“Should we bother about drugs in sport?” asks Glenn Mitchell. I thought it might have been a reflection on the failings of the status quo, but in this case, his answer is a resounding yes.
Yet the multitude of doping scandals mentioned in the article, and the sad likelihood that there are many more around the corner, must make us think about whether a fresh approach to the usual ‘war on drugs in sport’ might be in order.
In many ways, the debate over the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport mirrors the debate about the use of illicit drugs in society generally.
We are told that the war is being won and can be won. We are told that with more resources, we can fight the war more effectively.
We are told that those who break the rules are being held to account and punished.
Those suggesting that this approach (now in place for decades) is failing are muted, as an entire industry devoted to the continuation of the current policy powers on.
However, the scandal of Lance Armstrong’s doping should be enough to trigger our skepticism that attempts to ban performance enhancing drugs in sport have been futile.
Even more damning is the fact that not only has Lance been stripped of his titles but there is no other competitor those titles could possibly be awarded to in his absence, so tainted is an entire generation of cyclists.
We have to ask ourselves – if we are only detecting last decade’s drug cheats now, what may the current crop be up to that we lack the technology to detect?
Practicalities aside, Glenn Mitchell’s article makes three arguments in favour of the status quo.
Firstly, that use of performance enhancing drugs is unfair and against the ethos of sport; secondly that these drugs are harmful to athlete’s health; and thirdly that legalising drugs will flow on to harm those playing sport at an amateur level.
Let’s look at each of these.
On the ethos point, I would have thought that the “fairness” inherent in sport is not that the athletes come to the contest from positions of equality.
Rather, fairness derives from the rules of the game itself (dictating how the sport is played and how success is measured) and then how those rules are applied (usually impartially by an independent referee or umpire).
If, the aim of sport is to see how well an athlete or team can perform – to use Glenn’s test – to the full extent of what they are capable of, then how do we really feel about elite sporting academies like the AIS?
Or entire AFL teams being taken to away for altitude training camps? Or high-tech swimwear designed to reduce drag in the water?
The simple truth is that elite sport has now become a science – witness the number of people employed as fitness experts, sports scientists and the like by elite sporting teams and training academies.
To draw a distinction between these technological and scientific methods (fair) and drugs (unfair) is now looking rather pointless.
The second argument about stopping athletes from harming themselves is also an argument for banning boxing, rugby union, long-distance running, gridiron, cheerleading or any other sport that exposes yourself to serious, long-term injury.
My GP once said to me that he winced ever time he heard a football commentator describe a player’s actions in putting their body on the line as “courageous”.
Of course, we don’t ban these things, because we accept that people have the right to take calculated risks with their lives if that is what they should choose to do with their bodies.
That many professional athletes already jeopardise their long-term health by playing through serious injuries with the aid of painkillers, or by running back on to the field following a concussion doesn’t seem to really bother anyone (not least Mr. Mitchell who thinks it makes no sense to ban use of painkillers in sport).
The third argument that this will flow on to amateur sport is perhaps the silliest of the three.
The gulf between elite and amateur athletes is now so massive as to mean there is little, if any, connection between how people participate in them.
The former is a career choice by single-minded people of single-minded devotion to a goal.
The latter is a hobby, comprising people who earn their money some other way and dabble in their chosen sport on the weekends.
In this context it is ludicrous to suggest that weekend cyclists and swimmers would be influenced by the legalisation of drugs at an elite level to swap their weeked café latte and a muffin over breakfast for something more performance-enhancing.
The simple truth is that in an era where sporting success at an elite level is incredibly lucrative, the temptation to use performance-enhancing drugs is always going to be too great for some.
Better testing and detection technologies can only go so far since the aim of the “drug cheat” and those supporting them is always to remain one step ahead.
Let’s not forget that Lance Armstrong passed over 200 drug tests on his path to seven Tour titles.
So, if the current policy is a colossal failure, what is the alternative? At least a cautious legalisation of some drugs in some sports is worth further thought.
Don Talbot, architect of Australia’s recent golden era in the pool, certainly thought so in 2007 when he suggested that sports authorities consider legalising the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport.
Even IOC supremo Juan Antonio Samaranch dared to suggest in 1998 that substances that do not damage an athlete’s health should not be prohibited.
It could be up to individual sports to decide on the appropriate setting for their own sport – some like cycling might cede to the inevitable and open up their sport to use of a range of drugs, whereas others with a history of stricter compliance (or where drug taking is less beneficial) might choose to keep the status quo for now.
We would all benefit. Athletes would be able to do what they were most likely going to do anyway, this time in a transparent manner which minimises the risks and allows them access to the right information about the drugs they are using.
The public would be spared the endless speculation and scandal about the performances of their athletes.
Not a perfect solution by any means, but at least a more honest way forward.
Cooper Mccormick
Guest
by the way, im also a Essendon supporter
sittingbison
Guest
we have unrestricted drug use and the time is 9.5s
sittingbison
Guest
furthermore they do permanent injury by playing with painkillers when severely injured . Half the Eagles 92-94 team cannot even kick a footy with their kids let alone run around the park. As to the performing athlete, pain killers are plain cheating. There IS no "normal" level, the level is whatever you are at any given time. Injuries and pain are part and arcel of sport. Getting a shot to boost you above the current level is cheating, just as much as a blood bag to get you over the crest
sittingbison
Guest
even Fatty Masters are doping
Brendon
Guest
What about the people that don't want to take the drugs? I am assuming they could no longer compete at the elite level, this rebuttal is irresponsible and would rule more competitors out than ever before, I for one would not want to put my internal health at risk for any reason, if we legalize it, then you're cheating the people that abstain.
liquor box
Guest
I once read that Man wont ever get that quick as the effort required would basically tear every tendon and muscle in the legs. There is a limit and we are very close to it at the moment. There are a few sports where drugs provide a better spectacle. Baseball stands out to me. People in general want either 100mph fast balls or homeruns. Both can be assisted by drugs. Drugs can also add excitment to cycling, as much as I dont allowing myself to admit liking doping, I do get a charge from watching the exploits of Marco Pantani on youtube. I find it hard not to get excited when a guy attacks up a mountain from eleven miles out 3 days in a row rather than the current 50m out once every three days
liquor box
Guest
The flaw in that argument, and one which is especially relevent in the cycling section of this website is that fatigue and the associated pain should be a factor in winning. When you get to the last stage of a grand tour and you are lining up for a sprint against someone else who has riden 3000km should the sprint be based on how you both felt on the first day of the tour when you were both at your fittest, or should you be sprinting based on who can overcome the pain in their legs from climbing over a few mountain ranges? I would also argue that pain killers CAN allow you to have a higher ability that just what is possible when fully fit. Who in training has never been injured and had to either fight through the pain or overcome an injury? If you know that the next day you can have a shot then why not train past the point where it starts to hurt? you can train at a higher threshold if you know you will be able to recover without the pain.
Malcolm Kyle
Guest
The drugs won, and always will. Next subject please!
Neuen
Roar Rookie
Wait till the first one die due legal performance drugs. Then we all back here again.
apaway
Roar Guru
So if performance enhancers become legal, do winning athletes in their acceptance speech thank their coach or their chemist?
Lee Rodgers
Expert
An interesting take here Smithy on a subject that I feel will continue to dominate the headlines and our discussions on bike rides and in cafes for quite some time to come. As a professional rider myself, I have to say that I have no problem with others taking advantage of such 'enhancers' as training at altitude or having the facilities at sports institutes at their disposal to aid their efforts to improve. The advantages accrued from such these methods - which are legal, and ethical, in the eyes of the vast majority - are nowhere nearly as significant as those to be gained from HGH, EPO and blood doping. I have some personal experience in this area from having raced against guys who were phenomenally strong and then later in the year failed drug tests. In some cases some of these guys thrashed me and the rest of the peloton, whilst in others they were just good enough to hang on to a break. The point though is that these aren't amphetamines and cocaine we're talking about - two drugs used by cyclists in the past that dulled pain, brought a temporary lift and helped alleviate boredom (!) - these modern drugs though can truly take a cart horse and turn him into a thoroughbred. One excellent point that Mr. Mithcell makes in his article, and one that is so often overlooked by those who advocate legalising the banned drugs, is that different people do react differently to the same drug. Whereas one guy can down 5 pints and still dance a mean salsa on a Friday night, another is under the table dribbling like an infant. Pantani is a point in case - the guy was rumored to have been on EPO even as a junior and was such a coke fiend that he (allegedly) had mirrored handlebars towards the end of his 'illustrious' career. Others have taken it and suffered heart palpitations, dizziness and other side effects and have had to stop using it. If dope is legalized, woulds it be fair that talented, healthy riders would not make the grade because they had allergies to dope? Or suffered side effects? Moving on, Stevo and Tom make good points, in reference to your statement that doping in the pro ranks won't affect amateurs, and they offer a couple of the increasingly common examples of amateurs who have doped (I personally know some amateurs who, in their younger days, dabbed with EPO). Ulster Dutch also makes an excellent point, that if you have a child who is talented, at what point do you drive him down to the clinic for a blood transfusion, or a shot of HGH? These drugs that are being abused have cost riders their lives, and others, such as Graziano Gasparre, are convinced that their years of abuse led to their cancer. Any parent that would knowingly allow their child to be exposed to that kind of risk isn't going to be winning any Good Parenting award any time soon. (A very interesting read here, by the way, about EPO, HGH and steroids and their link to cancer: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043661807000382 - and another here, about Italian parents loading up their kids' bidons with illegal amounts of caffeine! - http://velonews.competitor.com/2011/04/news/must-reads-doping-controls-on-italian-juniors_169723 ) My final point is a very personal one, and I put on my rider cap for this one! You comment that if dope was legalized, "Athletes would be able to do what they were most likely going to do anyway." I am a pro rider and I don't dope. I know of many others that are also vehemently against doping in sport. And I know a few guys who are unbelievably talented but who had to say goodbye to the fat paycheck of the upper ecehlons because they couldn't truly compete against the less talented who were willing to juice up. I would contend that of the hundred of thousands of registered racers in the world, a very, very small percentage actually dope, and that those who abstain don't do so for economic reasons but, on the whole, for ethical and health considerations. The vast majority of us ride because we love it and if we win, when we win, we want to do it fair and square and completely clean. And if we lose, it's the same. Beat me, don't cheat me! There's no doubt that the guys at WorldTour level are immensely talented, but for so long so many have been cheating, breaking the defined rules and getting rich along the way, as other, equally talented riders have had to make the decision to walk away from the sport they love. Either way you look at it, that can never be right... It is changing, the signs are there. It's up to all of to stay vigilant, to support change, and. most importantly, to educate the new generations that this wonderful sport can be enjoyed drug-free. Just because something has been going on for ever doesn't make it right.
B.A Sports
Porblem is many pain killers, like other medications including sleeping tablets are known to be addictive. There are lots of stories in the US of players told to tak epain killer sin college, who became addicted to them and it has ruined their lives.
Pot Stirrer
Guest
The whole point of viewing elite sportsman is to be amazed at the ability of these athletes. When it is enhanced with performance drugs it all becomes pointless becuase any athlete could get the same results if they just took a few more drugs till they become the best.
Pillock
Roar Rookie
We coud have unrestricted drug use and see the 100m run in 7.5 seconds. Would it enhance our enjoyment in watching the event? Probably not. The fact is that most people are against drug use however, I agree with the basic premise of the article being that detection and punishment for drug use has been an abject failure over a long period of time. To claim otherwise shows an inability to accept reality.
BennO
Guest
Mitchell addressed this in reply to someone yesterday and said: "The medical argument – and it is valid – is that painkillers cannot enhance an athletes ability beyond what he can normally attain when fully fit, thus it is not regarded as taking an unfair advantage in that you are simply playing a specific opponent as you normally would." It's in the comments section below his article: http://www.theroar.com.au/2013/01/03/should-we-bother-about-doping-in-sport/
BennO
Guest
Smithy your rebuttals of Glenn Mitchell's arguments are very poor. So much so that I would not call them rebuttals at all. 1. Equating training techniques with drug taking? Training techniques improve the fitness of athletes (and therefore their performance) whereas drugs only improve their performance. And you know they did ban those high tech swim suits to which you refer, because they provided an unfair advantage (ie performance enhancing) to those who had access to them. 2. Ban sports where injuries occur. Hmm. It's plausible that Mitchell's argument leads to the banning of boxing because the primary purpose is to injure your opponent. And funnily enough, there are many doctors who advocate that. But in the other sports you highlight, injuries are incidental occurrences rather than the main goal. It's a bit of a non-sequitur you've used there. Banning a sport in which injuries occur is a very different thing and completely different from banning something about the sport that causes injury, like head high tackles. 3. Amateurs just won't do it. This is rubbish. Evidenced by the amount of steroid use in amateur bodybuilders and gym junkies as well anecdotes of performance enhancing use among club sport players. Your proposal of allowing some drugs is no "more honest" than the current solution. There are regulations that are enforced to the best ability of sport's governing bodies. Your solution is exactly the same with just a shorter banned substance list.
liquor box
Guest
I have more of an issue with injections that get rid of pain and allow a sportsperson to compete when they otherwise could not. This takes a lot of mental strength of overcoming pain to win out of sport. Steroids are just straight out cheating, but pain drugs are allowed. I think this is because the general public dont want to feel like a drug cheat everytime they grab a panadol.
Rabbitz
Roar Guru
For me the issue is the, and I am generalising here, mentality of young competitors, who are generally focused on winning/suceeding at all costs. Being young and (relatively) immature, with the enthusiasm of youth, can (does) result in them being more willing to accept the advice that they "need" to take the substances to "compete". This is further exacerbated when young athletes are inducted into 'elite' programs, where they are totally immersed in the sport world. Anedotally this leads to a certain naivety, as they have lived in a bit of a cocoon. Finally, coaches, who can tend to live vicariously through their charges, see success of their athletes as being a nest egg for the future. All of these factors will lead young sportsmen and women to ignore the warnings and to dismiss the spectre of damaging their bodies for life, to win now. I contend that these people, while some are adults, are not in the best position to judge the cost / benefits of such abuse. They are stand too close to the problem. I believe it would be disastrous to allow unfettered drug abuse in the name of winning sporting contests, disastrous for the athletes, disastrous for the sports, and disastrous for upcoming generations of young athletes.
Tom
Guest
Exactly - prescribing drugs for non therapeutic uses is hugely unethical, and I would hope that any country's medical board would deregister doctors found to be doing so. The problem is that by allowing a free for all means that athletes will essentially have to take horse sized doses to remain competitive, meaning those who aren't willing to risk their health to such an extent will inevitably be left behind. Many drugs such as anabolic steroids and EPO have horrible side effect profiles, and some athletes will, quite reasonably, be unwilling to take them, hence rendering them unable to compete. On your point about this reaching the amateur ranks, read this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/28/sports/cycling/doping-in-cycling-reaches-into-amateur-ranks.html?_r=0 - yes, it is somewhat pathetic, but to think it doesn't happen at an amateur level is naive.
B.A Sports
Agree To take it a step further, it would make redundant all the messages about healthy eating, not just for athletes but for people in general. We will find society living poorly and expecting to take synthetic material to recitfy their poor diet and lifestyle.