The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has reported that yet more athletes have failed doping re-tests, bringing the total from the current tranche of re-tests to 98.
The reputation of many sports and sports associations are now under the microscope.
More fundamentally there is a greater question at stake: how much longer will sports-fans and supporters continue to follow these sports?
The credibility of any number of sports is increasingly coming into question, which in the long run will affect the supporters. The upshot, of course, is that this will lessen the value to sponsors and reduce the already meagre incomes many of these athletes earn.
This was brought home to me over the last week as we sat down at home to watch the last couple of Cross-Country Skiing and Biathlon events we had left over on the recorder from the European winter World Cups.
These were recorded well before the systemic and systematic doping at the Sochi Winter Olympic Games came to light.
For those who do not follow these sports, suffice it to say that the Russian athletes figure prominently in the upper echelons of both sports.
While watching the events it became increasingly distracting that each time a Russian came to the fore, or dug deep, or showed stamina, the question “Was that due to doping?” bubbled to the surface.
It really did lessen the joy of watching what are usually some of our favourite events and favourite athletes.
Now we have real doubts about the sports we follow. This is to the extent of discussing removing a cherished poster from my own home, which was personally inscribed and autographed and sent to us by one of Russia’s best ever female biathletes.
This poster has a prominent position and has been some source of pride. Now we are not so sure, even though there has been no allegation of doping by that athlete.
In all of this, I guess the supporters and sports-fans are also losers and at it is the supporters who buy merchandise, go to watch, pay television subscriptions, view sponsors advertising. We are the ones who, the end of the day, pay for all of this.
So some questions come to mind.
Are we allowed to be disappointed?
Are we allowed to be angry?
Are we right to remove our support of sports that are tainted?
We’ve kept up our end of the bargain, is it not time that athletes and administrators did the same?
joe
Guest
That is true in individual stuff like Tour de France or UFC,I agree.The guys with best chemists often win.But in team sports I think a lot of guys are using,I think overall it evens itself out.
northerner
Guest
The argument about health risks wasn't mine, it was Mister Football's. He suggested that only dangerous drugs should be banned - but that's why many of the drugs were banned, and it made not an iota of difference. My argument is that, these days, I'm having less and less interest in sports I used to follow because I know the odds are, the winner isn't the best athlete, but the guy with the best chemist.
joe
Guest
The argument of "the banned substances are dangerous" to the athlete is a tired one in my opinion. I agree with you about the off season cycle where often the heavier usage takes place then players use PED's more sparingly during the actual season (although that's not always the case). But the "dangerous" argument,I don't really care.Playing in the NFL is dangerous,period.Competing in the UFC is dangerous.You're a big hit away from potential knee,hip,head injuries to name a few things. So it's already dangerous. These are adults if they choose to use a testosterone patch or HGH or Adderall or whatever thats their choice. A prescription drug like Adderall is a bigtime enhancer for athletes.You pop a couple of those 2 hours before a game & you will be running thru walls feeling absolutely no letdown or fatigue for the whole game.Adderall isn't dangerous.It is if you use it nonstop for years but to use it before a game its not going to hurt you.But it will give you a big edge over someone who isn't taking it. The Seahawks team who won the SuperBowl a few years back were always getting popped in drug tests taking that stuff but they were lunatics on the field when using it.They didn't get the nickname "Seadderall Seahawks" for nothing. Point is in all sports they are using,and for every guy who gets busted there's a dozen who skate by undetected. It can be dangerous but a lot of things are dangerous & people still do it & when big $$$ are involved to those who excel its always going to be a part of sports.
northerner
Guest
Quite a few of the things being used by the dopers are dangerous and were banned for that reason. And it's not always about the juice you're on during the race. It's also about the juice you're on in the off season which enables you to train harder and longer than you otherwise would, giving you an advantage when it comes to race day even though the drugs may have cleared your system by then. It's just not as simple as testing five minutes after the competition. As for Armstrong, sure, a lot of his rivals were on something or other: US Postal just took systematic doping to another level. So, the Tour, like the Olympics, became, not "may the best man win" but "may the best drug regime win." And everyone in cycling knew it, including the ICU, and no one did anything about it because there was too much money involved. I like competitive sports - I'm not so interested in competitive pharmacy.
Mister Football
Roar Guru
I agree with you Joe. Surely the time has come to make this more about health than about being punitive - the current regime does not work, cannot work. Rather than create a level playing field, all it does is hand an advantage to well-resourced athletes and teams who can tread that fine line between gaining an advantage and doing something illegal. In the Lance Armstrong example - absolutely all of his rivals were juiced up - to my way of thinking - that is the closest you'll ever get to a level playing field. The other thing is: what's the point of banning athletes 4, 8 or 12 years after the race was run? Completely pointless. Makes no sense - a waste of effort, resources - and it reaches the point where you may as well not watch the race - the pin heads may determine a different result in 10 years time. The limits must be clear-cut and obvious and testable on the day - we want to know that the top 3 are legitimately the top 3 there and then - not in 10 years time. That means a completely different approach to what we have now. It means a health and safety approach first and foremost - and the only thing that should be banned is that which is detrimental to your health and which can be tested 5 minutes after the race is finished.
joe
Guest
Athletes in pretty much every sport are using.Not all of them but a lot of them are but are able to stay a step ahead of testing protocol with great masking agents &/or doctors carefully administering the medication (if you want to call it that) to avoid testing positive. Its pretty well.documented.Barry Bonds never tested positive,Lance Armstrong also.In the NFL/NBA a ton of guys are using but they have enough money to use the best guys to help them avoid getting busted. I'm one of those who honestly don't care if they are using HGH or testosterone replacement. A professional rugby league or NFL player put their bodies thru so much wear & tear its almost common sense IMO to let them use something to help recover & perform at a high level. I don't have a problem with it.