop stone dead on the job?) What the enlightened and now retired 87-year old Dr Tony Millar is proposing is the use of PEDs under “controlled regulated supervision,” and not as you suggest, “an open slather [free for all] approach.” But under a system where everyone knew the use of PEDs was endemic in cycling, it was simply hushed up, ignored, and a blind eye turned such that now even the governing UCI has been implicated in the cover-up. But now suddenly USADA and WADA and ASADA and PADA and MADA are gunna, they believe, “clean up the sport,” yet fail to acknowledge the medical benefits that regulated supervised steroid use can be to an athlete in our supposed enlightened 21st century. Someone wake John Fahey up. The man's living in the dark unsophisticated superstitious past. These are modern sophisticated times where medical science rules. History of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002366
joeb
Guest
"Thisi s because he did cheat and did get an unfair advantage over cyclist who didn’t cheat (even if they may well be in the minority) and it broke the rules at the time" Apparently to date he hasn't returned a positive blood test, so Phil Liggett says? (Fair point, he didn't contest USADA's findings because all then would have been revealed, including the UCI's total complicity.) "Even if cycling does eventually go open slather." For the future two categories a must, one for cheats, one for clean skins who seemingly enjoy the agony and ecstasy of it all. Painful, but "Oh, what a feeling!" Your views on Dr Tony Millar, maestro? "The 87-year-old, who practised medicine for 67 years before his retirement last year, claims to have administered steroids to as many as 5000 clients as part of a ''harm reduction program''. He denies ever providing steroids to the great [St George] Dragons teams he oversaw or to any Commonwealth Games athletes, saying that ''very few'' of his clients were professional athletes." http://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/doctor-sanctions-steroids-20121027-28c9k.html
Old Fat Guy
Guest
If this is about breaking rules then USADA broke it's own rules when it went back more than eight years. USADA should be stripped of its authority for breaking its own rules and therefore LA should have his victories restored. UCI breaking rules seems to be the rule. And the circle continues . . . . .
Walt Eiman
Guest
Thanks for the info. Your numbers and logic are interesting and convincing. I will go through the science literature on doping and try to find time to post again on what I find. I still disagree about Armstrong as an exemplar or even having to do with the article's premise. The article was meant as a logical argument and/or question about the ethics/legality of PEDs--if you understood it to be about Armstrong, it wasn't meant that way--I only mentioned him at the very beginning and end. Thanks again for the info. Walt
aussie sports lover
Guest
Here is Coyle's response for a bit of night time reading http://jap.physiology.org/content/105/3/1021.full.pdf+html?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=Coyle+EF&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
aussie sports lover
Guest
That's a nice story Sittingbison but all the marketing and money would not come if they didn't think Armstrong was strong enough to win the TDF. Armstrong must have impressed them with some relevant physical (and probably mental) attributes regardless.
aussie sports lover
Guest
Hmm...Ashendon is a well known for his antagonistic views of Armstrong. He has challenged Coyle's paper, which Coyle in turn defended. Coyle's response was that the mistakes determined by Ashendon and the Australian scientists were minor and did not change his overall findings about Armstrong's gross muscle efficiency improvements. He called the calculation error "a minor variation" that "doesn't make a practical difference." Coyle charged that the Australians had "more than unbiased science in mind" in their work. Coyle the said that it is an "attempt to confuse issues and raise doubt about obscure issues," and that Ashedon were attempting "to spin clouds of doubt about me, my paper and thus Armstrong." Now, I will say that I am not an expert in physiology, but I have published 11 scientific papers so I am familiar with the process involved in scientific publications in general. Coyle's paper was published in a reasonable high ranking peer reviewed scientific journal. It would have gone through a fairly rigorous peer review process before being published - this is where his methods and results as well as conclusions would have been heavily scrutinised. As far as I know, Coyle's journal paper has not been retracted from the journal after Ashendon's complaints. I think it is inaccurate to call it "utter rubbish". At most you can call Coyle's findings contentious.
sittingbison
Guest
the answer is marketing and money. Its also the answer why this whole mess started, the corruption of the UCI, and its continuation for 7 years. Armstrong was on a base of about $400k with USPS. His contract was laced with performance-based incentives, and he could make as much as he did back in 1996 when he was on $1.2m at Cofidis. His 4th at the 1998 Veulta after coming back from cancer (remember he could not perform in GTs) was enough to demonstrate to the big boys they had a sure fire money making machine. Manager Bill Stapleton (who co-authored the USADA codes) said this in October 1997: "...Lance isn't just a cyclist anymore - because of the cancer, the Lance Armstrong brand has a much broader appeal. Our challenge is to leverage that now. He's on the verge of being a crossover-type spokesman. He could be just like an athlete who does a Pepsi or Gatorade commercial. If his comeback has success, we hope to take him to a Kodak or Sony and hope they will turn him into a corporate pitchman. We're really just beginning. In January and February people will realize that Lance is back on the bike. And once they realize it, that's when the marketing will pay off...."
sittingbison
Guest
the blood thickening was what led to the deaths od more than 20 Dutch and Belgian cyclists in 1992. Cyclists would not slep more than three hours, setting alarms then walking around hotel corridors for fear of thick blood settling and the heart stopping. The 50% HcT was a "health" limit imposed by UCI. It was not a positive, it meant you had a two week break "for health reasons". Funnily enough Ashenden and others recommended the limit should be higher at 52%
aussie sports lover
Guest
It must be very difficult for you to say he was better than "an ok" classics style rider. His time trial ability is not too bad, he came 6th in the olympics but he wasn't a great climber at that time. Overall, you have valid points he wasn't the most promising person at that point to challenge for the TDF. But I think you underestimated his sporting pedigree and possibly the mental aspect of elite racing. This is where it gets speculative but I'll offer my thoughts anyway - his breakthrough came after his treatment for metastatic testicular cancer. It's difficult for people to understand this, but the treatment involved makes the suffering of TDF pale in comparison.This is just a perspective of someone who have been involved in the management of cancer patients. Could it be that perhaps his experience in overcoming the cancer and the treatment involved made him much more resilient, especially mentally? Also, why was he the chosen rider to lead the US Postal team? They could have chosen someone with more promise, if we accept your assertion that Armstrong is a hopeless TDF candidate.
sittingbison
Guest
asl, I understand your enthusiasm, but better to quit while you are a head :) You have just quoted a 2005 article, that itself was quoting Ed Coyles research on Armstrong. Which was used by Armstrong as evidence in suing SCA. This paper has been completely discredited, it is complete and utter rubbish. The data points are ridiculous, the actual data was all lost prior to publication, and most laughably it was all done while Armstrong was juiced to the eyeballs. Just to give you and everyone else a giggle, whats wrong with this picture: "...Mr. Armstrong, for example, can maintain a power output of about 6.8 watts per kilogram of body weight for 20 minutes. "I would say there are probably no more than 20 people on earth with that ability, and probably at least 10 of them rode or are riding in the Tour de France," Dr. Coyle said...." Now my personal favourite is this, which is unintentionally hilarious given the slang term for doping is "preparation": "...If they followed Lance's preparation and rode on his Discovery team with the same great teamwork that Discovery has given him, and if they can muster the right mindset to believe they can really do it when it counts, they could be equally impressive," he said..." als, if you REALLY want an education, read what Ashendon has to say on Armstrongs EPO positives, and Coyles paper: http://nyvelocity.com/content/interviews/2009/michael-ashenden
sittingbison
Guest
Walt, oxygen vector doping increases the ability of the blood to carry oxygen, and helps with lactate dispersal. One huge benefit is the ability to train more and harder. This is also where the other drugs mentioned come into play, really most beneficial in the heavy training phases. A blood bag transfusion during the race is a "top up", as the blood red cells are depleted naturally during a stage race. Particularly the third week. Our bodies are "acclimatise" to performing at our natural levels and limits. So if you look at the 39%HcT and the 45% HcT both doping to 50%, its not the case they are both level at 50%. The 39% guy has had a 28% increase in his bloods natural ability to carry oxygen. The 45% guy has had an 11% increase. Looking at the VO2Max going from 72 to 84ml/kg/min, thats a 17% increase in the ability to transport and use oxygen. These increases cannot be achieved just by training. It is not a coincidence that elite athletes in all endurance sports have higher than normal HcT and VO2Max levels. Thats what makes them "elite". Its why LeMond labelled Armstrong a doper when he found out what Armstrongs VO2Max was.
sittingbison
Guest
yup, but the problem is using Armstrong as the exemplar. He was an ok one day rider completely transformed by drugs. Not what you were intending.
sittingbison
Guest
its a time trial. He lost either 4 or 6 minutes to Big Mig sorry its a long time ago I cant remember the specifics. You have just posted he was a champion triathlete... which is guess what? Interesting you also mentioned the Triple Crown. You do know he bribed the Coors team with $50000 to not compete in the last two aces? With our very own Phil Anderson named as the bag man.
sittingbison
Guest
all these results are the tell that he was an ok one day "classics" style rider. Could not climb or time trial to save himself.
dasilva
Roar Guru
The thing is people respond to drug in different ways. Some people get really good response to some drugs, some people just get marginal benefits, some people don't respond that well to other drugs and some people are allergic to drugs and can't take it (I'm personally allergic to beta blockers which is considered a PED in certain sports and I still want that drug to be legalised). However is that unfair? I mean some people born with better physical attributes. whose to say the ability to respond to PED isn't just part of many natural attributes that determine the success of an athlete.
dasilva
Roar Guru
Isn't that the whole trade off of blood doping and the reason why people die from blood doping and the reason why it is currently prohibited in sport The theory is that people inject their own blood as it increases your red blood cells in your blood and hence increase your oxygen carrying capacity and hence stamina HOwever at the same time you increase your blood viscosity which increase risk of blood clots and MI risk and DVT. That's why we have all those events of cyclist dying of cardiac disease. Then again, I have to ask these are results of underground doping where individual players dope without the assistance of doctors. If there is a full on medical team, can people do blood doping safely? After all blood viscosity is something that can be tested and monitored for and therefore doctors can then altered the amount of blood that gets injected and create safe blood regime at appropriate doses. If that can be done, is there any reason why it should be banned? Of course this is all theoretical and i don't even know the evidence behind whether blood doping can be done safely but it's a question that should be ask. Blood doping has enough serious side effects to be banned for now and the idea of sportsman dying of heart attack at age 20/30 is kind of makes a mockery with a fit and healthy lifestyle but if there are ways for people to do it safely it something that should be considered.