Drugs in sport

[Bruce Ross]

In athletics sprinters peak in their late 20s early 30s. Michael Johnson, Linford Christie, Carl Lewis, Gail Devers, Merlene Ottey for example where running some of their best times in their 30s.

It is literally decades since I had any respect for what track sprinters do. I have always held the view that the reason Ben Johnson was outed was that he was probably the only one in the final who didn't have access to the latest gear. Carl Lewis - give me a break.

I claim no expertise in this area but what I meant to convey was a feeling that athletes reach their natural speed potential early. Of course there is still scope for improvement if they become more powerful, but that is just speculation on my part.

 

[Gnostic]

It is literally decades since I had any respect for what track sprinters do. I have always held the view that the reason Ben Johnson was outed was that he was probably the only one in the final who didn't have access to the latest gear. Carl Lewis - give me a break.

I claim no expertise in this area but what I meant to convey was a feeling that athletes reach their natural speed potential early. Of course there is still scope for improvement if they become more powerful, but that is just speculation on my part.

If we are to use the track analogy it would be better with marathon runners. Track and cycling are abject lessons for sports struggling with doping. Is there are race now where there is no question mark over at least some of the competitors? As a result they are losing credibility with many who are not died in the wool type fans of the sports.

 

[Ash]

If we are to use the track analogy it would be better with marathon runners. Track and cycling are abject lessons for sports struggling with doping. Is there are race now where there is no question mark over at least some of the competitors? As a result they are losing credibility with many who are not died in the wool type fans of the sports.

I think that doping exists way beyond track and cycling (e.g. rumours had it that Operation Puerto found bags and bags of blood from top Spanish football clubs, as well as blood bags from Nadal, but these were covered up by Spanish investigators), but it's just those two spots which benefit the most from doping, being very much endurance or raw power sports. The testing in cycling is also much more complete than many other sports, and I still think that most top level cyclists dope. (And I watch / follow a lot of cycling.) A lot of modern doping techniques are undetectable and they stay ahead of the ball (as Bruce aluded to, e.g. BALCO).

And, yes, I am that cynical that I would be absolutely shocked if there wasn't doping in top level rugby (both union and league) in Australia.

I am another person who thinks that athletes reach their peak in the late 20s/early 30s, but this is offset by the slower recovery as they age (the recovery of a 30 year old is a lot slower than that of a 20 year old), meaning that hard repitive training, in particular, gets harder as you get older. The loss of fast-twitch muscle fibres in older people is another issue.

Finally, agree with Bruce on the burn out issue. I think most younger players blooded at 18 or 19 will have shorter careers than, say, a "late bloomer" like Tom Carter. And Tom Carter's lack of higher level selection will work in his favour for a longer career, as he has a shorter season and lower overall impact on his body.

 

[hammertimethere]

I think that doping exists way beyond track and cycling (e.g. rumours had it that Operation Puerto found bags and bags of blood from top Spanish football clubs, as well as blood bags from Nadal, but these were covered up by Spanish investigators), but it's just those two spots which benefit the most from doping, being very much endurance or raw power sports. The testing in cycling is also much more complete than many other sports, and I still think that most top level cyclists dope. (And I watch / follow a lot of cycling.) A lot of modern doping techniques are undetectable and they stay ahead of the ball (as Bruce aluded to, e.g. BALCO).

And, yes, I am that cynical that I would be absolutely shocked if there wasn't doping in top level rugby (both union and league) in Australia.

Then I feel sorry for you mate. BALCO is the only seriously committed doping laboratory to have been exposed pretty much ever. Sure it is feasible that new synthetics pop up every now and then from independent researchers but without a setup/funding/personnel like BALCO had it is unlikely that independent drug producers would be able to fund development to such a rate as to fully "stay ahead of the ball" as you say.

Read the latest research and you would realise that over the last decade 3 things have happened

1. Because of the BALCO informant, WADA and other anti-doping organisations were able to reverse engineer tests for a large percentage of the "designer" (read: previously undetectable) steroids and other performance enhancers. The % of athletes returning positive tests has not increased significantly, the inference being that doping through steroid and synthetic hormone use is not as rampant at the top level as many had hitherto believed.

2. A few years back a hormonal profiling technique know as the "Biologic passport" was introduced, which is basically a snapshot of the hormone, blood plasma, haemoglobin levels and a whole bunch of other biologic markers taken during the period at which athletes enter professional sports (definitely with olympic events, cycling, AFL I believe etc.). The random drug tests taken throughout an athletes career now mandatorily involve a repeat test, with the new results being compared to the original. Disparities are investigated further (this is how Contador was caught). Therefore even if the tests for drugs come back negative, ALL performance enhancers have some kind of measurable effect on specific endocrine or metabolic systems. A significantly unusual result is now considered "proof" of doping, they dont have to know what you took, only that you took something, which is relatively easy to see because of the passport. Again, the % of athletes has not increased to a statistically significant degree, indicating that drug use amongst the elite is probably rarer than many of us (me included for a while) believed.

3. A decade and a half ago they developed the technology to keep sample viable for testing for 8 or more years. Every time a new test is developed for the latest gear, they go back a re-test old samples (this is how Barry Bonds was caught). This would mean that private, usually not significantly funded, independent doping researchers have to be 8 or more years ahead of WADA and its affiliates in what they are producing in order to keep athletes tests showing nothing. Again, the % of positive results upon re-testing was not huge, indicating that not only is doping relatively rare nowadays, it was not as rampant in the past decade as was commonly believed either.

I personally can't think of any rugby players in Australia (I have no comment on league) who have the type of physical capabilities or have undergone such a physical transformation that would cause me to speculate as to a possible doper.

I realise that many high-profile doping cases have been mad very, very public over the years. But if you think in relative terms, surely you can see that the incidents are fairly isolated. I disagree with your assertion that many elite cyclists "all dope" or your strong feelings that top level rugby almost certainly contains elements of doping. I definitely cannot say for sure that it does not exist in rugby in Australia, but I find it exceptionally unlikely it occurs at the top level.

Please try to avoid infecting others with your cynicism, it is unfounded.

 

[Jethro Tah]

Post drugs in sport comments here and NOT in the Waratahs thread. I wouldn't want anyone associating the two.

 

[Jethro Tah]

I was horrified to hear of the use of caffeine drinks during marathons. An Olympic marathon runner once told me that they used to have high caffeine drinks strategically placed along a course by support crew. Each drink had the exact amount measured out in them so that when the race was finished they had sweated it all out so as to not show up in urine tests.

 

[Torn Hammy]

HHT, from my limited knowledge of the subject.

1. There has been a new undetectable steroid around for five years. If WADA is saying 10% elite athletes are taking it, then you can probably triple that number.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...ping-world-sport/story-fn9dirj0-1226266138458

2. The problem with biological passports is that every athlete needs to be tested regularly. No one can afford it. More importantly the limits set to prove an athlete positive are not 100% proof. There is a likelihood of a 1 in 1000 false positive built in. The test for EPO was destroyed when Marion Jones produced a false positive and was going to sue the testers for $100 million. The EPO test had a tolerance of 1 in 1,000,000.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2008/07/080716_secrets_blood_1.shtml

3. If Bonds (and BALCO), Armstrong and those involved in Operation Puerto show us anything, it is that sporting bodies, courts and governments don't give a stuff about prosecuting past misdemeanors. Bonds, a serious, serious drug taker earned $17 million a year and strung out his court case for four years. He was convicted of 'obstruction of justice' and got no drug charges and no jail time. No legal system will continue to throw money away like that for such little reward. Armstrong's case was thrown out this week for the same reason.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/03/06/news.excerpt/index.html

 

[Schadenfreude]

Why shouldn't Beale be able to take steroids to help his hammies recover?

Short term, for medical treatment.

 

[AngrySeahorse]

I was horrified to hear of the use of caffeine drinks during marathons. An Olympic marathon runner once told me that they used to have high caffeine drinks strategically placed along a course by support crew. Each drink had the exact amount measured out in them so that when the race was finished they had sweated it all out so as to not show up in urine tests.

Have you ever seen endurance Iron man events? I watched a televised event where some competitors were carrying cola drink in a side pouch for all the world to see. I know caffeine in certain levels is perfectly fine when it comes to the doping laws, I cant remember off the top of my head what the illegal level is. Did the marathon runner go into specifics as to how much caffeine they used? Sounds like they have different rules to the iron man event I saw.

 

[Moses]

Have you ever seen endurance Iron man events? I watched a televised event where some competitors were carrying cola drink in a side pouch for all the world to see. I know caffeine in certain levels is perfectly fine when it comes to the doping laws, I cant remember off the top of my head what the illegal level is. Did the marathon runner go into specifics as to how much caffeine they used? Sounds like they have different rules to the iron man event I saw.

I can't see the problem with a coke, many energy gels contain caffeine as well, I use them but then I'm just hoping to finish rather than chasing the cash

 

[AngrySeahorse]

Yeah I thought coke wouldve had to have been fine but it got me wondering just how much the marathon runners mustve consumed to have been worried about getting caught at the end. I know AFL players take tablets sometimes like No-Doz?

 

[mark_s]

PRetty sure there was an Aus pentathlete kicked out of the olympics (Seoul I think) for too much caffine in his system.

 

[MrTimms]

I am going to come right out and say it, it may not be popular, but in professional sport, why do we care? I say let them drug up.

If sport is entertainment, and that is what everyone says, let me see the biggest fastest strongest athletes I can see, if drugs make them better, good. They make good money from it. All the money spent on testing and covering up is just wasted.

I know social convention says drugs are bad, mmmkay... But why?

 

[cyclopath]

PRetty sure there was an Aus pentathlete kicked out of the olympics (Seoul I think) for too much caffine in his system.

Alex Watson - The Capuccino Kid. However, I'm pretty sure the rules on caffeine in many sports have been changed since then. Does someone know for sure, one way or the other?

 

[Cat_A]

Yep- definitely changed. High levels of caffeine are no longer banned. The bigger issue is the substance in some pre-workout supps (Jack3d is one I know for sure, although there are others) called DMAE (or some other initials) which is banned. That's what those kids in the NSWRL comp were banned for 2 years ago.

I'm with Timmsy to a point- if cheating is the only issue, then let it be a level playing field and allow anything.

BUT I believe the biggest risk to drugs in sport is that people die from uncontrolled use of some stuff. I worked in the sports supplement area for years and constantly encountered people who thought that if some was good, more was better. Combine that thinking with a huge level of commitment and a give-it-all-it-takes attitude of a professional athlete, and more will be falling off the perch too early.

The other thing to remember is that when you're a good athlete, but not great yet, it's a freakin' expensive lifestyle. Sure when you turn pro you have the doctors, physios, massages, supplements etc supplied, but you have to make it there first, and all of those things cost a fortune. Not to mention you're training so much you don't have time to work to make the fortune that supporting this lifestyle requires. So any illegal drug-taking is likely to be done with cheap gear and without the support of the BALCOs and the teams of doctors the Americans (for example) would have to support them and take care of the side-effects, and monitor them so they didn't die/lose kidney function.

My position? Drugs need to still be illegal so that boofheads running around park footy don't think its worth their while to be on stuff. If there is a perception that the guys at the level above them are performing well without drugs, then I can't help but think they will be less likely to think it's the best way to get ahead. Further, the media needs to stop focussing on the cheating element of drug use, because it's the flimsiest argument in history! They need to point out that drug misuse is potentially fatal/leads to impotence/will probably cause cardiomegaly/whatever.

In a sport such as rugby, I believe the beneficial effects of steroid use are in faster injury healing times, and that is probably done using growth hormone or an analog thereof. Aside from that, something that makes you bigger will also make you slower and less agile, and compromise your cardiovascular fitness. It also doesn't necessarily make you more skilled, so although in a simpler game of eg: rugby league the ability to run faster and be bigger is always a bonus, in union a lot more is required (see the relative success of Will Chambers here) so I think that the prevalence of drug use in rugby union is likely lower than in a lot of other sports. I can

 

[lincoln]

I am going to come right out and say it, it may not be popular, but in professional sport, why do we care? I say let them drug up.

If sport is entertainment, and that is what everyone says, let me see the biggest fastest strongest athletes I can see, if drugs make them better, good. They make good money from it. All the money spent on testing and covering up is just wasted.

I know social convention says drugs are bad, mmmkay... But why?

You raise a valid point and I hope we get a good debate going - I am morally against it but now kind of over the failed attempts to stop it. The reality in an Australian or US legal environment is it is difficult to get a conviction against a well funded defence. The professional sports may make noise about drugs but the bottom line for them is the bottom line and heros are what everyone wants. Reminds me of the original Rollerball with James Caan IIRC.

 

[Cat_A]

In no way in the above post am I implying that I know of anyone taking any growth hormone or similar at all. I've just done a stack of research in the area and that is the only thing I have come across that would be beneficial. I can honestly say that I know heaps of regular gym-goers loaded up to the eyeballs, but I don't know one rugby union player who is.

All of them have the yearly chat from ASADA and every single one of them calls the ASADA helpline before taking so much as a cold & flu tablet. I have lost count of the number of times I've called ASADA to check something is legal! Even at games, they ask what is in the local anaesthetic they are given before they get sutured and if they are unsure, a call is made.

 

[Scarfman]

I am going to come right out and say it, it may not be popular, but in professional sport, why do we care? I say let them drug up.

If sport is entertainment, and that is what everyone says, let me see the biggest fastest strongest athletes I can see, if drugs make them better, good. They make good money from it. All the money spent on testing and covering up is just wasted.

I know social convention says drugs are bad, mmmkay... But why?

Heaps of problems there.

First - is that really what sport is about? Did people in the 1936 Olympics enjoy Jesse Owens' victory less because he ran a tortoise-like 10.2 seconds? I don't think so. We don't need sportspeople to be faster or stronger to be entertaining. We are enthralled by the human drama. The speed-suit got banned from swimming for the same reason.

Second - your system would mean that the only people who could win are drug freaks, self-injuring in the name of short-term success. The sight of dying 40 year old athletes would quickly become gruesome.

Other problems would be the uneven access to the best drugs, the list goes on.

 

[MrTimms]

Other problems would be the uneven access to the best drugs, the list goes on.

Totally, just like now there is uneven access to the best drugs to hide the drugs.

I am aware of the chance of 40 year old athletes dying, but perhaps, and it is a big perhaps, if they weren't hidden, they could be safer? Just like when abortions are banned, they still happen, just not as safely.

I am not pro drugs, but the constant fight against them seems a waste.

 

[Cat_A]

I see your point Timmsy, but I'm not sure how drugs that are designed to push the human body outside its physical capacity parameters can be done safely. Especially not at the recreational level where I can see the most damage being done, for the least benefit.

IMO the media needs to focus on drug misuse in sport as being dangerous (rather than cheating), while the anti-doping authorities need to look at what is actually truly harmful for people to take. When some cough medicines that you would let your child take, are banned, there's probably something wrong.