2013 AUCKPENZ SCHOLARSHIP PRESENTATION
DRUGS IN SPORT
Ryan Bailey 5th
Usain Bolt 1st
Justin Gaitlin
Tested + 2006
4 year ban
Yohan Blake
Tested + 2009
3 month ban
Tyson Gay
Tested + 2013
RESOURCES – ARTICLES, CARTOONS, QUOTES
1
Top 10 Pros and Cons
ARTICLE 1:
http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002352
Should performance enhancing drugs
(such as steroids) be accepted in sports?
The PRO and CON statements below give a five minute introduction to the debate over performance
enhancing drugs in sports.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Health Risk
Seeking an "Unfair"
Advantage
Drugs vs. Technology
Coercion
Effectiveness of Drug Testing
6. Legalizing Performance
Enhancing Drugs
7. Sportsmanship
8. Athletes as Role Models
9. Sports Fans
10. Hall of Fame Induction
PRO Performance Enhancing Drugs
CON Performance Enhancing Drugs
1. Health Risk
PRO: "If each of us ought to be free to assume risks that we think
are worth taking, shouldn't athletes have the same freedom as
anyone else? In particular, if athletes prefer the gains in
performance allegedly provided by the use of steroids, along with
the increased risk of harm to the alternative of less risk and
worse performance, what gives anyone the right to interfere with
their choice? After all, if we should not forbid smokers from
risking their health by smoking, why should we prohibit track
stars or weightlifters from taking risks with their health in pursuit
of their goals?"
Robert Simon, PhD
Professor of Philosophy at Hamilton College
Fair Play: The Ethics of Sport
2003
CON: "Performance enhancers, like steroids and other forms of
doping, have a negative effect on long-term health. For then users of
these enhancers are hurting themselves in the long run without on
the average improving their short-term rewards from athletic
competition, as long as competitors also use harmful enhancers.
This is the main rationale for trying to ban steroids and other forms of
doping from athletic competitions."
Gary Becker, PhD
Professor in the Departments of Economics, Sociology, and the
Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago
"Doping in Sports," Becker-Posner blog
Aug. 27, 2006
2. Seeking an "Unfair" Advantage
PRO: "There is no coherent argument to support the view that
enhancing performance is unfair; if it were, we would ban
coaching and training. Competition can be unfair if there is
unequal access to particular enhancements, but equal access
can be achieved more predictably by deregulation than by
prohibition."
Norman Fost, MD, MPH
Professor and Director of the Medical Ethics Program at the
University of Wisconsin
"Steroid Hysteria: Unpacking the Claims," American Medical
Association Journal of Ethics
Nov. 2005
CON: "Remember that athletes don't take these drugs to level the
playing field, they do it to get an advantage. And if everyone else is
doing what they're doing, then instead of taking 10 grams or 10 cc's
or whatever it is, they'll take 20 or 30 or 40, and a vicious circle
simply gets bigger. The end game will be an activity that is
increasingly violent, extreme, and meaningless, practiced by a class
of chemical and or genetic mutant gladiators. The use of
performance-enhancing drugs is not accidental; it is planned and
deliberate with the sole objective of getting an unfair advantage."
Richard Pound, BCL
Former President of the World Anti-Doping Agency
Intelligence Squared US debate titled "We Should Accept
Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Competitive Sports," moderated by
Bob Costas
Jan. 15, 2008
2
3. Drugs vs. Technology
PRO: "Sport is for enjoyment and competition, and usually aims
to improve; but what is the difference between increasing skill
and performance by training, and taking drugs? If it is the use of
personal effort rather than outside help, then what of ropes,
crampons and oxygen for climbing? What of advanced training
by teams of sports physiologists who wire athletes to equipment
monitoring heart, muscle, brain and nerves to optimise activity; or
teams of sports psychologists improving your responses and
neutralising those observed in competitors? What of dieticians
tampering with foods and additives - drugs by any other name to improve performance?
What is more 'fair' - the use of a team of sports specialists or a
simple pill? What is the difference between training at altitude
and taking erythropoietin to achieve a similar effect? And why are
the strips of adhesive plaster on the nose - absurdly believed to
increase oxygen intake - more acceptable than a drug which
reduces airway resistance?"
CON: "When used by fully trained, elite athletes, [performanceenhancing] drugs can improve performance to a much greater extent
than any combination of the most intensive, sophisticated, and costly
nonpharmaceutical interventions known to modern sports science.
Scientifically based training regimens, special diets, and complex
physiological and biomechanical measurements during exercise and
recovery cannot match the enhancing effects of drugs... Thus, drug
use in a subgroup of athletes who -- even in the absence of drugs -are able to compete at an elite level causes their separation into a
distinct athletic population, distanced from 'natural' humans by a
margin determined by the potency of the drug combinations that are
used."
Timothy Noakes, MD, DSc
Discovery Health Professor of Exercise and Sports Science at the
University of Cape Town
"Tainted Glory," New England Journal of Medicine
Aug. 26, 2004
Sam Shuster, PhD
Emeritus Professor of Dermatology at Newcastle University
"There's No Proof That Sports Drugs Enhance Performance,"
The Guardian
Aug. 4, 2006
4. Coercion
PRO: "Why should we think that those who take drugs to remain
competitive with the drug users are coerced into doing so? No
one is forced to become a competitive athlete. The pressures
that the non-drug users may well feel are no different than any
other pressures that come with committing oneself to playing the
game at a relatively high level of competition. If some athletes
spend much more time in the weight room than others and
thereby build their muscular strength to levels significantly higher
than their opponents, those opponents who want to remain
competitive may feel compelled to also put in more time with
weights. But there is nothing unethical or immoral about the
situation that should lead those interested in maintaining
sportsmanship to forbid or severely regulate weight training..."
CON: "One athlete's decision to use performance enhancing drugs
also exerts a powerful effect on the other athletes in the competition.
As reported by Sports Illustrated, half of all recently surveyed
Olympic athletes admitted that they would be willing to take a drug -even if it would kill them eventually -- as long as it would let them win
every event they entered five years in a row. This type of 'win at any
cost' mentality is pervading sports at all levels of competition and
results in athletes feeling coerced to use substances just to remain
on par with other athletes."
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse
"Winning at Any Cost: Doping in Olympic Sports," National
Commission on Sports and Substance Abuse Report
Sep. 2000
Peter A. French, PhD
Director of the Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics at Arizona State
University
Ethics and College Sports
2004
5. Effectiveness of Drug Testing
PRO: "According to the IOC [International Olympic Committee]
director general... the fact that only eight athletes out of 11,000
Olympic competitors tested positive is proof that 'the war on
doping is being won.' But the argument that the small number of
athletes testing positive is indicative of the low prevalence of
doping is nonsense.
The number of positive tests is an extremely poor indicator of the
prevalence of doping... There is general recognition among those
involved in elite level sport that those testing positive represent
only the tip of the iceberg. It is impossible to estimate precisely
how big that iceberg is, but it is clearly very large...
CON: "The detection methods are accurate and reliable. They
undergo rigorous validation prior to being introduced... WADA is, of
course, keenly interested in the efficiency, as well as the
effectiveness, of the global anti-doping system and supports
research to help enhance testing efficiency...
Working collaboratively with national anti-doping agencies such as
the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) in the sharing of information
has uncovered the designer steroid THG, and WADA-certified
laboratories continue to keep a watchful eye for previously unknown
doping agents...
The I.O.C. retains ownership of the athlete's samples (blood and
3
Firstly, drug-using athletes often beat tests because they have
access to specialized medical advice from sports physicians...
Secondly, there is evidence of collusion between dope-using
athletes and senior officials. Positive tests have been 'lost' at
several Olympics."
Ivan Waddington, PhD
Visiting Professor at the University of Chester and the Norwegian
School of Sport Sciences
"Olympic Tests for Drugs Need a Shot of Candor," International
Herald Tribune
Oct. 4, 2000
urine) for eight years following the Olympic Games... During the
ensuing eight years, if a technique is developed that would enable
the detection of a prohibited substance... the stored specimen could
be tested for that specific substance and the athlete would be held
accountable."
Gary I. Wadler, MD
Chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) Prohibited List and
Methods Sub-Committee
"Dr. Gary Wadler of the World Anti-Doping Agency Gives His Answers to
Your Questions (Part I)," New York Times
June 26, 2008
6. Legalizing Performance Enhancing Drugs
PRO: "We believe that rather than drive doping underground, use of
drugs should be permitted under medical supervision.
Legalisation of the use of drugs in sport might even have some
advantages. The boundary between the therapeutic and ergogenic i.e., performance enhancing - use of drugs is blurred at present and
poses difficult questions for the controlling bodies of antidoping
practice and for sports doctors. The antidoping rules often lead to
complicated and costly administrative and medical follow-up to
ascertain whether drugs taken by athletes are legitimate therapeutic
agents or illicit.
Furthernore, legalisation of doping, we believe, would encourage
more sensible, informed use of drugs in amateur sport, leading to an
overall decline in the rate of health problems associated with doping.
Finally, by allowing medically supervised doping, the drugs used
could be assessed for a clearer view of what is dangerous and what
is not...
Acknowledging the importance of rules in sports, which might include
the prohibition of doping, is, in itself, not problematic. However, a
problem arises when the application of these rules is beset with
diminishing returns: escalating costs and questionable
effectiveness."
Bengt Kayser, MD, PhD
Professor of Exercise Physiology, Faculty of Medicine of the
University of Geneva
Alexandre Mauron, PhD
Professor of Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine of the University of
Geneva
Andy Miah, PhD
Reader in New Media and Bioethics at the School of Media,
Language, and Music at the University of the West of Scotland
"Viewpoint: Legalisation of Performance-Enhancing Drugs," The
Lancet
Dec. 2005
CON: "There are several reasons to ban performance-enhancing drugs:
respect for the rules of sports, recognition that natural talents and their
perfection are the point of sports, and the prospect of an 'arms race' in
athletic performance...
The rules in each sport in effect determine which characteristics among
all possible sources of difference influence who wins and who loses...
Rules are changed at times to preserve a sport. Basketball banned
goaltending—swatting the ball away just as it was about to go into the
hoop—when players became so tall and athletic that they could stand by
the basket and prevent most shots from having a chance to go in...
Sports that revere records and historical comparisons (think of baseball
and home runs) would become unmoored by drug-aided athletes
obliterating old standards. Athletes, caught in the sport arms race, would
be pressed to take more and more drugs, in ever wilder combinations
and at increasingly higher doses...
The drug race in sport has the potential to create a slow-motion public
health catastrophe. Finally, we may lose whatever is most graceful,
beautiful, and admirable about sport..."
Thomas H. Murray, PhD
President of the Hastings Center
"Sports Enhancement," chapter in From Birth to Death and Bench to
Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists,
Policymakers, and Campaigns
2008-2009
7. Sportsmanship
PRO: "How, exactly, does the spirit of sport forbid gene transfer
but not carbo-loading? The [WADA] code doesn't say. It defines
the spirit of sport as 'ethics,' 'fair play,' 'character' and a bunch of
other words that clarify nothing. The definition includes 'courage'
and 'dedication.' Doesn't it take more courage and dedication to
alter your genes than to snarf a potato? Human growth hormone
appears on WADA's 'Prohibited List' of substances and methods,
even though the Food and Drug Administration, the National
Institutes of Health, and the American Association of Clinical
Endocrinologists have vouched, to varying degrees, for its safety.
Evidently growth hormone violates the spirit of sport, but stuffing
yourself with steaks doesn't."
CON: "Anti-doping programs seek to preserve what is intrinsically
valuable about sport. This intrinsic value is often referred to as 'the
spirit of sport'; it is the essence of Olympism; it is how we play true.
The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and
mind, and is characterized by the following values:






Ethics, fair play and honesty.
Health.
Excellence in performance.
Character and education.
Fun and joy.
Teamwork.
4
William Saletan
Journalist for the Washington Post
"How High Is Too High in Turin?," Washington Post
Feb. 19, 2006





Dedication and commitment.
Respect for rules and laws.
Respect for self and other participants.
Courage.
Community and solidarity.
Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport."
World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
World Anti-Doping Code
Mar. 2003
8. Athletes as Role Models
PRO: "Survey data actually shows that teen steroid use has
mirrored the use of other illicit drugs over the years. It went up
mildly in the 1990's, and has since either dropped off slightly, or
leveled off since 2000. It's likely that the same trends that govern
cocaine or marijuana use govern teen steroid use far more than
what's happening in the sports pages. In fact, a study released
last year, and one of the few studies to actually attempt to find
out what motivates teen boys to take steroids, found that the
most reliable indicator of steroid use was a teen's own self, self
esteem and body image. The suggestion, and I think we can all
agree it's pretty intuitive, is that teenage boys who do take
steroids do so not because they want to look like Barry Bonds or
Mark McGwire, but because they want to look good for teenage
girls."
Radley Balko
Senior Editor of Reason magazine
Intelligence Squared US debate titled "We Should Accept
Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Competitive Sports,"
moderated by Bob Costas
Jan. 15, 2008
CON: "For many male high school athletes, pro athletes are major
influences. They are the role models. They choose the jersey
numbers of their favorite professional players. They emulate their
training regimens. They emulate their style of play. And they are
influenced by their drug use. When a professional athlete admits to
using steroids, the message young athletes hear is not always the
one that is intended. Young athletes often believe that steroid use by
their role models gives them permission to use. That it is simply part
of what one must do to become an elite athlete."
Greg Schwab
Testimony for the hearing "Steroid Use in Professional Baseball and
Anti-Doping Issues in Amateur Sports" before the US Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce, and
Tourism
June 18, 2002
9. Sports Fans
PRO: "In America's major league sports, particularly football and
baseball, the widespread perception of drug use does not seem
to have had a negative impact on audience interest. The
fascination of watching Mark McGwire break the home-run record
in 1998 was undiminished by his overt use of nandrolone (not a
banned substance in baseball), which stimulates the body to
produce more of its own steroids.
And do spectators believe that the number of US football players
weighing 300lb, which has risen from 10 in 1986 to more than
300 today, is solely through muscle build-up achieved by eating
the concentrated protein contained in egg whites? The estimate
of a former professional is that at least 30% of US major-league
football players are taking steroids; most people say that the
figure is much higher. Fans are not put off by this, and players
say they would trade a longer life for a chance of glory."
Lincoln Allison, DLitt
Founder of the Centre for the Study of Sport in Society at
Warwick University
"Faster, Stronger, Higher," The Guardian
Aug. 9, 2004
CON: "To the extent that the public perceives that a PED
[performance enhancing drug] reduces the role of skill and replaces it
by chemically induced brute strength and endurance, it is likely to
lose interest in the sports in which it is used. The harm would be
primarily financial, but this in turn could lead to the demise of
professional leagues and contests...
Sporting events would increasingly become tests of rivals' access to
good pharmaceutical technology and knowledge and their bodies'
ability to use these chemicals efficiently.
Even though skill, strategy, and effort would still play a central role in
athletic success, pharmaceutical technology and athletes' bodily
responses to it would also play a significant role. It is not that people
are not interested in science fairs; it is just that people expect sport to
be a different kind of test, one in which athletes' own qualities are the
major determinants of success."
Nicholas J. Dixon, PhD
Chair and Dykstra Professor of Philosophy at Alma College
"Performance-Enhancing Drugs, Paternalism, Meritocracy, and Harm
to Sport," Journal of Social Philosophy
May 27, 2008
5
10. Hall of Fame Induction
PRO: "Let's stop pretending that the Baseball Hall of Fame is a
real-life fantasy world -- a place where we celebrate only the
people and events we can all unanimously agree deserve to be
celebrated -- and transform it into an institution that reflects both
the good and bad of the sport. Wait -- wasn't that Cooperstown's
mission all along? Shouldn't it be a place where someone who
knows nothing about baseball can learn about its rich history?
Isn't it a museum, after all?
If that's the case -- and I say it is -- then how can we leave out
Pete Rose, the all-time hits leader and most memorable
competitor of his era? And how can we even consider leaving out
McGwire, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa, the three most
memorable hitters of the 1990s? We're supposed to stick our
heads in the historical sand and pretend these people were never
born?"
Bill Simmons
Columnist for ESPN
"A Hall of Justice," ESPN The Magazine
Jan. 15, 2007
PRO Performance Enhancing Drugs
CON: "It doesn't matter whether the player's production, either home
runs or hits, was drug enhanced once, twice or ten times. It doesn't
matter; it's still cheating and impugning the integrity of the game and
the player's accomplishments... Those great players currently
enshrined in the Hall of Fame achieved that honor strictly on the
merits of their god-given talents and not by utilizing artificial means to
enhance their accomplishments.
The game has been tarnished by steroid charges, and the issue of
enshrinement in baseball's Hall of Fame of players who have used
steroids, regardless of their career statistics, is a critical issue that
may well impact the standards and integrity of the Hall of Fame
itself."
Lou Gorman
Former General Manager of the Boston Red Sox
High and Inside: My Life in the Front Offices of Baseball
2007
CON Performance Enhancing Drugs
6
ARTICLE 2:
Doping in sport
www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21581978-sportsmenwhotake-drugs-may-be-prisoners-different-game-athletesdilemma?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/athletesdilemma
Athlete’s dilemma: Sportsmen who take drugs may be prisoners of a
different game
Jul 20th 2013 |From the print edition
TWO sprinters may have got caught doing it this
week. And a cyclist didn’t do it, but it is so
common in his sport that what he did do without
doing it is even more astonishing. “It” is taking
performance-enhancing drugs. The sprinters were
Tyson Gay and Asafa Powell, who both failed
drug tests (though both deny wrongdoing). The
cyclist was Chris Froome, who without
pharmaceutical assistance managed a stunning
ascent of Mont Ventoux during the Tour de
France.
Professional sport is rife with drug-taking.
Getting caught will get you banned, frequently
for life. Yet people carry on doing it regardless.
Why?
Appropriately, the answer may lie in a branch of mathematics called game theory. This deals with
conflicts of interest between parties who know each other’s preferences but not their actual intentions or
decisions. It then deduces the best course of action for any rational player.
Existing game-theory analyses of doping look at things either from just the competitors’ points of view,
or from the points of view of both competitors and organisers. Neither of these, though, produces a
perfect analysis of what is going on. Berno Buechel of the University of Hamburg and his colleagues
have therefore introduced a third factor—the one that allows sports to be professional in the first place.
This factor is the customer.
The simplest game in game theory is “prisoner’s dilemma”. In the athletes’ version, both players will be
better off if neither takes drugs, but because neither can trust the other, both have to take them to make
sure they have a chance of winning.
Introducing an authority figure, in what is known as an inspection game, should deal with this. If the
inspector tests the athletes, and the athletes trust the inspection process to catch cheats, fear of getting
caught should keep them on the straight and narrow. Except that is not what seems to happen in the
real world. Clearly, athletes do not think they will get caught. And Dr Buechel and his colleagues think
they know why.
In a working paper they started circulating among their peers earlier this year, they suggest that the real
game being played here has yet another party in it—the fans and sponsors who pay for everything. In
their view, the inspector has several reasons to skimp on testing. One is the cost. Another is the
disruption it causes to the already complicated lives of the athletes. A third, though, is fear of how
customers would react if more thorough testing did reveal near-universal cheating, which anecdotal
evidence suggests that in some sports it might. Better to test sparingly, and expose from time to time
what is apparently the odd bad apple, rather than do the job thoroughly and find the whole barrel is
spoiled and your sport has suddenly vanished in a hailstorm of disqualifications.
7
This attitude, however, would result in precisely the outcome testing is supposed to obviate. It would be
back to the prisoner’s dilemma. Anyone who seriously wanted to win would have to cheat, even if his
inclination was not to. In these circumstances it would take a saint to stay pure.
When the researchers turned their hypothesis into maths, it seemed to stand up. The only way out, the
maths suggested, was for all tests, and their results, to be reported—whether negative or not. That
would give customers a real sense of how thorough the search for doping was, and thus how
widespread the practice. It would also help break the prisoner’s dilemma for the athletes.
The authorities in any given sport would no doubt deny that Dr Buechel’s analysis applied to them. They
would claim their testing regimes were adequate—and would probably truly believe it themselves. But
human capacity for self-deception is infinite. It may thus be that the real guilty parties in sports doping
are not those who actually take the drugs, but those who create a situation where only a fool would not.
From the print edition: Science and technology
8
ARTICLE 3
https://theconversation.com/drugs-in-sport-what-constitutes-unfair-advantage-12728
Drugs in sport: what constitutes ‘unfair advantage’?
20 March 2013, 11.08am AEST – Author Gary Wickham - Professor of Sociology at Murdoch University
At the heart of growing concern about performance enhancing drugs in Australian sport is the very
basic matter of sport as an even contest. As Roy and H.G. used to put it, no one is particularly
interested in an exhibition of a man kicking a dog. Sport is the pursuit (and the industry) it’s become
because…
At the heart of growing concern about performance enhancing drugs in Australian sport is the very
basic matter of sport as an even contest.
As Roy and H.G. used to put it, no one is particularly interested in an exhibition of a man kicking a
dog. Sport is the pursuit (and the industry) it’s become because those who play it and those who
watch it desire, and now expect, a close contest between relatively equally matched teams or
individuals.
- In the debate on the use of performance
enhancing drugs in sport, what should we consider an
unfair advantage? www.shutterstock.com
While some fans might wish to have their team win every
game by a street, this outcome would be a turn-off for other
fans, broadcasters, sponsors, administrators, and many
others. The same is obviously true for a mismatch in boxing or tennis.
So, the idea that some teams or individuals are using drugs in a bid to defeat not just their opponents
but the contest itself needs to be confronted. Punishments need to be meted out. But are we
overreacting?
Before I go further, let me stress that I’m dealing here only with the use of drugs in sport deemed by
officials to be performance enhancing to the point of creating an unfair advantage. My comments do
not apply to any drug use that is illegal under Australian law (federal or state), which is a matter for
the police and the courts (and for commentators qualified in that area).
When we leave illegal drugs out of the argument, it is vital that we answer a double-barreled
question: what advantages are unfair and, at the other end of the problem, what is to count as a level
playing field?
On the first issue, should we treat what’s regarded as a fair advantage in some domains as unfair in
sport? If someone playing in the Tasmanian badminton championship, for example, has taken cold
tablets for the two days before the tournament to help them get through their job as a librarian (a fair
advantage, surely), should we regard this as a step down the Lance Armstrong path the minute that
player takes the court, or should we treat it as we would treat any of us taking a cold tablet as we head
off to work – not be tested and not to be frowned upon?
And what if the attempt to gain an advantage doesn’t work? Should the investigation into Cronulla’s
supposedly enhanced performance in the 2011 NRL season take into account the fact that they
9
finished 14th of 16 teams that year? Or the fact that in 46 seasons in the top flight they’ve never won
anything?
In other words, how are we to measure the difference between Armstrong winning the Tour de France
seven times and a team used to losing coming third last in the NRL 2011? Are the present proposed
penalties too harsh for such (alleged) offences? Why are we considering punishing fans and entire
competitions for the sort of offences being investigated in this case (wherever the investigation ends
up going)?
Is Lance Armstrong’s systemic doping as bad as an
individual footballer being unknowingly
administered a substance? AAP/Oprah.com
Zealotry, in my opinion, is not the sign of a healthy
society, but one too obsessed with perfection and
too keen to punish those who aren’t perfect. Think
Salem witch hunts, or their McCarthyist equivalents.
I doubt that most Australians want their sport to be
absolutely pure. Sure, they don’t want it rigged, but
there are many degrees of minor adulteration before
one gets to “rigged” or “corrupt”. Some of these
minor adulterations are treated as folklore.
The matter of defining a level playing field is even more complex. Are we hankering for contests
between teams or individuals that rely only on their “natural” abilities, free from the “taint” of
money and the drugs and other advantages it can buy?
If so, this could be another case of wrongly aiming for a mythical standard of perfection, putting us
in danger of basing our system for determining unfair advantage on the old ideal of amateurism,
which reigned in an era when television was barely interested in sport.
Surely it would be better if we could sort out the unfair advantage problem more sensibly, so that
we can continue to enjoy access to sport in ways we couldn’t dream about even in the sixties and
seventies.
And if we are going to be purists, why should we stop at drugs? Doesn’t unequal access to training
facilities and expertise create what some might consider an unfair advantage? Shouldn’t we make
sure every athlete and every team has equal access?
What about access to good food? Should Olympic athletes from poor countries be given the same
access to the performance boosting diets enjoyed by those from rich countries?
I’m obviously being ridiculous here in a bid to drive home my point. It would be madness to try to
equalise absolutely everything. It would be like insisting every cricket Test be played at a neutral
venue with wickets scientifically tested and adjusted hourly to make sure conditions are the same
for both sides.
Life just isn’t like that. Sport in a complex modern society like Australia requires complex modern
procedures, procedures which acknowledge differences and issue punishments in a spirit of
tolerance and with a determination to be reasonable to the sportsmen and women who give so much
pleasure to the rest of us, sometimes for big rewards, often not.
10
ARTICLE 4
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/128598/anti-doping-agency-considers-schooltesting
Anti-doping agency considers school testing
Anti-doping agency Drug Free Sport New Zealand says it is considering testing high school
students after anecdotal reports that some are using performance-enhancing substances.
Concern that the use of these type of drugs has spread from adults to high school students has
been raised after the agency told a parliamentary select committee on Wednesday the practice
was happening overseas and should be checked out in New Zealand.
Drug Free Sport New Zealand chief executive Graeme Steel told Radio New Zealand's
Checkpoint programme on Wednesday there is more pressure on younger athletes to perform and
his agency has been told that increasing numbers are using supplements.
"And we know well that when you begin using supplements, unless you're very careful, you can
use the wrong ones - some that are contaminated, some that contain banned substances."
Mr Steel says the agency will do further research into what other organisations are doing in
terms of testing young athletes.
At present, any athlete in New Zealand or competing overseas is subject to an anti-doping code.
In his submissions, Graeme Steel mentioned rowing and rugby as sports which may require
testing at high school level.
But Andrew Carr Smith from the New Zealand Secondary School Rowing Association says his
sport is not prone to drug-cheating.
"To the best of my knowledge, we've never even had any allegations that we've got drug cheats
within the sport. Obviously, it's a highly competitive sport at school level, but our schools tend to
always row within the limits of our rules rather than pass them."
Mr Carr Smith says rowing was only on Drug Free Sport New Zealand's radar because it has had
drug testing provisions in its constitution for decades.
New Zealand Schools Rugby Council chairman Garry Chronican says the organisation has never
heard a word about drug use in its ranks.
"I've never had a conversation about it before today. There's no inkling whatsoever, it's the first
time the matter's been raised. It's just not been on our radar at all."
BANNED DRUGS USE 'NOT AS WIDESPREAD' AS IN AUSTRALIA
Drug Free Sport New Zealand told the parliamentary select committee on Wednesday that early
indications are that the use of banned drugs is not as widespread in New Zealand as in Australia.
11
An investigation in Australia recently revealed that the use of banned drugs is endemic in
professional sport.
The Australian Crime Commission also found that organised criminal networks are involved in
distributing drugs to athletes, their doctors and coaches.
The Government has asked whether those findings have any implications in New Zealand.
Drug Free Sport New Zealand chief executive Graeme Steel told MPs that early indications are
positive, but there is further work to be done and whether there is any gang involvement will be
looked at also.
"That's something that we will be talking to the police about and if they are distributing, is it to
elite-level athletes, or just a more general part of the community. So what we need to be clear
about is our jurisdictions in this."
A report for the Sports Minister would be prepared as soon as possible, he says
Updated at 8:34 am on 21 February 2013
12
ARTICLE 5
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=10866731
By Nicholas Jones Email Nicholas, Isaac Davison @Isaac_Davison Email Isaac
5:30 AM Thursday Feb 21, 2013
Use of steroids in gyms rockets
Drug Free Sport leader blames obsession with looking good and worries about spill over into pro
and amateur ranks.
Gym operators said that steroid-users were mostly confined to body-building or weight-lifting
facilities, but the drug was sometimes found in mainstream fitness clubs. Photo / Thinkstock
An increasing obsession with appearance and body shape has led to a spike in the use of
steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in gymnasiums, the head of New Zealand's
anti-doping agency says.
Drug Free Sport New Zealand chief executive Graeme Steel said a drug culture was
developing in gyms which could spill over into professional and amateur sport.
He told a parliamentary committee yesterday that New Zealand did not appear to have the
same rate of doping among its sportspeople as in Australia, where a damning report this
month revealed widespread use of banned substances such as peptides and hormones.
But he said steroid use was increasing among gym users, mostly out of an obsession with
looking good.
"There's seemingly now a much broader part of the community that is interested in getting
bigger and looking better. And that's where steroids work."
Steroids were legal to use, but not to import or prescribe, Mr Steel said.
A gym had approached Drug Free Sport to express its concern about the increase in steroid
use. It had developed a code of conduct that it hoped other gyms would follow.
Mr Steel said sportspeople were sharing gyms with steroid users such as body-builders, and
could be drawn into substance abuse.
"The danger for us is that [body-building] brings more steroids into the country, into the
market, and athletes are in those same gymnasia and there's a potential that they may
deliberately or not deliberately get involved with that.
13
"[Body-builders] are probably the heaviest users and therefore part of the distribution
network for those drugs. If they are using, then, as with many other drugs, it may be the next
step is them selling in the gym alongside rugby players and athletes and cyclists. There is a
potential for that to flow," Mr Steel said.
Customs confirmed that seizures of steroids and gamma-aminobutyric acid (Gaba, used for
toning muscles) had increased at the border.
In 2011, 13.5kg of steroids and 63kg of Gaba were seized, compared with just 190 grams of
steroids and 1.1kg of Gaba in 2008.
Gym operators told the Herald that steroid-users were mostly confined to body-building or
weight-lifting facilities, but the drug was sometimes found in mainstream fitness clubs.
Club Physical chief executive Paul Richards said he was forced to ban a husband and wife
from his Te Atatu branch because they were openly dealing in steroids. "They seem to go
from gym to gym and get banned from each one. It's short-term thinking; all they want to do
is get big. When you're in your 20s, you're not thinking long-term. It's all ego and vanity
without any sort of future," he said.
NZ Muscle Nutrition and Bodybuilding general manager Gavin Makins said it was difficult
to detect steroid use because it was mostly underground.
Dr Nigel Harris, a senior lecturer in sports and exercise science at the Auckland University of
Technology, said: "When you are dealing with any drug that is designed to interfere with the
body's natural hormonal processes, you set off a veritable cascade of hormonal events, and a
lot of those aren't even known."
Dark power
* Anabolic steroids influence the body's natural hormonal processes.
* Bodybuilders, sportspeople and athletes take them to lift performance and physical
appearance.
* Side-effects include shrinking of the testicles, severe acne and aggression or "roid rage".
* Steroid abuse also implicated in cardiovascular disease, liver damage, infertility and loss of
libido and mental illness. In some cases users have died.
14
ARTICLE 8
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10900952
Clean reps sold down the river
By Paul Lewis Email Paul
Tyson Gay. Photo / Getty Images
Perhaps the thing that grates most of all about the latest rash of track stars falling to positive
drugs test is that so many seem to be living in that great river in Egypt.
Asafa Powell, Tyson Gay and Sherone Simpson have all pleaded innocence or said they didn't
knowingly take anything or, in the case of Gay, had a heartfelt, tear-laden jab at an unknown
someone in whom he had wrongly placed his trust.
Stop. Spare me. We've heard it all before.
Come in Veronica Campbell-Brown, the 31-year-old Jamaican track star who tested positive a
month ahead of the news that the US's Gay and up to five Jamaican track stars did (including
Powell and triple Olympic medallist Simpson, whose agent confirmed their identity as he
proclaimed their innocence). The others are not yet known but there is no suggestion that they
include double triple Olympic champion Usain Bolt, the poster boy of the sport with his biggerthan-life personality and mischievous sense of humour.
But even Bolt, who continues to insist he is clean, inviting drug testers to test him every day, may
not be able to save the sport. That's because of what we might call the VCB syndrome - short for
Veronica Campbell-Brown.
She is a remarkable athlete - a seven-time Olympic medallist who won 200m gold at the 2004
Athens Olympics and 2008 Beijing Olympics, plus gold at the 2011 world championships. There
was only one thing stopping her from true greatness - she couldn't break the world record, held by
long suspected (but never proven) drugs cheat Florence Griffith Joyner.
Flo Jo's untimely death led to a flurry of speculation but ended short of being able to prove she
died because of drugs (she died in her sleep at 38 through an epileptic seizure). But her 100m and
200m world records still stand, 25 years after they were set. Campbell-Brown's best at the 200m,
21.74s, is 0.4s slower than Flo Jo's world record but, according to sentiments expressed by VCB,
it might as well have been four minutes.
"It is beyond my reach," she once said, intimating that a drugs regime had pushed the record to
unassailable heights. "It's disappointing to not get the respect that the males do, because they are
capable of breaking the record and people are excited to see them run because they know the
possibility of breaking the record is close. I don't have that luxury."
15
Well, she sure doesn't now. It makes it worse, doesn't it, when an athlete takes the high moral
ground like that - and is then revealed to be little better. It makes no difference to me that the
IAAF have said that Campbell-Brown's alleged offence (a masking agent was detected) was at
the mild end of the scale, dropping hints that her punishment may only be a six-month ban and
not the usual two years. That has drawn comparisons to a ban given to fellow Jamaican Olympic
champion sprinter Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce in 2009. She tested positive for oxycodon but her ban
was reduced to six months after her explanation that she took the banned painkiller to treat a
toothache.
This column has said it repeatedly - ban the drugs cheats for life. There is no other way. It doesn't
matter about extenuating circumstances or toothaches. The World Anti Drugs Agency (WADA)
has hammered away so hard and consistently over the years that the message could not be clearer
- do not take anything that could be questionable; do not trust anyone else; the responsibility is
yours.
It's the same with Gay. Okay, we may feel some sympathy for him in what seems genuine
remorse and anger that he was let down by someone else - but this is a guy who was put up on a
pedestal by the US Anti Drugs Agency (USADA) and promoted as a 'natural' runner; a kind of
US athletics' 'Captain Clean'. USADA used him in 'Project Believe', maintaining that Gay was
living proof that not all track athletes were on the juice. Gay and a small number of others were
blood and urine tested under Project Believe so often that a detailed profile of their chemical
balance was built. Gay gave six test samples in a fortnight to establish his baseline profile meaning any drug-taking would alter that profile significantly.
The latest positive drugs tests at least remove something of a stain from the Jamaican testing
regime. For four years leading up to the London Olympics, there were consistent drumbeats that
the Jamaicans were not testing properly. Even last year, the head of the London Olympics, Lord
Seb Coe, was forced to say he had no reason to believe the Jamaicans were not testing out of
competition.
Testing out of competition is the only way to catch the cheats as they can organise their chemical
schedules to ensure they are clean on race day. But the results of Campbell-Brown and up to five
other Jamaican athletes means the testers are doing their job. The next big question is what this
means for track and field. The Moscow world championships are only weeks away. Gay, with the
three fastest times in the world this season, was due to have an eye-catching clash with Bolt. Gay
has now pulled out.
With the Jamaicans testing positive, the last bastion of supposedly "clean" competitors seems to
have been breached. At the end of last year, a whole rash of 2004 Olympic medals from throwing
events (shot put and hammer throw) were stripped from their drug-using cheats, as was London
Olympic shot put champion Nadzeya Ostapchuk, in favour of our own Valerie Adams.
I wrote then that it was to be hoped that track and field did not follow cycling down the Lance
Armstrong path of systemic drug use. It will be years before anyone truly believes the Tour de
France, is clean, as Britain's Chris Froome is now discovering.
It may already be too late. Here's hoping Bolt stays clean and doesn't become the Armstrong of
athletics. Without him, all credibility seems lost.
- Herald on Sunday, By Paul Lewis Email Paul
16
ARTICLE 6
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10900371
Time to rethink case for legalised doping.
Author: Julian Savulescu:
We need to admit some drug use is acceptable in the highperformance world of professional sport.
The risks of doping have been overstated and zero tolerance is
destined to be ignored by athletes.
Sport, at international and national levels, seems to constantly be in a
doping crisis. It may be time to consider legalising performance
enhancers because zero tolerance is clearly not working.
This week, the second-fastest runner of all time, Tyson Gay, reportedly tested positive for a banned substance along
with the Jamaican sprinters Asafa Powell and Sherone Simpson, making for shocked headlines across the world.
And this is just one such high-profile story across numerous sports and countries. In athletics, 24 Turkish athletes are
confirmed to have tested positive this year; the Australian Football League is still reeling from the ongoing Essendon
scandal; and over in the United States, inquiries into an anti-ageing laboratory said to supply human growth
hormone to top baseball players continues.
While the 100th Tour de France is so far untainted by positive tests, cycling doping cases have continued this year
with two Giro D'Italia riders testing positive.
But there's still a sense that we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg.
British cyclist Chris Froome, who is now tested at the end of each Tour de France stage as the yellow jersey holder,
has been relentlessly hounded over whether his recent impressive performances were because of doping.
We don't know who is doping and who is not. What we do know is that the zero tolerance ban on doping has failed.
The "war on doping" has seen several false victories. In 2000, the first tests for the substance EPO were introduced.
(EPO is short for erythropoietin, which is a naturally occurring hormone found in the blood - athletes use the
artificial peptide recombinant EPO to stimulate red blood cell production for improving oxygen transfer and boosting
endurance or recovery from anaerobic exercise.)
In 2007, Pat McQuaid, head of Union Cycliste Internationale (the cycling association that oversees competitive
cycling events internationally), declared biological passports "a new and historic step in the fight against doping".
Autologous blood tests were all but announced for the 2012 Olympics, but have apparently still not been
implemented.
The science of drug testing has progressed, but it appears that the dopers are always a step ahead.
American Lance Armstrong is a case in point. He was tested in competition and out of competition, before and after
EPO tests were implemented and before and after biological passports were introduced.
But he was only caught through the forced testimony of his teammates, who turned him in for the chance to
continue their own careers as confessed dopers. And many of them are still riding at the elite, professional level.
17
The decision of the Spanish court to destroy evidence from the trial of Eufemiano Fuentes (a sports doctor found
guilty of providing cyclists with blood doping) means we may never know who was involved with that particular
clinic.
But it is thought to include clients from athletics, tennis and soccer as well as cyclists.
Leading expert on performance-enhancing drugs Werner Franke pointed out just before the last Olympics that half
of the men's 100m finalists in two previous Olympics were later reported to have been doping.
Less than a year after the London Olympics, if Gay and Powell's tests are confirmed, we will be halfway to the same
level at the 2012 final. A third member of the eight-man line-up, Justin Gatlin, was previously banned for doping.
Time and again, we are told the culture has changed. But the doping cases keep coming, and performances keep
improving. The 2012 Olympics saw 66 Olympic records and 30 world records set.
We reached the limits of human performance in sprinting about 15 years ago; the limit for a man running 100m
seems to be about 9.7 seconds. Ben Johnson ran that distance in 9.79 seconds in 1998 but was doping.
In 2005, American Tim Montgomery, a former 100m world record-holder, was banned for doping after running 9.78
seconds in 2002. In 2006, Gatlin, the defending 100m Olympic champion, was banned for doping three weeks after
equalling the world record (9.77 seconds at the time).
In 2009, Jamaican Yohan Blake got a three-month ban for doping. Two years later, he became world champion in the
100m sprint and won a silver medal in the last Olympics.
He co-owns the second-fastest time in history alongside the recently banned Gay (9.69 seconds).
In 2011, Steve Mullings, of Jamaica, was hit with a lifetime ban following a positive test for a masking product after
having run a personal best of 9.8 seconds.
It seems that if you are running 100m in about 9.7 seconds, you are likely to be taking performance enhancers.
To keep improving, to keep beating records, to continue to train at the peak of fitness, to recover from the injury
that training inflicts, we need enhanced physiology.
Spectators want faster times and broken records, so do athletes.
But we have exhausted the human potential.
Is it wrong to aim for zero tolerance and performances that are within natural human limits? No, but it is not
enforceable.
The strongest argument against doping is safety.
But anything is dangerous if taken to excess; water will kill you if you drink enough of it.
Over the past 20 years, sport has shown that performance enhancers can be administered safely. They could be
administered even more safely if doping was brought into the open.
Of course there is no such thing as risk-free sport. But we need a balance between safety, enforceability and
spectacle.
Consider cycling competitions - they show that elite sport is fundamentally unsafe, as Team Sky's Edvald Boasson
Hagen and Geraint Thomas, both nursing fractures from recent cycling crashes, can tell you.
It was entirely appropriate to enforce the wearing of helmets to limit the safety risks.
18
But it would be inappropriate to limit the race to only straight, wide roads, or to remove downhill racing or to take
any number of other measures that would increase safety but ruin the sport as a spectacle and cultural practice.
It would be a waste of time to take other measures, such as limiting the amount of time or the speed that riders can
train at, even on the grounds of safety. It could not be enforced.
Enforceability requires a reasonable limit. If we set the maximum speed limit for cars to 20km/h, it would be safer.
Many, perhaps most, of the people who died on the roads in any given year would be saved. But more people would
speed.
We need to find a workable, enforceable balance.
A second, good objection lies in the nature of the intervention. If a substance came to dominate the sport and
override its value, that would be a good reason to ban it.
If boxers could feel no fear, for instance, or if archers could be given rock-steady hands, it should not be permissible.
But if a substance allows safer, faster recovery from training or from injury, then it does not interfere with the sport.
We are confused, and often emotional, about doping. The word "drugs" brings to mind substances such as Ecstasy
or cocaine or heroin. But most doping today uses natural substances that are involved in normal human physiology
and naturally vary from time to time and person to person.
Testosterone, blood and growth hormone are all endogenous substances (that occur naturally within the body),
which are banned.
Drugs such as caffeine are exogenous (not naturally occurring in the body) and effective in increasing performance,
but allowed.
Taking the drug EPO increases hematocrit (ratio of red blood cells to total blood volume) levels, and is banned.
Sleeping in a hypoxic air tent has the same effect but is perfectly legal.
Athletes are using these substances to optimise their own physiology, just as they do with diet, trying to maximise
fluids and glucose at the right times. Confessed doping cyclist Tyler Hamilton claims to have lost a race due to failing
to take a 100-calorie energy gel at the correct time (despite the fact he was also doping) in his book The Secret Race.
All of these variables are themselves affected by training at elite levels. Over the course of the Tour de France, a
cyclist would lose their natural levels of red blood cells from the immense effort.
Training is about optimising human physiology, whether by changing the diet to influence the availability of glucose
and glycogen, or by taking EPO in order to increase the availability of oxygen.
The risks of doping have been overstated, and zero tolerance represents the kind of unreasonable limit that is
destined to be ignored by athletes. It's time to rethink the absolute ban and instead to pick limits that are safe and
enforceable.
19
ARTICLE 7
Larner, Tony
Sunday Mercury (Birmingham, England) Sep 17, 2000
Shocking truth of the drug runners; 34 world
records held by cheats, claims Midland research.
EXPLOSIVE new research has revealed up to three quarters of current athletic world records may
have been set by drug cheats, the Sunday Mercury can reveal today.
Top Midland sports academic Ellis Cashmore claims he has proved the use of performanceenhancing drugs is now widespread in the sport.
The Staffordshire University professor, who has written books on drugs in athletics, has spent a year
analysing each of the 46 current track and field world records.
And he claims his damning findings have revealed up to 34 of them (74 per cent) are likely to have
been drug-assisted.
The shocking results, which are being forwarded to UK Athletics and the International Amateur
Athletics Federation (IAAF), are set to rock the Olympic Games which opened in Sydney on Friday.
'Sydney 2000 could be the most drug-assisted Olympic Games in history,' warned Professor
Cashmore.
'One British Olympian has told me he is now considering taking performance-enhancing drugs
because everyone else is getting away with it.'
Prof Cashmore, who lectures in sport and sociology at Staffordshire University, spent a year working
on the research.
He calculated the number of tainted world records through statistical analysis, and by identifying world
record holders who later failed a test.
A question mark was also placed against times recorded in countries or at stadia where there were
poor drug-testing procedures.
'I believe this research shows only the minority of world records are clean,' said Prof Cashmore last
night.
'What we have discovered is what has been long suspected - that performance-enhancing drugs are
widespread in athletics.
'I also looked at the times which are simply too good to be true. When an athlete breaks a world
record, it is usually only by a tiny amount.
'I discovered some records had been been smashed by an extraordinary amount.'
A spokesman for UK Athletics said: 'We cannot comment on research we have not seen. However,
between April 1999 and March 2000 we tested 796 athletes, and only six proved positive for
prohibited substances.
'We are also continuing to work to improve athletes' knowledge of what they can, and cannot, take.
'A new Athletes' Guide has also been produced by the Anti-Doping Policy and Support Team of UK
Athletics.'
A spokesman for the IAAF said: 'We would dispute the results of this research.
'We take drug misuse very seriously, which is shown by the fact 3,200 tests will be performed at this
year's Sydney Olympics.
20
'Each time a world record is broken, a test must be taken by the athlete concerned. And thousands of
random tests are taking place in and outside of meetings all over the world.
'We are not pretending there are no athletes using performances-enhancing drugs - but they are a
tiny minority.'
Additional Information – Research from A. Heffernan
World Records Held by Athletes suspected of Drug Taking
Womens 100MTR Sprint
10.49 0.0*
Florence GriffithJoyner
United
States
Indianapolis, United
States
July 16,
1988[1]
Womens Shot Put
22.63 m
Natalya Lisovskaya (URS) 7 June 1987 Moscow, Soviet Union[1]
Valerie Adams Personal Best is 21:24
21
CARTOONS
22
23
QUOTES
Anonymous
“It is about trust! If fans can’t trust the athletes and go there knowing what they are
watching is questionable, then we will descend to American wrestling where all the
crowd know it is fake and, worryingly don’t care”
Oprah and Lance Armstrong Interview
Oprah: Do you feel bad about it?
Lance: No!
Oprah: Did you feel you were cheating?
Lance: No. At the time no. I viewed it as a level playing field. I looked up the
definition of cheat. The definition of cheat is to gain an advantage over a rival or foe.
I didn’t do that. I viewed it as a level playing field”
Lance: I regret coming back. We wouldn’t be sitting here if I didn’t come back. I
would have a much better chance (Of getting away with it)
Usain Bolt 2013 press conference
And Bolt attempted to provide it by insisting that his world records were the logical
consequences of genetics and a decade of hard graft.
"I was made to inspire people and made to run," he insisted. "I was given a gift and that's
what I do. I know I'm clean."
Bolt also drew upon his performances as a callow, gangly teenager, which included running
19.93sec in the 200m as a 17-year-old, to add greater weight to his words.
"How long have you been following Usain Bolt?" he asked one interrogator.
"If you've been following me since 2002 you would know I've been doing phenomenal
things since I was 15. I was the youngest person to win the world juniors. I ran the world
youth record at 17.”
"In life you learn to be responsible," he said. "You have to be very careful as an athlete
because there are a lot of things on the banned list. You have to keep up to date all the
time. That's why you need a team to help you keep up.
Valerie Adams – From Valerie Adams Autobiography – Page 28
“At the end of the day it’s not fair-play. This is the reason we talk about fair-play. We put in
the hours, and put in our heart and soul to be the best athlete we can be. To have someone
just come in and take substances to short cut the process is very unfair, and I don’t think
they should get a second chance and be allowed to come back. My attitude is once a drug
cheat is caught they should be gone forever.”
24