Drug Use In Sports example essay topic

The Tour de France is considered the world's most competitive bicycle race. Each summer top cycling teams from around the world compete in the three-week event, which sends riders on a grueling, multi-stage course through the mountainous countryside of Ireland, France, and Belgium. In 1998, the image of Tour de France cyclists as athletes at the peak of their natural abilities was tarnished by allegations of widespread performance enhancing drug use among competitors. The "doping" scandal broke a few days prior to the start of the race when a masseuse for France's Festina team, Willy Volt, was arrested after police found large quantities of anabolic steroids and, or EPO, in his car as he crossed from Belgium into France.

A subsequent police investigation uncovered a well organized system, orchestrated by the team's management and doctor, for supplying riders with illicit performance-enhancing drugs. The Festina team was suspended from the Tour, and further investigations by French police led to the suspension and withdrawal of several more teams. Riders went on strike to protest the investigations, and less than half of the original competitors finished the race. French authorities are not alone in punishing athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs. From the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to the National Basketball Association (NBA) to the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), most high-profile sports organizations have taken substantial steps to crack down on doping. Stronger anti-doping initiatives are considered necessary to preclude scandals that damage the image of sports and to silence critics who contend that not enough is being done to rid sports of drugs.

The IOC, for example, which enforces the rules of the Olympic Games, set up the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999 as an independent body charged with coordinating a consistent system for testing Olympic athletes. WADA works with international sports federations and Olympic committees and has begun conducting unannounced, out-of-competition tests on Olympic hopefuls. This practice reduces the chance that competitors will rid their systems of drugs before being tested. The list of banned substances on the Olympic Movement's Anti-Doping Code includes stimulants, narcotics, anabolic steroids, beta blockers, diuretics, various hormones, and drugs known as "masking agents", which are used to prevent detection of illicit substances during drug tests.

WADA is also investing more of its resources in developing new tests to keep pace with the changing array of drugs that athletes are taking. Whether or not those who contend that drug tests remain easy to beat will be satisfied by renewed testing efforts remains uncertain. Clearly, however, performance-enhancing drug testing has affected the careers of many elite athletes. Athletes who test positive for drugs at the Olympic level are stripped of their medals and records and are suspended from all competition for two years on the first offense. In 1988, Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson was stripped of a gold medal and was later banned from track-and-field competition for life after he tested positive for steroids. At the 2000 Summer Olympic Games in Sydney, Australia, Romanian gymnast Andrea Radu can had her gold medal taken away when she tested positive for pseudo ephedrine, a stimulant.

American shot-putter C.J. Hunter withdrew from competition after it was revealed that he had tested positive four times for the steroid. Scores of other athletes were also expelled from the Sydney Games after flunking drug tests. More recently, at the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah, British skier Alain Baxter was stripped of his bronze medal after testing positive for methamphetamine, although an appeal is pending. Detection efforts notwithstanding, seeking an edge over one's opponents has long made the use of performance-enhancing drugs a part of athletic competition. A review of sports history reveals that drugs and sports have gone hand-in-hand for centuries, and surprisingly, drugs have only been banned from the Olympic Games since 1968. Explains Ivan Waddington in his book Sport, Health, and Drugs, "Performance enhancing drugs have been used by people involved in sport and sport like activities for some 2,000 years, but it is only very recently (specifically, since the introduction of anti-doping regulations and doping controls from the 1960s) that this practice has been regarded as unacceptable.

In other words, for all but the last three or four decades, those involved in sports have used performance-enhancing drugs without infringing any rules and without the practice giving rise to highly emotive condemnation and stigmatization". This shift from tolerating doping in sports to testing athletes and ostracizing drug cheats has been driven by several factors. Perhaps most important, technological advances in performance- enhancing drugs, beginning in the 1950's, have bolstered the contention that drug use threatens the integrity of sports. Another motivation behind the shift has been to deter athletes from using illicit substances with unknown health effects. Consider, for example, the evolution of performance-enhancing drugs. Athletes in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries looking for chemical enhancement were stuck with the limited efficacy of stimulants and painkillers.

In the mid-1950's, anabolic steroids, synthetic versions of the male sex hormone testosterone, were introduced. Anabolic steroids build muscle and bone mass by stimulating the muscle and bone cells to make new protein. Coaches and athletes saw these drugs as a major breakthrough because they enabled athletes to transcend the limits of natural ability and reach new levels of competitiveness. The first indication that athletes were using steroids came during the 1956 World Games in Moscow, Russia.

According to Robert Voy in his book Drugs, Sport, and Politics, an American doctor, John B. Ziegler, observed Soviet athletes using urinary catheters, because steroids had enlarged their prostates to the point where urination was difficult. Ziegler returned to the United States and helped develop Dianabol, a steroid that was quickly embraced by American athletes, who hoped it would level the playing field with the Soviets. As a result, steroid use became widespread among elite athletes. Concerns that doped athletes were exercising an unfair advantage over their opponents and violating the ideals of sportsmanship followed the rise in steroid use. Explains John Hoberman, the author of Mortal Engines: The Science of Performance and the Dehumanization of Sport, "Performance-enhancing drugs have subverted this ideal [of sportsmanship] in two distinct ways. First, many athletes have abandoned self restraint in this regard, resulting in a crisis of conduct, such as Ben Johnson's disgrace as a 'cheater.

' Second, the of the athlete, either through drugs or other techniques, also involves a crisis of identity... To what extent can the emotional experience of competition be truly shared with an athlete who has transformed himself... with drugs? ... Once the athlete has abandoned self-restraint, drug testing becomes the sole guarantor of the 'integrity' of sport". Sports authorities and fans came to understand that technology would inevitably provide athletes with an endless array of pharmaceutical enhancements. Controls had to be placed on doping in order to prevent sports from becoming a science laboratory where the human spirit played second fiddle to pills and injections.

It is also important to keep in mind that as of 1990, following federal legislation, the use of anabolic steroids became illegal without a prescription, and possession can bring heavy fines and prison terms for users and dealers. Breaking the law to stay competitive is regarded by many observers as a further affront to the ideals of sportsmanship. In addition to upholding the integrity of sports by expunging cheaters, drug testing is done to deter athletes from participating in a "race to the bottom" as far as their health is concerned. If performance enhancing drugs were permitted in all sports competitions, contend supporters of the drug ban, athletes would have to become virtual guinea pigs in order to remain competitive. And because athletes regularly take larger doses of steroids and other drugs than medical patients, the long term health effects of such drug use are unknown.

Health reports from some athletes exposed to performance-enhancing drugs offer reason for caution. Greg Strock, a member of the U.S. Olympic cycling team in the early 1990's, alleges that coaches, without his consent, doped him with steroid injections. Strock attributes the breakdown of his immune system and the end of his promising cycling career to large doses of the drugs. Christiane Knack e-Sommer, a swimmer with the East German Olympic team in the 1970's, was given regular injections of testosterone, a male hormone, without her knowledge. In 1998, she testified in a trial against her former coaches that the treatments "destroyed my body and my mind", and permanently her physique and voice.

However, many athletes are willing to chance these health risks, and they take issue with assertions that there is something unfair or unnatural about using performance-enhancing drugs. They argue that drug use is one advantage among many, such as access to superior coaching or training facilities, that athletes may or may not have at their disposal to sharpen their competitive edge. The fact that all athletes are not starting with the same set of advantages discredits the notion that a "level playing field" can somehow be restored if drugs are eliminated. According to this view, performance-enhancing drugs are simply making up for an athlete's natural deficiencies or quality of training. Another argument put forth by athletes is that elite sporting events are so demanding that competing in them virtually necessitates drug use. Rev- elation's that Tour de France riders were doping themselves surprised some fans of the sport, but riders who admit to drug use are more matter-of-fact.

They contend that without drugs like EPO, which enhances athletic endurance by boosting the amount of oxygen in the blood, competing in the Tour de France would be nearly impossible. Nicolas Au bier, a former French professional cyclist, explains the rationale behind drug use in the book Rough Ride: Behind the Wheel with a Pro Cyclist, by Paul Kim mage: "To be honest, I don't think it's possible to make the top 100 on the ranking list without taking EPO, growth hormone or some of the other stuff". The desire to remain competitive among athletes goes a long way toward explaining their willingness to use performance-enhancing drugs. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, athletic achievement is esteemed by millions of fans the world over, who eagerly watch satellite feeds of sporting events in anticipation of the next world record. Sponsors pay millions of dollars to have their products prominently advertised at sports arenas or endorsed by athletes. In this environment, as Karen Goldberg, a reporter with the magazine Insight on the News, asserts, athletes are under a tremendous amount of pressure to perform.

Writes Goldberg, "As the stakes became higher, so did the number of athletes who sought performance-enhancing drugs, spurred on by the lure of big contracts and lucrative endorsements". Keeping drugs out of athletic competition has only become more difficult for sports authorities since drug testing was introduced to the Olympic Games in 1968. Changing social norms and technology, which spurred the initial drive to ban drugs in sports, may end up settling the debate. Western societies have shown increasing tolerance for using drugs to enhance performance in areas of life outside of athletics. Drugs such as Viagra, Prozac, and Ritalin are now regularly prescribed to improve sexual, social, and academic performance.

It may simply be a matter of time before the "integrity" of athletics no longer appears threatened by performance enhancing drugs, particularly if safer drugs are developed. The ethical debate over whether or not athletes should use performance-enhancing drugs is one of the issues discussed in At Issue: Performance-Enhancing Drugs. Other issues include the effectiveness of drug testing, the rise of steroid use among teenage athletes, and the dangers of dietary supplements. The enforcer Dick Pound, head of the worldwide anti-doping organization WADA, talks with CBC Sports Online about the campaign to clean up sports. CBC Sports Online | Jan. 19, 2003 He's considered a candid crusader by some, merely a big talker by others, but there's no denying that anti-doping leader Dick Pound knows sports. It should hardly come as a surprise, considering Pound has participated both as an athlete and an administrator in sports his entire adult life.

A former vice president of the International Olympic Committee, Pound was also a double finalist in swimming at the 1960 Olympics in Rome and won gold, two silvers and a bronze medal for Canada at the 1962 Commonwealth Games in Australia. Today, the Montreal lawyer is more concerned with sports' dark side. As chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency, he's one of the most powerful men in the sports world. Often outspoken and unapologetic about his views on drug cheats, Pound is on a personal crusade to eradicate drug use in sports by getting as many sports, international bodies and governments to adopt the World Anti-Doping Code.

Pounds not alone in this crusade. Last year, the IOC adjusted the Olympic charter to include, as a condition of participation at the 2004 Olympics in Athens, a clause that requires all international sports bodies to adopt the WADA code. Those sports that don't become signatories to the WADA code will be axed from the Olympic program in Greece. CBC Sports Online talked recently with Pound about the WADA code, his views on drug testing in North American pro sports, and the Beckie Scott case. What's the biggest challenge facing WADA in 2004? What are the organizations top goals and priorities?

Well, we have a number of them. The first is to implement the World Anti-Doping Code across all countries and across, at least, all the Olympic sports. Secondly, to continue to fund research into areas that will lead us to better doping tests. The third is to have a successful independent observer mission at the Olympic Games in Athens. And the fourth is to see if we can expand our funding base so that we do more work.

How confident are you that you can achieve wider acceptance of the code in 2004? Oh, pretty confident. Are there any particular sports bodies or organizations that haven't already adopted the code that you " re keen to sign up? I think, between summer and winter sports in the Olympics, there are 35 different sports.

And I think of those, at the moment, 27 or so have already adopted the code. The time frame that sports have [to sign the code] is anytime prior to the Olympics in Athens. So we could have some of them doing it by the end of July, I suppose, for that matter. And that will depend on which body within the sport does it require a congress of all the member countries, for example, or is it something that can be done by the executive. Some of the scheduling matters will depend upon the constitutional framework. So long as it gets done before Athens, they could do it on July 30 for all I care.

What about THG? Do you think the emergence of this new designer drug is part of a larger cheat conspiracy? Do you think there are more designer steroids out there? Well, I don't know for sure, but we will operate on the assumption that there may well be. How confident are you that WADA-accredited anti-doping labs can stay one step ahead of designer steroids such as THG and develop new tests for them? In the case of THG, as soon as one of the labs in the group of accredited labs gets a test or something like that, they share the information and technology with all the other labs.

As soon as someone discovers it, everybody knows. [pauses] The answer is, I guess, threefold. One is, we can't be sure at the moment because there may be some stuff out there that has not yet been detected. Number two, having found THG and being able to see how the molecule was tweaked and what the result is on the printout of the mass analysis of urine, you get some ideas of what to look for. I think the research will accelerate in these areas so that we will have tests to pick up others. And there will be spikes on the printout that previously were inexplicable, in the sense that nobody knew what caused them. Now you know what THG looks like, you may be able to extrapolate from there to other molecules.

The labs do more than just test. Most of them are research facilities as well, so they will be working on it and I'm sure there will be a lot of friendly competition to be the next one to find something. We will rely on, and encourage, people to come forward. The so-called 'whistle-blowers. ' You " ve said before that sports needs to get better at catching the cheaters. How do you propose sports and governing bodies can do that?

First of all, I think that they all have to acknowledge that there is a problem. I've always said that it's a little bit like alcoholism, in that if you don't admit there's a problem, than you can't properly address it. If the federations and the national Olympic committees and the other national organizations begin to take this seriously, if they have vigorous out-of-competition testing programs... because that's the real danger areas where these folks can disappear for two or three or four weeks at a time and you don't know where they are, you " re in a high-risk period. And a standard set of sanctions firmly applied. The sanction is designed to do two things: one is to punish the person who has cheated and the other is to act as a deterrent to somebody who might be considering cheating. And then you just have to go through a longer educational process.

When I first started to drive they didn't have mandatory seatbelt legislation. They brought it in and all the manly characters filled with testosterone said, 'I don't need this seatbelt, I can just go 100 miles into a wall and pull myself off the steering wall. ' And there were fines and losing points if you got caught without it, but it wasn't the fines and it wasn't the lost points that eventually got people to buckle up. It was the fact that it finally dawned on you that it's really stupid to be out there without a seatbelt on. And that's the kind of re-engineering or re-education that I think we need for sport, and it has to be directed at athletes, coaches, doctors and the public at large. So it's a matter of education in terms of changing attitudes?

Yeah. It's the wrong thing to do, and in many cases, it's really dangerous. What impact, if any, do you think the Beckie Scott case will have as a deterrent for athletes who are considering or participating in doping schemes? Well, I think it's pretty clear that the Russians and Spaniards who were involved in those cases were given something and told that it was undetectable. It's like, 'Go ahead, they " ll never be able to find it. ' Well, the answer is we did find it and those folks are now toast.

So I think that's a very strong message and the good side of the message is that somebody who didn't cheat ended up finally -- and not without difficulty -- but finally with the result that she deserved. But do you think the result of the case will act as a deterrent? Will more athletes look at this decision and think twice about cheating? Yeah, I think they will.

I also think the folks that supplied this stuff to them... [when] you " re doing EPO, and THG and things like that, this is not taking cough medicine or a food supplement. This is a calculated, concerted effort to undermine the sport rules. So I think the coaches and whoever is supplying this stuff to the athletes in the first place will think twice, too. Last year, you launched a campaign to try to get Major League Baseball, the NFL, the NBA and NHL to conform to WADA's global strategy on drug testing that was adopted in Denmark last year.

What's been the response? Are we any closer to seeing the four major pro sports leagues in North America adopt the WADA code? No, I don't think so. The problem is they don't want to admit there's a problem, so I don't see it happening. They " re in denial and fans are somewhat apathetic about it all, so there's no incentive for them to get tougher on drugs.

It seems to me that it only becomes a big deal when someone tests positive at the Olympics and is stripped of a medal. Then it becomes a big deal. For pro sports, I just think most fans don't care about how the athletes get there in the first place and just want to see them on the field. The other problem is, I don't think... you have to realize that WADA is not just sports governing bodies. Fifty per cent of it is governments [who have become signatories to the WADA code].

I get the feeling that they [pro sports] don't get that. It's [the code] good enough for all these other sports and these governments but it's not good enough for pro sports? Give me a break. What are they afraid of? They have a problem with the length of bans, which indicates to me that they " re interested in letting more cheats off the hook. Gene Upshaw, the executive director of the NFL Players Association, has said publicly that he feels the NFL has 'one of the strongest drug policies around' and that he doesn't see 'why we have to apply the Olympic standards' to the NFL.

Why should pro leagues abandon their own authority over drug testing and adopt the WADA code? Why can't the leagues be left to govern themselves? Because when you " re talking about pro sports, you " re dealing with athletes that are in the public eye every day. We " re not talking about an athlete nobody has ever heard of, who tests positive at the Olympics and is forgotten about four years later. Pro athletes are out there every day and making big money, so I think you have to apply the same standard for everybody right across the board. And the fact is, I don't think the leagues are governing themselves the way they should.

All four of the pro leagues have player unions and all four have drug policies that have to be approved in collective bargaining. The leagues argue that because of this and U.S. labour laws they can't unilaterally make changes to their drug testing rules. With this in mind, do you think it's even possible for all four leagues to adopt the WADA code? I've heard the argument before about collective bargaining and the unions and I think it's just an excuse. They " re making it into a labour issue to try and deflect attention away from the real problem of effective drug testing. The unions and collective agreements are obstacles but there are ways to get around them.

Such as? One of them is to make teams' use of public facilities like stadiums, and even tax breaks and incentives they get from local governments, conditional on applying the code. I think the other thing is to look into the anti-trust agreement that they cling to so dearly and possibly restructure it so that it includes a clause about complying with a unilateral drug code. I think that's one of several ways of getting their attention. But again, why not leave drug testing to the individual leagues to govern?

They might not govern it to your satisfaction, but it is their league, so why should they adopt the code? I think one of the answers is that there is an inordinate influence on the public and young people coming from professional sports. These are the farm teams for all of these professional undertakings. Basically, if you " re saying to some kid in grade 10, 'If you don't weigh 265 pounds by the time you " re a freshman in college, don't bother.

' That's wrong. I mean, what kind of message is that? I would say football has the best program of the ones we " ve talked about. You get a four-game suspension for a first offence.

Basketball doesn't care, as long they " re not doing cocaine. What I would say to [Gene] Upshaw is, 'Have you seen these lions now in football?' Have you seen this? They " re averaging 285 [lbs] and they have superhuman strength. I don't think they got that way simply by eating ma's porridge. Baseball's drug policy is just a farce. When they negotiated the current [collective bargaining agreement] deal a couple of years ago, they only agreed to bring in mandatory testing if five per cent of the players tested positive.

Five per cent. If you " ve tested positive on your first occasion, you can ask for a recount, come back later and if you tested negative then, the first positive disappears as well. And even at that, they said they got five to seven per cent. What is that, more than two and a half teams of major league baseball are all on steroids?

So, do you figure that's a reasonable rigorous testing program? I don't think so. And then they " ve put forward these ludicrous suggestions for sanctions, some of which are just chump change when it comes to money. You " re first offence is they counsel you. What are they going to counsel you to do? To don't get caught?

Or here's how you do it so you don't get caught. It's liked you'd have to hit up a liquor store five times to get a year-long ban. Five times. They don't test during the off-season. They don't even have out-of-competition tests. So baseball isn't serious at all.

[Editor's note: Under baseball's new drug policy that goes into effect in 2004, a first positive test results in treatment. Any MLB player testing positive a second time will either be suspended 15 days without pay or fined up to $10,000 US. Suspensions increase to 25 days for a third infraction, 50 days for a fourth and one year for a fifth. Testing with penalties will continue until positive tests drop below 2.5 per cent over consecutive years. Under the WADA code, athletes face a minimum two-year ban for a first steroid positive and a lifetime ban for a second.] What drives you in the fight against drugs in sports? Why do you feel this is such an important issue?

Well, sports is so important to so many people, particularly young people, and it's a precursor to how you " re going to behave in other aspects of social intercourse. You look around the world today and what have you got? The accounting profession is in the tank. You " ve got the business community in the tank. You " ve got the Enron's. You " ve got political shortcuts and all these kind of things, that it's very important to have some kind of activity where you can say to people 'this is on the level.

' You respect the rules, you respect your opponents, you respect yourself. You play fair. I think that bleeds over into life as well. I don't want my grandchildren to have to become chemical stockpiles in order to be good at sports and to have fun at it. Baseball, take your kid out to the ballpark some day and you say, 'Son, some day if you ingest enough of this shit, you might be a player on that field, too.

' It's a completely antithetical view to what sport should have been in the first place. It's essentially a humanistic endeavour to see how far you can go on your own talent.