Drugs in sport

Swimming Technique, Jan-Mar 1999 by Rushall, Brent S

The International Olympic Committee is making an ill-conceived excursion into moralizing.

The International Olympic Committee and its member federations have embarked on a road that is fraught with disaster. Having already displayed incompetence by not being able to stem or reduce the use of performance-enhancing drugs, the latest "political strategy" has been to focus on non-performance-enhancing drugs the recreational and social drugs that pervade many societies today. This could be termed the IOC's "morality play" as it further extends its "good works" and "contributions to mankind."

Given its poor track record of controlling sport-drug use, this latest IOC folly could be interpreted as a diversionary measure to reduce the focus on the "negative aspects" of modern sport, that of using dangerous performanceenhancing drugs.

The IOC's drug policies and pronouncements influence swimming's IOC member federation, FINA, more than any rule it initiates itself. Any IOC problems with drugs are FINA's problems. The IOC leadership has frequently used FINA's "followership" as an example of the way the drug fight should be implemented since the two organizations are so much in agreement.

Stories proliferate about long-term effects of excessive use of performance-enhancing drugs. The horror stories emerging from Germany's governmental investigation into the former East Germany's use of steroids and other substances are testimony to the dangers of continued use of unnatural substances by athletes. The IOC obfuscated, denied and failed to act on the charges that East Germany was cheating by using drugs. It failed that moral responsibility.

The IOC was so reticent to control this aspect of sport cheating that its "token" efforts at drug detection allowed East Germany and other nations to experiment with and use performanceenhancing drugs with a minimum of interference. Prior to 1976, the use of steroids was legal. Pre-1988, there was no prohibition for exploiting steroids in training-they just could not be used or detected at competitions. Technically, East Germany was not violating IOC rules until 1988. The IOC failed to ensure fair competitions during this prolonged period.

No unified global policy has emerged for controlling the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Tolerance varies by countries and by sports. For example, in Germany, steroids are legal in soccer, motor racing and tennis-two of them being Olympic sports. In the U.S., androstendione is legal in baseball.

Lack of Effectivenessand Commitment

Political intrigue in the IOC to cover up positive tests at Olympic Games or to conduct testing improperly so that transgressors are freed on technicalities shows the lack of effectiveness and commitment in this area of sport.

For example, in 1984 at the Los Angeles Olympic Games, depending on what report one reads (e.g., "The Lords of the Rings," the BBC, the Associated Press), positive test samples or reports were lost or shredded, resulting in "no bad publicity for the Olympic movement/family."

At the Atlanta Games, the Court of Arbitration for Sport exonerated most positive-tested athletes on technicalities. At the recent Winter Olympics in Nagano, the first athlete to test positive for the recreational drug, marijuana, was stripped of his gold medal and then had it restored a few days later.

The mix of politics and incompetence within the Olympic movement makes it almost certain that any positive drug result, at least at an Olympic Games, can be beaten on legal or natural justice grounds.

The IOC has failed dismally to reduce the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports despite its rhetoric and propaganda to the contrary.

One could interpret the most recent excursion into social drugs as being a diversionary activity to "take the heat off' the performance-enhancement fiasco. After all, social drugs are of much wider concern than performance drugs. This moral movement is selfinterpreted by the IOC as a social responsibility whose time has come.

Early in 1998, the number of social drugs for testing was increased significantly. Bravo for the IOC in taking this strong stand in directing the youth of the world to behave better! At least that is how many IOC members perceive and justify this action.

However, the IOC is not competent to make moral/social decisions on a global scale. Its own members are hardly paragons of virtue, their deficiencies and shortcomings being eloquently documented in Andrew Jennings' and Vyv Simpson's book, "The Lords of the Rings," and Jennings' latest book, "The

New Lords of the Rings."

Arrogantly Hypocritical

For this body of persons of questionable repute to proselytize about social behavior is arrogantly hypocritical. The IOC should extract itself from sanctimonious moralizing and social structuring on an international basis for it is hardly the body to preach, given its tawdry reputation and overt conduct.

Why the particular social drugs that have been named by the IOC? They are selective and conveniently omit substances that are used by the IOC officials on a social basis (e.g., nicotine, alcohol). This is despite there being a scientific categorization of the severity of the effects of social drugs.