On Friday morning I awoke to find, what was for me, the most disappointing news of the 2012 Olympics; that the British Olympic Association (BOA) had lost their legal battle with the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) over BOA’s more stringent doping code at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The difference between WADA and BOA being that any British athlete who has failed drugs tests BOA bans from competing in the Olympics for life, whereas WADA only applies a maximum of two year bans. This is compounded by the revocation of the International Olympic Committee’s ‘Osaka Rule’ again by CAS, which means that any athlete with more than a six month ban is banned from the next Olympiad.
Why is this so disappointing?
The entire position that appears to be taken by CAS is that doping in sports is a relatively minor offence, a position I disagree with entirely. Illegal substances are banned primarily as they can do a huge amount of damage to your body and its biological balance. If it becomes acceptable to use them we could see a rise in the pressure felt by athletes to use them just to be on the same competitive level with their peers; a few incidents could easily lead to a major problem. For people who don’t believe this would be the case we only need to look at cycling where the governing body was weak on tackling drugs cheats and doping became endemic. Only now is the sport starting to be cleared up.
From a general competition viewpoint, if someone dopes it takes the chance away from another athlete to achieve their dreams. The Great Britain woman’s squad lost in 2006 to the Russians who were later found to have doped. Once found out, the Russians lost their gold medal which was given to the British. However, firstly this meant that the British team didn’t get to have the elation of actually winning the event in front of a home crowd and instead won by default (which for any athlete when placed as the favourite would be absolutely crushing). Secondly if the Russians hadn’t cheated another team may have been in the final meaning there may have been a completely different outcome in the competition. This second point applies directly to Dwain Chambers, who in one of his races beat another athlete placing himself in the final. Another problem arises with non-Olympic events which are often seen as preparation for the Olympiad. This means that if a squad fails to a team who have doped in one year, they may change their training program to deal with an apparent weakness that does not exist. Instead they could be strengthening other parts of their training program resulting, which without doing gives them worse preparation for the Olympics.
Going back to Dwain Chambers there are again multiple reasons that his ban should be more severe. He openly admits he knew he was taking something odd as his pharmacists program cost 30,000 dollars, even though he never said he was in the wrong. He claims in his book that the drug he took provides only a slight advantage, while in contrast he said in interview that a drug cheat would have to have a really bad day to lose to a non-doping athlete. Without a coherent answer of what the drug he took does or any admittance of guilt, we can see he obviously knows more than he was letting on. His last point about doping making everyone better is also ironically rubbish; he ran faster before he doped and had equalled Linford Christie’s time in 2002 at only the age of 24. Chambers can easily be compared with a person in jail requesting parole without admitting any guilt. If such a person would not be allowed out of prison, why then should an athlete who refuses to admit guilt for doping be allowed to compete again?
From a personal point of view I am also extremely opposed to the Chambers case. Why? Sports are better without doping, as shown by the great potential of athletes who don’t ever use drugs. Usain Bolt smashes world records without doping, while the 2011 tour de France was arguably the best and (touch wood) the cleanest in many years. This is all done as the athletes had no shortcuts so are much more determined producing great battles for victory. My attempts to compete at a high level in rowing also have an impact on this opposition. If I had known another athlete beat me as they were doping my frustration would be inexplicable because of the work I put in to try and get that seat. The excuse that Dwain Chambers used was that he was young and frustrated at his progress and this resulted in him turning to doping. I see that as a weak excuse and I would never want an athlete like that on my team. I am young and frustrated at my progress too but I have never been tempted to use performance enhancing drugs. I know trying to compete at the top is tough, but we can’t accept any shortcuts.
“Illegal substances are banned primarily as they can do a huge amount of damage to your body and its biological balance.”
That really isn’t the reason they are banned. If something should be banned just because it is potentially harmful, then a huge number of sports and training methods should be banned.
For example, EPO is a natural hormone that stimulates red blood cell production, raising the hematocrit. For athletes it’s illegal to take extra EPO. But living/training at altitude, which also results in greater EPO production, is legal. If taking EPO is illegal because a raised hemotocrit is harmful, then altitude training should be illegal.
And taking steroids is illegal, but if taken in clinical doses (i.e. not for sustained periods of time and not in large doses) they can aid recovery time and avoid injury, which can be healthier than over-exerting, especially in the middle of something as exhausting as the Tour De France.
“However Injecting blood doping chemicals (incuding EPO) is outside of these normal metabolic parameters,”
Which normal metabolic parameters? Production of EPO (and hence also one’s hematocrit) genetically varies from individual to individual. One person might have a natural hematocrit level of, for example, 48%, and this might not be considered too dangerous to compete. But someone else might have a natural hemocrit level of 40%. If 48% is considered acceptable, why shouldn’t the individual with 40% use controlled injections of EPO to increase their hematocrit to 48%?
“This means that having the high Hemocrit is within the persons natural chemistry or normal metabolism which won’t cause damage to their body as it is part of their natural chemistry.”
This is simply not true. Just because someone is born with a metabolic trait that is relatively high or low does not mean they won’t be damaged by it.
Besides, as I’ve already pointed out, metabolic changes can be induced by training as well as taking drugs. Drugs can of course cause changes beyond what is merely possible from training, but from a health perspective you still haven’t provided an argument against using a drug to cause the same changes that are just as possible via training.
I’d suggest sticking to the ‘it’s cheating’ argument. After all, every sport has arbitrary restrictions and rules (otherwise competition would be impossible), so if they want to arbitrarily exclude certain performance enhancing drugs, but allow others (e.g. caffeine) that’s the BOA’s prerogative. In that respect, it’s no different from rules such as not being allowed to handle the ball in football unless you’re the goalkeeper. It’s just much harder to enforce.