Drugs in Sport

Drugs, are defined as a chemical substance that alters or changes the way that your body functions.

Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDS) and include, anabolic steroids (to aid recovery and growth, power) Peptide hormones (Epo / cERPO / rHEPO to aid oxygen carrying capacity) Analgesics (Cortisone, for masking pain), Diuretics (to aid water loss and as a masking agents)

Strategies for taking drugs include doping, patches, and blood cell monitoring.

A supplement being something that is naturally found and produced in the body. It is taken in order to supplement the diet.

Drugs are used by sports performers for a multitude of reasons, be it to recover from training faster or to increase the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. The use of drugs or ‘doping’ for performance enhancement stretches many years. Indeed, gladiators of the Roman Empire used a concoction of alcohol and amphetamines to give them courage and reduce perceptions of fatigue. There are many different drugs and not all are illegal for use in sport. Generally, the drugs that have actually been shown to enhance performance are the ones that are illegal.

It is WADA’s mission to promote, coordinate and monitor the fight against illegal drug ta

king in sport. It works towards establishing a ‘doping-free culture in sport’. Established in 1999, it is an independent organisation that works internationally to research, educate and carry out testing to detect and deter drug use in sport. WADA develops the ‘World Anti Doping Code’, usually referred to as the ‘Code’, a document that contains information about what drugs and methods of performance enhancement (e.g. gene therapy or blood doping) are permissible and which ones are prohibited.

Preventing Drug use

WADA and NGBs try to discourage performers from taking illegal drugs and catch those who do. In the past, when testing was only done at competitions, performers would take banned substances whilst training in the lead up to the event because they would help them train harder or recover from training faster. The drug cheats then stopped using them and a ‘wash-out’ period meant the drugs would leave their system and even if they were tested at the event they wouldn’t get caught. To combat this the use of random testing, particularly out of season means performers who take drugs run the risk of being caught, so this acts as a major deterrent.

WADA and the drug agencies of UK and other countries have massively increased the amount of money they have invested in trying to catch cheats. There are more laboratories to test samples and greater cooperation between NGBs and countries. The UK has one of the best records for testing and education, testing athletes more often than many other countries. Bans handed to drugs cheats are often more severe than in sports in other countries, for example in baseball and American football in the USA the punishments are not severe compared to other sports in the UK and other countries. Until recently, American footballers caught taking steroids were only handed out a four game ban. This hardly compares to the eight month ban handed out to English soccer player Rio Ferdinand for missing a drugs test. Unlike other countries, UK athletics bans athletes from the Olympics for life if they are caught using illegal substances. In other countries athletics governing bodies allow performers to compete in the Olympics after they have served the two year ban handed out by IAAF, but in the UK, despite being able to compete in other competitions, this is not the case.

In the UK, education programmes for elite athletes are very good and this helps to inform performers of the risks of taking drugs, as well as how they can avoid inadvertently taking a drug (e.g. in a cough medicine). For example, the 100% Me campaign is backed and promoted by high profile athletes like Chris Hoy, Paula Radcliffe and Steve Redgrave.

The UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) organisation also funds the Global DRO website (www.globaldro.com) in a joint venture with the Canadian Centre for Ethics in Sport (CCES), and the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). The website features a comprehensive database which athletes can use to search any medicines or prescriptions that they might take and whether they contain illegal substances. This means that performers can quickly check whether they are buying or taking anything bought in either of these countries that contains a banned substance. This will possibly help performers avoid the same fate as Scottish skier Alain Baxter who was disqualified and stripped of a bronze medal at the Salt Lake City winter Olympics in 2002. Baxter had used a Vicks inhaler that he had bought in the USA but unlike the UK version, it contained methamphetamine, a substance on the banned list.

Allowing Drug use in Sport

The majority of officials, performers and spectators do not agree with drug taking. The following arguments are used for why drug testing should be continued.

• Gives an unfair advantage – most people think that performers who work hard should have a fair chance of winning, not the performer who has taken the most effective or the best drugs.

• Tarnishes the sport – spectators may lose interest if they think performers cheat to win.

• Drug taking is morally wrong – it gives the drug takers an unfair advantage so is not fair play.

• Developed countries would be able to invest large sums of money into a drugs programme where less developed countries could not.

• Bad for health – people die or cause long-term damage to their health if they take certain drugs, e.g. human growth hormone or anabolic steroids.

• Some drugs are not natural, therefore the long-term effects on health are not known.

Counter arguments for not having drugs testing or allowing drug use in sport include:

• Allowing performers to take drugs means that they improve their performances which makes sport more attractive to watch.

• It is a ‘freedom of choice’ – athletes should be allowed to take what they want.

• Drugs maybe unfair but sport is never played on a level playing field so allowing drug use balances the sport out – for example, those who can’t train or live in heat or altitude can have equal chance of success.

• Can help with medical problems which are necessary for some athletes e.g. inhalers for asthmatics.

• It is difficult to monitor or detect some drugs or illegal methods. For example, levels of human growth hormone fluctuated greatly at different times of the day.

• Some drugs are allowed so why shouldn’t they all. For example, caffeine is allowed yet it is an established performance enhancing aid. It is sometimes difficult to provide reasons why some nutritional ergogenic aids are allowed whilst others aren’t.

• Some drugs pose minimal risk to health so there is no reason why these should not be allowed.

• Too expensive to monitor all athletes so better to spend money on other things.

• Some believe that the drug testers are always playing ‘catch up’ to devise new tests for new drugs. Therefore there will always be someone who is taking them and getting away with it.

Discuss the view that the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport is increasing.

Supporting the view:

• Evidence from numbers of athletes failing drug tests / examples in cycling, athletics etc.

• Evidence from drugs being used across many sports, not just the typical track and field athletics, but boxing, cycling, baseball, skiing, tennis, rugby, etc.

• Evidence of police investigations not just governing bodies.

• More money being spent on catching the cheats / more sophisticated tests / out of competition tests / biological passports.

• Invention of more sophisticated drugs to beat the tests.

• Greater publicity and bans given to failed tests.

• Increased pressure on the need to take drugs in order to meet the demands (commercial)

Challenging the view:

• Drugs has always been part of sport, e.g. gladiators and alcohol, early tour de France, cold war athletics / swimming etc.

• Extensive use of drugs during the cold war with track and field athletics leading to the need for sex testing to identify and classify athletes. This is no longer necessary.

• Possible conflict in duties within bodies (NGBs) i.e. the body responsible for catching the cheats (NGB) is also the body responsible for promoting the sport.

• The drive by many for clean sport, i.e. Team Sky and Team Garmin-Sharpe in cycling.

• Confusion between drugs and supplements and “mistaken consumption” as part of a supplement products (Maximuscle supplements being blamed in the media and by athletes for containing Nandralone)

• More awareness now of the types of drugs available and the methods of using them.

• More media attention produces the view that there are more cheats.

• More funds allocated to catching drug cheats post Festina Affair of 1998 and the creation of WADA

Examiner Guidance in this debate:

"Answer at the top of this band will identify that the lack of historical examples is only evidence of a lack of desire / ability / public interest etc in catching the cheats. Eg. Tom Simpson (British cyclist who died during the 1967 Tour de France is admired and respected in Britain, but he died with large quantities of amphetamines in his blood and also in his jersey pockets.

Top answers in this band may identify an apparent lack of desire by some sports, some countries and some (Tennis, soccer, baseball, Spain USA, Italy etc) NGB’s to catch drug cheats,

e.g.

 Hope Solo, the US soccer team goalkeeper, failed a drug test and received a warning from the US Anti-Doping Agency. Lance Armstrong never failed a drug test and received a life time ban in the same year. She still played in the Olympics in 2012.

 Sven Verdonck (Belgium footballer) received a 12 month ban for testing positive for Anabolic steroids.

 The majority of footballers in the U17 world cup in 2011 tested positive for Clenbuterol. No bans were issued. Contrast with Alberto Contador (Spanish cyclist) receiving a two year ban for the same drug.

 Kolo Toure (Ivorian footballer) failed a drug test for diet pills and received a 6 month ban. The FA said he was not cautious enough.

The answer will be balanced in its support and challenge of the statement.

Supporting the view they may refer;

 Evidence from increased No. of athletes failing drug tests / examples in cycling, athletics etc

 More money being spent on catching the cheats / more sophisticated tests / out of competition tests / biological passports.

 Invention of more sophisticated drugs to beat the tests.

 Greater publicity and bans given to failed tests.

Challenging the view they may refer to;

 Drugs has always been part of sport, e.g. gladiators and alcohol, early tour de France, cold war athletics / swimming etc.

 Extensive use of drugs during the cold war with track and field athletics leading to the need for sex testing to identify and classify athletes. This is no longer necessary.

 Possible conflict in duties within bodies (NGBs) i.e. the body responsible for catching the cheats (NGB) is also the body responsible for promoting the sport.

 More awareness now of the types of drugs available and the methods of using them.

 More media attention produces the view that there are more cheats.

 More funds allocated to catching drug cheats post Festina Affair of 1998 and the creation of WADA"

No athletes have been caught gene doping; however some argue that it is only a matter of time. Gene doping is the term used to describe how gene therapy could be used illegally to enhance sporting performances. Gene therapy is being investigated for use in medicine to treat various health conditions such as the disease Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD). Mostly occurring in boys, this inherited disease is caused by defective genes that results in progressive loss of muscle fibres because a protein that is needed to manufacture muscle tissue cannot be produced. Injections of the gene that codes this protein into the muscles of mice with muscular dystrophy resulted in the mice showing hypertrophy and reversing the muscle wastage. It would be reasonable to think that the same could be seen in humans, although it is proving more difficult. This method of causing hypertrophy could be beneficial for many athletes, particularly those who participate in power and speed events. This, like other gene therapy methods, could put someone at a distinct advantage if they were using it to enhance their own performance.