Editors Note: This essay was part of my final research essay for Writing 123 at the University of Oregon.
In 1988 Canadian Sprinter Ben Johnson crossed the finish line, making history after running the 100-meter race in 9.79 seconds. Three days later, Johnson’s medal would be revoked after Olympic officials found traces of steroids in his urine sample. This was a shock to the general public, who were unaware that such drug use was occurring at the time. However, people within the Olympics were less surprised, an anonymous Soviet coach remarked to The New York Times that “I feel sorry for Ben Johnson. All sportsman – not all, but maybe 90 percent, including our own – use drugs.”
Olympic athletes show off the best physical performance mankind has to offer. The key motivation for Olympic athletes is to win gold. Thus, any opportunity to improve performance is highly appealing. Ben Johnson’s record, although technically expunged, would be held for 31 years until Usain Bolt ran a 9.58. Bolt’s competitor that day, Tyson Gay, came in second and was said to be “beaten convincingly” by The New York Times. Compared to Bolt, Gay remains a relative unknown even though the difference between two’s time was a minuscule 1.35% (NBC). With such a small difference, many athletes have turned to performance enhancing drugs (PED) in the hopes of getting an upper edge. The most common PED is anabolic steroids, which help athletes improve muscle gain and minimize fatigue. With such tight margins between athletes, the use of PEDs put clean athletes at a tremendous disadvantage. Use of performance enhancing drugs is illegal and athletes regularly get tested. Unfortunately, we have learned, from anonymous surveys, that a significant number of athletes do use PED, but very few are ever caught. For example, according to a UK Parliament report that analyzed World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) surveys from the Quadrennial Pan-Arab Games, 45 percent of Olympic athletes have doped at some point in their career while at the same time only 0.5 percent of athletes tested positive. Many experts have offered solutions to this complex problem, yet the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has done little in the last two decades beyond random interval drug testing. With such a high rate of doping, what is the best way to deter athletes from doping? Solving or at least substantially reducing doping, within the Olympics, can be accomplished by targeting athlete’s key influencers, fully implementing biological passport testing, changing the peer pressure dynamic, enhancing the current system through auditing, and taking whistleblowers seriously.
To dope is to administer drugs in order to enhance sporting performance. Doping is not a new phenomenon. Athletes have been essentially doping since the first Olympics in Greece. After it was observed that castration had a severe effect on animals, people became more aware of the way hormones can change a person’s performance. According to the Performance Enhancing Drug History written in the SAGE Encyclopedia, athletes in ancient times would eat testicles from an animal such as a bull. The Greek’s also ate hallucinogenic mushrooms and drank various brandy drinks to improve mental stamina. Charles Edouard Brown-Sequard is widely viewed as the father of modern anabolic doping after he reported, in 1889, how he injected, “first, blood of the testicular veins; secondly, semen; and thirdly, juice extracted from a testicle . . . from a dog or guinea pig” (Performance 3). He wrote that as a result his health and energy levels radically improved and once he ended treatment he returned to a state of weakness. Sequards discovery began a wave of performance enhancing experiments among scientists.
Experiments over the next few decades eventually lead to the creation of a synthetic testosterone in 1935 according to Steroids: Dangerous Game written by Lisa Rogak. In response, various sports organizations starting with the International Track and Field Committee banned doping. Although banned, athletes still used PEDs as there were no tests at the time to detect their usage. Sports organizations came under pressure to act in 1967 after British cyclist Tommy Simpson died from a drug overdose during the Tour de France. Simpson was known for saying: “if it takes ten to kill you, take nine and win.” During the race he regularly drank brandy and injected amphetamines to improve his stamina. After his high profile death, the IOC formed a committee to eradicate doping (Rogak). However, years passed with little progress. This was largely because there were no reliable tests to detect doping. Then in 1983 a new more reliable test was invented, according to Marie Overbuy author of Doping Control in Sport, IOC administrators decided to use the new test on athletes with no warning. The new test immediately caught 19 athletes while dozens, upon hearing of the new test, immediately withdrew (Overbuy). As a decade passed it became clear that the political connection of the athlete or country was often brought into decisions on how to punish athletes according to the paper Doping in Sport and the Law. This eventually lead to the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) which then took on the task of testing and punishment. The WADA ‘code’ was also the first time that doping was formally defined. The code included the use of anabolic steroids, amphetamines, stimulants and more. Punishment for violations was also very clearly laid out which ended the decades of highly inconsistent punishments (Revising).
There are realistic solutions to decrease doping in sports, but the lay public often mention the same ones that are not realistic. For example, experts say the persistence of doping is because of the ‘payoff matrix’ that athletes face. This ‘matrix’ includes the fame, fortune and personal gratification that comes with winning first place. Unfortunately the debate on solutions in this realm usually involve neutering one of the three factors in the matrix. This would fundamentally change what the Olympics is about, giving both viewers and athletes less of an incentive to watch or, in the athletes case, dedicate years of their lives to training. The lay public have also suggested that if athletes were only more ethical then the problem would be solved. This is easier said than done. Alex Zülle a former Swiss professional cyclist who rode for the Festina team and tested positive for erythropoietin in 1998 said that “Everybody knew that the whole peloton was taking drugs and I had a choice. Either I buckle and go with the trend or I pack it in and go back to my old job as a painter. I regret lying but I couldn’t do otherwise.” Zülle’s quote is a testament to how strong the incentives are to dope, as demonstrated by the number of athletes doping. Another suggested solution is to legalize doping but have it supervised by doctors. Proponents of this often forget that the incentive to dope is because of the desire to beat other opponents and win. Thus, athletes will push steroid injections above the legally prescribed ‘safe’ levels in order to get an advantage over their opponents. Another suggestion is that athletes just get educated about the potential long term health risks of steroid use. Unfortunately this does not work because of two things: steroids do work and the negative side effects are unfortunately not completely clear. The long term health effects of steroid use manifests itself differently in each individual. Each person is different, oftentimes using a different type and dose of steroids. Even if it were clearly dangerous and even deadly, many athletes might just not care. In a widely cited survey, Robert Goldman asked one hundred top runners in the 1980s the following: “If I could give you a pill that would make you an Olympic champion – and also kill you in a year – would you take it?” Shockingly, more than half of the respondents indicated that yes they would take that deadly pill. While follow-ups to Goldman’s dilemma indicate that now 30 percent of athletes would indicate yes. These numbers clearly show how for some athletes the win is more important than everything else, including life.
To start to clamp down on doping, the biggest influence on athletes which are coaches and support staff need be held to account. Ever since doping became outlawed in the Olympics the punishments for a positive test result usually fell solely on the athletes. However many athletes complained that their coaches and trainers were the ones who originally pushed them into using the drug in the first place. According to the book Game of Shadows written by Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, after the Bay Area Lab Cooperative (BALC) scandal in which numerous support staff for athletes, along with the knowledge of coaches, worked with the BALC facility to provide athletes a steroid that could not be traced. The scandal hit athletes in dozens of sports from Barry Bonds in baseball to others in the NFL and track and field. In response, WADA decided to also ban a number of coaches and trainers (Fainaru). In this case, WADA did ban some coaches but the punishments were not consistent. In a paper aptly titled The solution to doping is to extend the blame beyond athletes the author, Silvia Camporesi who studies bioethics, suggests that WADA require organizational charts from each team and assign responsibility to the top brass with the most to lose financially. Campresi gives the example of the accountability model that the United States Congress implemented, after the Enron scandal, which held the Chief Financial Officer personally liable for any fraud or misrepresentation of financial data (Camporesi). This idea while a good start could go even further in curbing the type of culture that encourages doping. However, the punishments must be consistent and layed out beforehand.
Peer-pressure is one of the biggest influences on athletes. Athletes felt obligated to use drugs if they perceive their teammates are using them as well. Steve Courson, a former NFL football player, used steroid heavily during the 60’s and 70’s when it first became popular. At the time athletes were very open to their use and even Courson’s University paid for his doses. After retiring and considerable reflection, he became a prominent critic of steroid use. He was quoted in the book The Steroid Game by Charles E Yesalis as saying, “I have regrets that I sold out to the system. I was so gung ho that I turned myself into a biochemical machine and complied with the ‘win at all costs’ directive. [Steroid use] was a reflection of your commitment to football. You’re hurt and they want you to play? Are you committed enough to use steroids? Do you care about your teammates?” (Yesalis 113). In his mind, not using steroids was equivalent to not caring about your sport or team. If athletes had an incentive such as the possibility of not just the athlete but the entire team being held responsible by automatically suspending teams even for just one violation then the culture will surely change. WADA could also take a cue from college adminstors who, in response to greek life incidents, punish or ban whole fraternities and sororities for violations. This added liability has put tremendous pressure, as I have seen first hand, on thoroughly examining pledges in order to avoid one who causes an incident that could threaten the fraternities very existence. This self policing is necessary because WADA’s resources are already spread thin and their testing costs are large while their budget is small – at only $30 million. Plus, the day to day analysis of an individual’s character is impossible to determine by any administrative means but much easier for coaches who spend hours with the athlete to do. This solution, of course, would require more debate and analysis based on what the appropriate punishment should be. The potential for politics should also be avoided by clearly stating the punishments for certain offenses. These punishments should be severe and include actually banning whole teams not just a play on words such as when “the Russian athletes” were changed to the “the athletes from Russia” for the 2018 Olympics.
The biological passport has been hailed as the test to end doping once and for all. This potentially eliminates the cat and mouse game that was occuring with the standard drug test. For years athletes would just invent slight alternatives to anabolic steroids which would go undetected for years until scientists could invent a test to find the drug. For example, in 2017 WADA re examined samples from Olympic weightlifters and what they found was astonishing yet not completely unsurprising. The event was described in the Washington Post: “The 2012 event was especially embarrassing for the sport. Not only was Ilyin disqualified, but so were the original silver and bronze medalists, Aleksandr Ivanov of Russia and Anatoli Ciricu of Moldova, after both men tested positive. To make matters worse, the fourth-, sixth- and seventh-place finishers also failed tests, which resulted in the original fifth-place finisher, Saeid Mohammadpour of Iran, getting the gold, while eighth-place finisher Kim Min-Jae of South Korea won silver and ninth-place competitor Tomasz Zielinski of Poland won bronze. (Incidentally, Zielinski was later banned from competing at the 2016 Olympics in Rio de Janeiro because of doping.)” (Payne). When the fifth place finisher gets gold because everyone was caught doping, you clearly have a problem. However, scientists claim the biological passport will not have this problem. That is because it does not test athletes for certain drugs. According to WADA’s informational page on the Athlete Biological Passport, it instead records biometric baselines for each individual athlete and alerts testers whenever a new sample deviates beyond what scientists determine to be standard biological variance (Athlete). The Economist reported that so far the test has been successful saying “Since it was implemented, the percentage of tests hinting at an unusual increase in red-blood-cell count has fallen by half.” Although it has yet to eliminate doping completely experts agree that it will likely make a significant dent.
A well thought out anti-doping system still has holes and WADA must forever refine and improve. Catching fraud is important because if there are loopholes the whole deterrence system is obsolete. While on the micro level the system has been relatively strong, on the macro level there have been substantial systemic failures as evidenced by the Russian Federation doping scandal. To be able to improve, WADA must put into place a strong whistleblower protection program which includes an independent office that examines each allegation. WADA was in part formed because the IOC did not admit, on numerous occasions, when it made a mistake. WADA must form another outside agency that pursues cases without reservation or thought as to the potential political embarrassment. The need for an independent auditor body has been evident ever since the 2010 case where, according to the Guardian, a Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) employee sent information to WADA alleging that RUSADA was enabling systemic doping in the Olympics. Vitaly Stepanov, the RUSADA whistleblower, sent over 200 emails and 50 letters which were read by top WADA officials then ignored and finally forwarded to Russian Sports Agencies. After failing to elicit response from WADA, Stepanova said, “Even at WADA there were people who didn’t want this story out.” Eventually he was connected to a German broadcaster who broke the story to the world (Ingle). The gross negligence that occured during this episode makes it clear that WADA officials are more concerned with their image then to a future where sports players do not dope. An independent investigative body that handles complaints and investigates accusations is not a new concept. According to the Government Accountability Office, agencies such as the FBI, Justice Department and Department of Defence have hundreds of auditors tasked with finding corruption, errors in processes and investigating allegations (Office). If the auditors are to be effective wide acceptance will be mandatory. WADA must revise their code to clearly layout that for labs to maintain their certification these auditors need to be allowed into any labs and have access to all documents and personnel with no early notice. If their scope of investigation is not clearly laid out, then they will likely be denied and delayed for long enough to cover up corruption. Personnel are likely the first to uncover corruption or gross negligence and therefore should feel free to report incidents without fear or reprisal. This type of protection is commonly called whistleblower protection and WADA can and should take note to implement a similar system like the US Government Whistleblower Protection. Upon hearing of potential fraud, manager should be accountable for acting on it. For example, according to the Chapter 10 under the United State Code for Armed Forces: “Senior military officers that fail to act on information regarding crime or incompetence are subject to permanent reduction in rank or court martial so must act on Whistleblower information. Civilians that occupy senior pay grades have similar requirements and restrictions.” While ignoring the court marshall part, implementing a similar system that holds all managers accountable will be important to catch the next cover up or fraud.
We all want to see athletes break all-time world records because it is inherently more entertaining. The whole purpose of the Olympics is to push the limits of what humans can physically do. An Olympics based on merit is more interesting than one based on who can get the latest innovative chemical injections. Doping with unregulated amounts is also dangerous. Since most view doping as inherently bad and unethical we should do everything in our power to eliminate its use. Athletes should play fair and be on an equal footing. The future depends on what we do today to change the current system. We are on the cusp of advances in technology such as the biological passport that have the chance to eliminate the almost decade delay scientists had in detecting drug use. However, there are numerous structural changes that can be made that will shore up loopholes, change the peer pressure dynamic and clamp down on corruption. Today, coaches are still too often the one’s encouraging doping. There also a substantial amount of fraud in recent years with countries such as Russia backing doping programs. There are also loopholes that do not allow for proper enforcement of the current system. While WADA looks like they are moving in the direction to one day implement these solutions politics still reigns supreme. If we actually want clean sports then we must act. The solutions are clear.
Works Cited
Anshel, Mark H., and Kenneth G. Russell. “Examining Athletes’ Attitudes toward Using Anabolic Steroids and Their Knowledge of the Possible Effects.” Journal of Drug Education, vol. 27, no. 2, 1997, pp. 121–145., doi:10.2190/714t-aum5-neul-8y0q.
“Athlete Biological Passport.” World Anti-Doping Agency, 14 June 2017, www.wada-ama.org/en/athlete-biological-passport.
Camporesi, Silvia, and James Knuckles. “The Solution to Doping Is to Extend the Blame beyond Athletes – Silvia Camporesi & James Knuckles | Aeon Ideas.” Aeon, Aeon, 21 Mar. 2018, aeon.co/ideas/the-solution-to-doping-is-to-extend-the-blame-beyond-athletes.
Clarey, Christopher. “Bolt Shatters 100-Meter World Record.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Aug. 2009, www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/sports/global/17track.html.
Epstein, David. “On Eve of Olympics, Top Investigator Details Secret Efforts to Undermine Russian Doping Probe.” ProPublica, www.propublica.org/article/olympics-top-investigator-secret-efforts-undermine-russian-doping-probe.
Fainaru-Wada, Mark, et al. Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal That Rocked Professional Sports. The Notable Trials Library, 2016.
Goldman, Bob, et al. Death in the Locker Room: Steroids, Cocaine & Sports. Body Press, 1987.
“Historical Timeline – Drug Use in Sports – ProCon.org.” Should Performance Enhancing Drugs (Such as Steroids) Be Accepted in Sports?, sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000017.
Ingle, Sean. “Russia’s Backdoor Olympics | Sean Ingle.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 2 Feb. 2018, www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/02/winter-olympics-russian-doping-ban-pyeongchang.
Louise Stanger Ed.d, LCSW, CDWF, CIP & Roger Porter. “The Price Of Gold: Doping And Professional Athletes.” The Huffington Post, TheHuffingtonPost.com, 1 Dec. 2017, www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-price-of-gold-doping-professional-athletes_us_58f65efce4b048372700dc0e.
Office, U.S. Government Accountability. “FBI Internal Audit: Opportunities for Improvement.” U.S. Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO), 28 Dec. 1988, www.gao.gov/products/GGD-89-9.
Overbye, Marie. “Doping Control in Sport: An Investigation of How Elite Athletes Perceive and Trust the Functioning of the Doping Testing System in Their Sport.” Sport Management Review, vol. 19, no. 1, 2016, pp. 6–22., doi:10.1016/j.smr.2015.10.002.
Payne, Marissa. “Olympic Weightlifting Class Notorious for Positive Doping Tests May Get Chopped.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 26 Oct. 2017, www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2017/10/26/olympic-weightlifting-class-notorious-for-positive-doping-tests-may-get-chopped/?utm_term=.e3c99cf69d38.
“Performance-Enhancing Drugs and Sports: History.” The SAGE Encyclopedia of Pharmacology and Society, doi:10.4135/9781483349985.n301.
Rasmussen1, Kristian. “The Quest for the Imaginary Evil: A Critique of Anti-Doping.” Sport in History, vol. 25, no. 3, Jan. 2005, pp. 515–535., doi:10.1080/17460260500396426.
“Revising the World Anti-Doping Code.” Doping in Sport and the Law, doi:10.5040/9781509905911.ch-002.
Rogak, Lisa. Steroids: Dangerous Game. Lerner Publications, 1992.
Trainor, Niall. “The 2009 Wada Code: A More Proportionate Deal for Athletes?” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2010, doi:10.2139/ssrn.1639853.
“Who We Are.” World Anti-Doping Agency, 6 Dec. 2017, www.wada-ama.org/en/who-we-are.