Sports Fitness Training

One of the characteristics of competitive sport that distinguishes it from other forms of physical activity is the importance of winning. Indeed, in many countries 2nd place is referred to as the first loser. In this context an athlete purposefully chooses to strive for performance excellence. It is likely that a large part of the emphasis on winning and excellence of performance stems from an intrinsic motivating factor (i.e., some people simply hate to lose). Other extrinsic factors can also play a major role. For example, sports fans prefer and even expect their teams to be winners regardless of the competitive level. Some countries, both past and present, have used sport as a political tool often to the detriment of sport (e.g., Soviet Union’s boycott of the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles). Because of these factors even amateur sport with its myriad of governing bodies has become a big business with high stakes for those involved. Thus, because of both intrinsic and extrinsic factors it is incumbent upon the athlete to be a winner.

Hypocrisy Regarding Drug Testing

The International Olympic Committee’s policy on doping has been instituted partly to protect the athlete’s health, however, high-level athletic competition is often an inherently unhealthy endeavor. If health is a factor then why are certain sports with high injury rates or the potential for serious injury allowed at all? For example, many linemen playing American football weigh over 135 kg. These higher body weights are necessary to be successful at this sport; however, gaining large amounts of weight is unhealthy.

False Positives

Certain drugs such as cocaine are not found naturally occurring in humans. Thus, detection of these substances is relatively easy. Many hormones, when used as ergogenic aids, are quite difficult to detect (e.g., growth hormone). Also, certain androgens have been recently shown to occur naturally (i.e., nandrolone); thus, cutoff limits for drug testing must be established.

Flawed Process?

In the process of drug testing, two samples of urine are collected and stored. If a positive test occurs for sample A, the NGB and the athlete are notified. The athlete or their representative can observe sample B being tested. If both samples are positive, the test results are subsequently made public. The athlete has a right to arbitration (i.e., a trial). In many sports there are two trials. First is the trial within the athletes’ governing body and then there can be a trial within the international body. This system then places the athlete and their NGB in adversarial roles. For example, in track and field the International Athletics Federation (IAAF) is the international governing body. First the athlete must go through arbitration within their NGB (UK Athletics or USA Track and Field, for example). The results of this trial are then forwarded to the IAAF Rarely, if ever, does the lAAF accept an NGB arbitration verdict that the athlete was innocent of doping (e.g., Dennis Mitchell and Dougie Walker). The stated position of the lAAF is that the athlete is guilty until proven innocent and that it does not matter how the substance got there (Athlete guilty until proven innocent Doug Gillon, August 20, 1999, The Electronic Herald). Thus, the second trial begins with the IAAF Rarely, if ever, do the athletes prove themselves not guilty to the lAAF (e.g., Dennis Mitchell and Dougie Walker). A number of reasons can be given for a false positive including individual differences in metabolism, taking a legal supplement that contains a banned (or the building blocks) substance, and sabotage (e.g., Tonya Harding). None of these reasons are sufficient in the eyes of the IOC/IAAF.

What is unfortunate is that after the myriad of legal maneuvers, the athlete’s reputation can be damaged and a considerable amount of time, money, and effort are spent. The athlete (e.g., Diane Modahl) might win the lawsuit and then the NGB loses a great deal of money; however, the lAAF and IOC have so far been protected. Even when a national court finds in favor of an athlete (e.g., Butch Reynolds) the IOC/IAAF, etc. may not meet their obligations openly or fairly.

Facts

There are clearly problems with doping tests. Pointing out these problems is not a blanket indictment of doping control but rather an attempt to identify deficienciesThere is little doubt that ergogenic aids will continue to be used, as will banned substances until adequate testing methods can be devised. Perhaps the vast majority of athletes would not use banned substances if they believed that the playing field was level. Certainly, the current testing methods do not work well. Consider the following:

1. The IOC testing procedures should be reviewed by independent agencies. The IOC should release data on athletic testing (especially for nandrolone) to independent agencies for evaluation and validation.
2. Until adequate tests can be devised for testosterone, it should be removed from the banned list.
3. An independent agency should take over doping control that will remove suspicion from the athletic governing bodies and eliminate the current adversarial role of the national and international governing bodies.