‘We'll never break another world record by our sea level athletes from 1,500m or above for another century’. (2002, BBC Sports, should drugs be allowed in sport- Internet site)
He was also wanted to re-iterate that he was not encouraging drug use.
"There are two competitions in the world, the altitude runners and the others, I'm not advocating drugs, I'm saying until there is a drug, there won't be any parity in any future competition’ (2002, BBC Sports, should drugs be allowed in sport- Internet site)
Negative aspects
Now, some reasons to help explain the negative aspects of using performance-enhancing drugs in sport.
One thing that is not realised by the athletes using these performance-enhancing substances is that most can and does cause serious organ failure and even death in the worst-case scenario. As well as causing organ failure it is also shown to increase the risk of infection or disease, with things like cancer and angina being increased. This is the most obvious reason that these drugs should be banned from sport.
Another negative point could be the cost of the drugs. Performance enhancing products are not cheap and can quite easily put an athlete in debt if they do not have a large income. In conjunction with this, the purchase of such products only strengthens the ‘black market’.
Another major negative is the longer-term effects of using these substances. When males use Anabolic steroids they can receive large testosterone rushes. This can cause the enlargement of breasts and their ahhem can get smaller. With females, their breasts can become smaller and certain areas of the body can lose hair.
The athletes that are taking these substances are effectively cheating and this goes against the traditional morals of the sports, as mentioned above. Many sports, especially the ones that originated in Britain, were gradually controlled from ‘mob games’ into organised sports. This was done by the upper class grammar schools. The teachers believed that education through sport could instil the morals needed in life. For example the captain of the rugby team was being groomed to be a leader in society, later in life. These were not just British morals, as stated above the Ancient Greeks. And if the basic morals of the sport (gentlemanly conduct and fairness) are broken with the use of drugs to give a competitor an unfair edge, the game is therefore being brought into disrepute. But what is disrepute? It is defined as ‘loss or want of reputation; ill character; disesteem; discredit. (2004,Hyper-dictionary- Internet site).
In the modern day athletes are seen as role models and respected figures of society. So as children are idolising these athletes, surely they would be morally wrong advocating drug use to children. This is probably the largest reason why performance-enhancing drugs will never be allowed by any governing body. If the athletes are advertising the use of it, how can you stop children imitating their idols? How many children copy footballer hairstyles, no matter how ridiculous it may be?
Although people, such as Ron Clarke, actively encourage the use of drugs to ‘level the playing field’, surely this would just hand a huge competitive advantage to the more technological advanced or richer countries.
Protesters of Drug Use
Jacques Rogge, the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) president, is completely against the use of performance enhancing drugs. He is actively encouraging other sports to increase the penalties imposed on the ‘cheating’ athletes, especially football, and copy the IOC’s directive.
"Today there are unjustifiable discrepancies between different nations and between different sports I am thinking of the two-year ban for track and field athletes (who have failed dope tests) and four-month bans for football’ (2002, BBC Sports- should drugs be allowed in sports- Internet site)
This example immediately brings you back to cases such as Ben Johnson and Rio Ferdinand. Ben Johnson won the 100m Olympic final in 9.79 seconds but was stripped of his medal after testing positive to steroids. He was given an automatic two-year ban, imposed by the IOC. Compared to this, Rio Ferdinand missed his drug test, which is the equivalent of testing positive, and only received an 8-month ban. This was also considered quite a lengthy ban compared to other footballers such as Jaap Stam and Edgar Davids who received shorter sentences. Because of the un-clear discrepancies in what is a drug, the IOC often press their list of doping classes and methods.
‘International Olympic Committee Medical Commission (1994)
- Doping Classes
A Stimulants
B Narcotics
C Anabolic agents
D Diuretics
E Peptide and glycoprotein hormones and analogues
- Doping methods
A Blood doping
B Pharmacological, chemical and physical manipulation
- Classes of drugs subject to certain restrictions
A Alcohol
B Marijuana
C Local anaesthetics
D Corticosteriods
E Beta-blockers’ (Mottram 1996, p27)
Drugs Used as a Political Tool (Example)
One of the clearest examples of a country using performance-enhancing drugs to promote themselves on a world stage was the former East Germany. In the 1970’s and 80’s, the nation became a major sporting success, challenging others like the United States and the Soviet Union. This raised considerable interest giving the size of East Germany compared to these other nations. How could one nation go from winning 20 gold medals one Olympics and then win 40 only fours years later? The answer would be ‘drugs’. The government gave thousands of their own athlete’s performance enhancing drugs, some of whom believed they were vitamin tablets. This was to demonstrate the East German superiority over the West. This did work until the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, when German athletes would then reveal the truth about the governments doping. One athlete, Kornelia Ender, who won 4 gold and 4 silver medals in swimming at the 1972 and 76 Olympics, admitted to receiving performance-enhancing injections from the age of 13. Also athletes were now feeling the longer-term effects of taking these substances. Many were having health problems, such as organ damage, fertility problems, liver cancer, psychological defects and experiencing major hormonal changes
Once this started to become more and more apparent, the government realised that they would have to be held accountable for their actions. A German court later found the late ex-East German sports boss Manfred Ewald and his medical director, Manfred Hoeppner, culpable for what it called "systematic and overall doping in (East German) competitive sports" until the fall of the Berlin Wall” (2003, CBC- Top ten drug scandals, Internet site)
They were all given suspended sentences and minimal fines, German democracy! A trust fund was set up for any athlete wanting to claim for compensation. Surprisingly though only 197 athletes applied for this, which was marginal, compared to the masses that had received the performance enhancing drugs. Thus possibly showing that maybe the drugs are not always harmful to the athlete if used properly or at least not over-used.
SPORT IN SOCIETY
As mentioned, sport has underlying morale values. The most obvious being fair play or fairness. To understand this concept fully you have to look at the role of sport in society. Modern advances in various forms of media have made sport a huge industry. But sport has a naïve aura surrounding it. This being that sport is part of a separate world, away from politics, where the rules are clearly defined and the best athlete triumphs. This can be seen everywhere as a lot of people use sport to escape from the real world and relax or relieve tension built up from their day-to-day lives.
‘In sport, unlike the "real world," merit is supposed to be its own reward. Sport represents a self-contained "moral order" so it is no surprise that top athletes are idolised’. (2004, Australia Education, The drug debate- Internet site)
This means that anything that tarnishes the image of sport as fair is a threat to the integrity of sport as a whole. So as drug use is not accepted by society there is absolutely no chance of acceptance in sport. This is because if sport is to retain its image, it has to remain cleaner than the rest of society. So in this respect, drug testing is to guarantee sports innocence and purity.
The majority of interests groups are all businesses, but with contrasting goals. With the exception of the IOC, most governing bodies are large businesses. Examples being the media, sports equipment companies pharmaceutical companies’ etc… all of whom are trying to sell the image of sport. To do this, they must promote the pristine image of sport to the general public, showing no leniency. An example of this would be the cancellation of an athlete’s sponsorship if they were found to be taking drugs, thus tarnishing the company’s brand image as well as sport as a whole. Although corporations will show zero tolerance if an athlete is found out publicly to be taking performance-enhancing drugs, if the public does not know the corporation is likely to turn a blind eye. This is because the companies are solely concerned with being associated with winning. The corporations do not care how their athletes win as long as they are not found to be cheating.
The media also has different interests. Sport is popular anyway so there is a huge market already but nothing sells the media than scandal and cheating. But the media was the main driving force in improving drug-testing methods as it exposed the cheaters in the sporting world.
And finally the pharmaceutical companies once again have a clean image and do not want to be associated to any negative publicity. But what are the benefits of banning substances, like steroids, which earn the companies millions of dollars every year?
The problem is that sports are still trying to live with amateur values. This in principle is right but in modern society is becoming increasingly harder. Athletes and teams are under pressure to win from the media mainly because of the money involved and the difference it means between winning and losing. Drug use has steadily increased as the business of sport has grown. Drug testing is
One important comparison to make is the drugs versus technology debate. Drugs are largely opposed because of the unfair advantage held over the competition when used. But could this not be said of the athletes with the best racket or access to advanced training commitment. These athletes generally come from the wealthier, advanced countries. Maybe if the countries who are not able to have such technological advances set the debate they would place technology above drug taking as a method of gaining an unfair advantage.
Limitations of Testing Procedures-
There are undoubtedly limitations to the procedures used. Uzych (1991) identified the three major limitations of testing.
Errors can occur in the identification of the specimen or in the analytical procedures. The testing may also find a banned substance but gives no clue as to how much has been taken or when. Next of all, a positive test can’t be used to determine the actual effects on the performer and whether it enhances their ability. And finally the testing cannot show whether an athlete has voluntarily taken the drug or been secretly exposed to it.
Drug Policy
The governing bodies are responsible for the classifications of the drug and penalties imposed. The government cannot make policies for sport, as many of the prohibited drugs are legal. As some of the drugs are legal it does complicate matters, but it is all to do with basic ethics in sport. This is further re-iterated by the IOC.
‘The use of doping agents in sport is both unhealthy and contrary to the ethics of sport. …It is necessary to protect the physical and spiritual health of athletes, the values of fair play and of competition, the integrity and unity of sport, and the rights of those who take part in it at whatever level.’ (Mottram 1996, p49)
The NGB’s (National Governing bodies) have to conform to WADA’s regulations. (The World Anti-Doping Agency). WADA are a non-governmental group, led by the International Olympic Committee (IOC). In turn NADO (National Anti Doping Organisation) are responsible for the application of these regulations in the UK. In 2003, UK Sport pledged their allegiance to WADA’s regulations and the importance of the organisation.
These regulations need to be set out clearly so all athletes are aware of what substances are banned. The problem lies with the uncertainty of the punishment. The IOC issue an automatic 2-year ban whereas other organisations like the FA (Football Association) take each case on its individual merits and hand out varying sentences. This causes problems. Surely one athlete should be penalised the same as any other. This may even attract some athletes towards taking performance-enhancing drugs as they can get a shorter sentence with the use of good lawyers. If the penalties were always the same, athletes would know that there would be no leniency whatever the reason they have prepared.
The next problem with the classifications and policy is the different types of drugs. For instance, anabolic steroids are an artificial substance created and secreted into the body whereas something like nandrolone, a cousin of testosterone, is created naturally within the body. Who’s to decide how much nandrolone is created in the body especially as nandrolone levels are significantly higher after physical activity. The IOC has set a limit of two nanograms per millilitre. This is very close to the natural amount found in your body and tests show that 0.01% of innocent athletes will test positive. This can be for several reasons. The first being stress that athlete’s place on themselves in competition and training can increase the natural levels of the banned substances. If nandrolone is produced from testosterone, it could be that the nandrolone goes over the detection limit.
It is important to note that all of the relevant research conducted has been done with a minimum amount of participants; this questions the validity of the findings. More importantly though no tests have been conducted on athletes themselves so substances like nandrolone could increase more than scientists had realised. The hope lies in new methods of drug testing, although limited research, it shows that nandrolone breaks down into smaller molecules if naturally created, whereas it will not break down if it is artificially taken.
The government and NGB’s have now set up many guidelines and procedures for drug testing. For instance they are able to test an athlete at any time, be in during or outside competition. This makes sense as an athlete could train on performance enhancing drugs but then let the drugs clear out of their bodies before competition, giving them an un-fair advantage. Another principle agreed by the major sporting bodies was to use IOC approved testing laboratories, this is to ensure fair and efficient testing for all. I believe the appropriate bodies (WADA) are doing all that is possible at the present time. Once a set punishment for the drug misuse across all sports is in place without any leniency, and then we will see a decrease in the abuse.
The drug users will never fully cease, as new un-detectable drugs will become available, the same as EPO was un-known before the 1999 World Athletic Championships.
Solutions?
The real problem with the current situation is that some athletes are being given an advantage over their non-artificially enhanced rivals. Even worse is that some cheats are caught, while others get away with it. This is clearly totally unacceptable, and obviously something must be done.
We should take an aggressive stance against drug users. If an athlete is found cheating, they should be banned from participating in any international competition for five years, something extreme to scare them off taking the substances. Doesn't sound fair, does it? Well neither is cheating in order to gain an unfair advantage! As long as every country is treated the same, then in theory drug usage should all but stop.
The next idea is allowing everyone to do it. If the use of drugs in sporting competitions became the norm, nobody would have anything to complain about. If these people (normally so obsessed with personal fitness) want to poison themselves for the sake of a quick performance boost, I don't see why we shouldn't let them.
Although the testing would be un-ethical, more studies need to be carried out on actual athletes. The tests carried out on ‘normal’ people cannot be fully justified on athletes. As well as more tests, the drug testing measures
The problem with this solution would be that eventually new and more powerful drugs would have to be created in order for athletes to remain competitive. And in truth this is un-practicable because of their effects on society. Its one thing to let a grown adult abuse their own body but to advocate their use is also accepting that children will be copying these athletes and harming their bodies from younger and younger ages.
To sum up, this situation is never going to be resolved unless sports officials make a decision one way or the other. In all likeliness, it’s the punishments that need to be decided on. The use of performance enhancing drugs is not going to be permitted, not in the foreseeable future so the drug penalties need to be the same in every sport.
At the moment, there are not enough measures in place to fully discourage athletes from using drugs, but on the other hand no steps are being taken to en sure that the good, well trained athletes (the ones that don't need to cheat) are getting a fair deal.
Bibliography
Goldstein, A Addiction, from biology to drug policy, second edition, 2001, Oxford University Press
Mottram, D Drugs in Sport, third edition 2003, Routledge Publishing
Mottram, D Drugs in Sport, second edition, 1996, Routledge Publishing
Voy, R Drugs, Sport and Politics, 1991, Human Kinetics Publishers, Inc
Goldstein, A Addiction, from biology to drug policy, second edition, 2001, Oxford University Press
Australia Education (2004)- The Drug Debate- available from-
() (Accessed 4th Jan 2005)
BBC Sport (2002). Should drugs be allowed in sport- available from-
() (Accessed Dec 12th 2004)
BBC Sport (2002). Jacques Rogge on drugs- available from-
() (Accessed Dec 12th 2004)
CBC Sports (2003) Top 10 Drug Scandals- available from-
() (Accessed 29th Dec 2004)
Hyper-dictionary (2004)- meaning of disrepute- available from-
()
UK Sports (2004)- Annual Policy Review- available from-
()
