1.Executive Summary
Throughout history, men has been trying to perform and outdo their
predecessors. We celebrate when records are broken because we believe that as
humans that record indicates evolution of our species.
This paper will seek to understand and evaluate how performance
enhancing drugs has changed and evolved over time and how athletes are breaking
records faster than they can set them. Moreover, it will provide a current and
future perspective and of PEDs in the field of sports. In my opinion,
Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) can be defined as substances or methods used
by athletes to improve their performance in their field of sport. I will
attempt to address the anti-doping crusade and how it is doomed to fail and we
will see an advent of sub-categories for our athletes; Natural / Enhanced / Superhumans.
The author wishes to express that his topic is extremely sensitive
to athletes and evidences gathered are mostly anecdotes which might not seem
credible. He does attempt to provide concrete cases of athletes that were caught
doping. However, these cases are rare and as such may seem to have provided a
myopic view.
2. Introduction
Ever since the dawn of mankind, men has been trying to establish who
the most alpha male is, primitive tests would include who’s the best hunter or
fighter. However, after becoming civilized, we could no longer use these tests
and instead, we compete through sports. Humans attempt to establish their
legacy and superiority through setting world records and spectators celebrate
as new world records indicates that we are advancing as a specie.
However, evolution doesn’t occur within centuries, much less within
decades. Athletes realized that they are restricted by their natural abilities
and found it tough to break barriers. Moreover, spectators have high
expectations of athletes, they expect to witness records being broken every
Olympic Games which is held once every 4 years. The stress of performing has
turned our athletes to engage in PEDs to unlock their potential as well as
allowing them to train more frequently to push past their limits.
PEDs has been used since the time of the original Olympic Games,
from 779 BC to 393 BC. Early
forms of PEDs were naturally occurring substances such as hydromel (an
alcoholic beverage made from honey) and coffee. These early PEDs allowed users
to have an edge over their competitors and outperform them. Therefore we know
that PEDs has been a part of human history, many has misconceptions that PEDs
were spun-offs of improving technology!
This paper will examine the historical use of PEDs, why were some of
them invented and for what purposes. It will examine the current situation
thereafter and what are some social implications that has risen with usage of
PEDs and how the current anti-doping policy is doomed to fail. This paper will
also bring to you a future perspective of competition whereby we begin to
embrace such advances and also what implications will it bring with it.
The limitations of this paper will include lack of reliable
resources to show the pervasive use of performance enhancing drugs as these are
considered to be secrets of athletes. In addition, the author could have prior
biasness against performance enhancing drugs as he is a competitive natural
bodybuilder and powerlifter where drugs are common and considered as norms.
However, the author has tried his best to provide an objective overview of the
topic and his exposure to athletes whom used performance enhancing drugs
allowed him to provide clearer perspectives.
3. Historical
Perspective
The Modern Olympic Games was founded in 1894 by Baron Pierre de Coubertin
after being inspired by the Ancient Olympic Games which were held in Olympia,
Greece from 8th century BC to 4th century AD. In
1904, Olympic marathon runner, Thomas Hicks, was using a mixture of brandy and
strychnine. It was common practice for coaches to have their own unique mixture
for their athletes to allow them to have an edge over their competition. In
1928, The International Association of Athletics Federation (IAAF) decided to
prohibit doping by athletes as it was deemed to be harmful and could be fatal
at times.
In 1950s, athletes were using amphetamines to ward off fatigue and increase
their alertness. Amphetamines were created to treat attention deficit
hyperactive disorder (ADHD) but was subsequently abused by athletes in order to
better their competitors.
The explosion of PEDs came in 1958, when Dr. John Bosley Zieglar
created an androgenic anabolic steroid called dianabol after witnessing the
success of Russian weightlifting team in the 1954 Olympic Games. This was made
worst when the Food and Drug Adminstration(FDA) approved the sale of steroids
in 1958 after witnessing promising trials in other countries. Dianabol also
known as Methandrostenolone reacts strongly with the androgen receptors which
includes increases in protein synthesis, and muscle strength over a short span
of time. This allowed athletes to dramatically increase their muscle mass which
could be observed in the bodybuilding scene where drugs are pervasive.
Comparing 2 bodybuilders, Steve Reeves in 1950 and Arnold Schwarnenegger in
1970s.Arnold has admitted to steroid usage during his years as a champion
bodybuilder.
Arnold Schwarnenegger in 1970s. Steve Reeves in 1950s.
The pervasiveness of PEDs could be observed in the 100m race held on
24th September 1988, at the Seoul Olympics. Labeled as the ‘dirtiest
race in history’,
6 out of the 8 100m contestants were linked to drug usage, the utter disregard
for ethics, fair play and honesty, the trampling of the Olympic spirit. In
particular, Ben Johnson, who was once regarded as the best sprinter in the
world, has been caught doping not once, but thrice! He was tested positive for
stanozolol at the 1988 Olympics. In 1993, he tested positive for testosterone.
Finally, he tested positive for a third time – for a diuretic – in 1999 (Moore,
2012). From this example, we could see that elite athletes are willing to take
that calculated risk in order to win that gold medal.
In 1990, United State Congress passes the first anabolic control
act, placing anabolic steroids under Schedule III of
Controlled Substance Act(CSA). The objective was to remove the use of anabolic
steroids in competitive sport and also the ability for an individual to acquire
them for personal reasons such as aesthetics purposes. While the intrinsic
reason for banning of steroids is legitimate, the author feels that there was a
lack of enforcement of this act, and we can observe this through the current
situation of doping.
In 2002, Dr.Don Catlin identifies for the first time in an athlete’s
urine sample norbolethone, the
first reported designer steroid.
Subsequently, in the years 2003 and 2004, more designer steroids were found.
They were created with every intention to cheat the doping test, athletes who
used these forms of designer steroids can be considered as deliberate cheaters.
An example of an athlete whom used designer steroids would be Tammy Thomas, a
former American Track and Field cyclist, who won a silver medal at the 2001 UCI
Track Cycling World Championships in the individual sprint event. She got
convicted of anabolic abuse and was banned for life from cycling. However,
instead of feeling remorseful of her actions, she actually accused the jury of
taking away her career away from her. What we can gather from this instance is
that athletes feel that even with doping, they are playing at a fair level
because it can be assumed that all elite athletes are doping one way or
another. As such, Thomas after being convicted, felt that she was unfairly
judged and stormed away from the courtroom.
PEDs are not just used to enhance human abilities. In 2009, winner
of Kentucky Derby was tested positive for steroids for the first time. Big
Brown’s trainer Rick Dutrow administers stanozolol to his horses every 15th
of the month. With regards to injecting horses with steroids, it is not
considered illegal. Animals are seen as mere objects for humans to use in order
to win and injecting them with PEDs is considered a norm. However, Australian
horse racing is banning anabolic steroid use for their horses in a pledge for
zero tolerance on PEDs.
After researching on these cases, the author is convinced that PEDs
will continue to plague our sport industry even with increasing stringent
doping procedures. Therefore the author will examine the doping procedures
later in this paper and determine if it is adequate, and if not, provide
certain solutions to this conundrum.
4. Current Perspective:
In this column, the author will examine firstly, how athletes are
able to abuse PEDs without getting caught. Secondly, the transition from using
anabolic steroids to Human Growth Hormones (HGH). Lastly, he will examine the
doping procedures and determine if it is adequate in curbing PEDs.
4.1 How Athletes are able to abuse PEDs without getting caught
In particular, we will examine the case of Lance Armstrong, winner
of 7 Tour De France, got caught for doping. How is it possible, for someone to
have passed all the doping tests while competing over the span of a decade only
to get busted later on? Lance Armstrong decided to come clean only after being accused
of doping by his former teammate, Floyd Landis. Mr Landis’s accusations were
sent to a small group of cyclists but were made public by the Wall Street
Journal. Mr Landis accused Armstrong of using a performance enhancing cocktail
that consisted of Erythropoiethin(EPO), Human Growth Hormones, testosterone and
blood transfusion. These drugs were used and monitored closely by his team’s
doctor whom had expertise knowledge in these drugs and were able to manipulate
Armstrong’s hormonal level to cheat doping tests. For example, EPO boosts red
blood cell counts, however, before the year 2000, there were no doping tests
that could distinguish the synthetic version of the hormone from its natural
counterpart. As such, as long as athletes were able to keep their hematocrit in an
acceptable range (below 50%), they could use EPO to boost their red blood cell
counts. Another drug that was abused would be testosterone, it is used to
improve muscle mass, muscle recovery and promote endurance. However,
testosterone levels vary from person to person, and having an accurate baseline
level would be near impossible. An article that was posted by Yahoo News
mentioned that athletes in the 2012 Olympics were allowed to have four times
the normal levels of testosterone before they tipped a drug test. Therefore, it
is possible for athletes to abuse testosterone in small dosages to give themselves
an edge, but not a positive test. However, athletes are subjected to surprise
doping tests, and similarly, they have a counter measure to these tests. Team
doctors would dilute their blood with saline solution to quickly drive down
hematocrit level which could allow them to pass both the EPO and blood
transfusion tests.
Through this case study, the author wishes to highlight the limitations
of anti-doping tests and how athletes are able to find loopholes and take
advantage of it.
4.2 Advances of PEDs to Human Growth Hormones
The Human Growth Hormone is a naturally occurring peptide hormone
produced by the anterior pituitary gland. It was an arduous and complicated
task trying to acquire GH back in the 1940s, it had to be isolated from the
human pituitary gland and it was extremely limited. Usage
of GH was strictly limited to research or therapeutic purposes. However, this
was changed in 1985 when they innovated the biosynthetic human growth hormones
also known as somatropin. They were able to synthetically create a protein that
is nearly identical to the main form of the naturally occurring human growth
hormone.
However, this drug was also abused by
athletes who are trying to pursue their dream. The most famous case of GH abuse
came to light in 1988 following Ben Johnson’s steroid scandal, both he and his
coach admitted under oath that Johnson was taking a mix of GH and anabolic
steroids. Another example would be Canadian sprinter Angella Issanjenko whom
also admitted to using HGH along with other drugs. It is believed that athletes
switched from anabolic steroids to HGH as it is considered highly undetectable
and doping tests include a blood test which is extremely costly.
4.3 Anti-doping bound to fail
Fig 1. Olympic Drug Testing Chart
Upon researching into the anti-doping system in sports, the author
has concluded that it is inadequate and bound to fail. The actual rate of
success of anti-doping testing in some cases has been said to be less than 10%
and on average less than 50%. From Figure 1, the number of athletes that got
tested positive for steroids in the 2004 Athens game is 0.008%! This shows that
the probability of getting tested positive is extremely small. There are
several components to which an athlete has to commit in order to test positive,
they are window of detection, test sensitivity, how often doping occurs and
test predictability. The probability in which anti-doping agencies can
successfully determine which athlete is doping is extremely small. Furthermore,
the cost of urine testing an athlete per year is approximately 21,190.86 euros.
As such, in Germany where there is approximately 4000 athletes, the total cost
of testing every one of them would exceed 84 million euros! However, the total
annual revenue for the Nationale Anti-Doping Agentur Germany in 2011 was
approximately around 4.5 million euros, which would result in close to 80
million euros shortfall! Therefore, with the lack of appropriate funding, they
could only handpick random athletes to conduct tests on them. This is
inadequate! In order to have a fair playing level, every athlete has to be
tested and ensure they are not on any PEDs. With that said, even with testing,
the probability of ensuring that every athlete is natural is extremely slim as
athletes would have used cleansing or masking drugs to cheat the anti-doping
tests.
5. Future perspectives
Looking into the future, PEDs will only become more sophisticated
and becoming increasingly difficult to detect. With gene therapy already in
place, there is no stopping athletes to abuse this aspect of technology.
Instead of injecting synthetic Erythropoietin (EPO) into
their bodies, they could opt to upgrade the gene responsible for producing more
red blood cells. Investing more money into anti-doping test is akin to throwing
money at an abyss, it is eventually a zero-sum game. Even with anti-doping
tests in place and banning of such substances, athletes will still take the
calculated risk and engage in PEDs in order to have an advantage over their
competition. Therefore the author would suggest creating sub-categories for
athletes to compete in; natural, enhanced or prosthetic/genetically enhanced
athletes.
5.1 Sub category for competition
Before the introduction of sub categories, we must first acknowledge
that PED usage is pervasive and will not stop. Instead of penalizing the usage
of PEDs, we supervise athletes who have decided to go down this road. These
categories should be considered mutually exclusive with no base of comparisons
even if they are competing in the same sport or event. There should not be any
discrimination of athletes in any categories as it is considered as their
choice and they are fully aware of the risks that they are undertaking
For natural athletes, this category still require some forms of
anti-doping measures, however it should be reserved for the top athletes who
has a higher probability of doping. The results of this category could be a
basis for human evolution over time and show different eras of athletes. This
category of natural competition can already be observed in the bodybuilding
arena. Professional natural bodybuilding organizations such as the Professional
Natural Bodybuilding Association (PNBA), International Fitness and Physique
Association (IFPA) or World Natural Bodybuilding Federation (WNBF) provides an
avenue for natural bodybuilders who do not use performance-enhancing drugs to
compete in. They do not explicitly state that other bodybuilding shows are
plagued with PEDs, but rather, they acknowledge the fact that PEDs are rampant
and provide an alternative avenue for natural athletes to compete in.
How about the Singapore context? The recent scandal of Singapore
Bodybuilding Federation (SBBF) being delisted by Singapore Sports Council after
failing to explain a number of controversies, including doping at the Singapore
National Bodybuilding and Physique Sports Championships. In addition, 7
bodybuilding athletes got tested positive for prohibited substances and
received a two-year ban. The author feels that such a ban would not discourage
further usage of PEDs as it is common knowledge that bodybuilders use such
anabolics to prepare themselves for competition. These banned athletes would
just treat this 2-year ban as a good time to indulge in even more anabolic
steroids and return even better than before. As such, the author feels that
instead of imposing just a 2-year ban, Singapore should have imposed a heavier
penalty, or a life-time ban. Singapore could be the epitome for natural
competition, we could be the first to host natural competitions once our
national stadium is built, and if any athletes found to be using PEDs, they
would be imposed with a lifetime ban and never to return to Singapore again.
Such a ban could really create the new arena for natural athletes to aspire to
compete in.
For enhanced athletes, this is a category whereby the athletes
understand the risks involved with the consumption of such PEDs and still
wishes to do so. It can be assumed that all athletes participating in the
enhanced categories are under the influence of PEDs and their results may not
be a good gauge of athletic performance throughout the years as PEDs continue
to advance and have even greater effects on human performance. Most of the
anti-doping funds could be channeled into this category, it could be used to
provide athletes with proper doctor supervision of their PEDs. This category of
athletes will allow doctors to experiment with different drug usage and witness
for themselves the effects of their drugs. Spectators who constantly demand
more out of an athlete could be enticed to sponsor these athletes as they push
the boundaries of human capabilities and excite us with even more breath taking
records.
Lastly, the most controversial category for the
prosthetic/genetically enhanced athletes. This category of athletes would have
undergone either gene manipulation or have enhanced prosthetics attached to
them. Gene manipulation will be in the near future, genes that control the
production of red blood cells could be upgraded and essentially these athletes
could have superhuman regenerative abilities, sounds pretty far-fetched? Just
keep in mind that gene therapy is already in place, they could easily use it
for gene manipulation. How about enhanced prosthetics? Robotic arms or legs
that outperform human limbs? The well-known blade runner Oscar Pistorius who’s
an amputee that competes in the normal Olympics has caused a huge dispute over
his prosthetics. He runs with J-shaped carbon fibre prosthetics called the
“Flex-Foot Cheetah” developed by biomedical engineer Van Philips and
manufactured by Ossur. Pistorius used significantly less oxygen than
able-bodied sprinters, 25% less during sprinting and 17% less during jogging. How
about the controversial swimsuit, LZR, which allowed our athletes to break
numerous world records at the 2008 Beijing Olympics? The swimsuit was able to
compress a swimmer’s body into a streamlined tube and trapped air, adding
buoyancy and reducing drag. With this category in place, we will no longer be
impeding the advances of technology and engineers will be free to invent such
attachments. However, in order to ensure fair play amongst athletes in this
category, all of the athlete should be using the exact same attachment, this
would ensure that there is no discrepancies in their performances. This
category will also expedite the innovation process where engineers are able to
bring their products to the market.
5.2 Ethics of PEDs usage
Some argue that athletes using PEDs are considered as cheaters and
ethically wrong because they have an unfair advantage over their competitors.
However, the underlying assumption is that other competitors are not under the influence
of PEDs, this is usually not the case. Just look into the controversial
baseball PED scandal in America, where Major League Baseball (MLB) stars Alex
Rodriguez, Gio Gonzalez and Barry Bonds are tied to the steroid scandal. The
fact is that any sport that involves money and fame usually has PEDs ingrained
in them. Spectators should no longer harbor that wishful thinking that their athletes
are clean because they are not. Therefore the accusation of an athlete using
PEDs as a cheater has false premises and is not sound. We could solve this
ethical issue of PED usage with the aforementioned sub category competitions.
Spectators should acknowledge that athletes are willing to take that calculated
risk in order to win and gain fame or success in their sport. Moreover,
spectators should be blamed for the advent of PEDs in sports as well, because
we demand for faster 100m runs, more homeruns and better physiques. We believe
that as humans we are capable of so much more and we put pressure on our
athletes to continue entertaining us with better performances.
6. Conclusion
Encapsulating the aforementioned, the author has examine the
development of Performance Enhancing Drugs, from the invention back in 1958 to
the evolution into Human Growth Hormones in 1985. Currently, we are labeled as
the steroid era, whereby there is no sport that has not been tainted by the use
of PEDs. That is due to the competitive nature of humans wanting to outperform
each other, even at the expense of using PEDs. Even in Singapore, the advent of
PEDs can be seen by our local bodybuilders returning positive for their doping
tests. Furthermore, the author has looked into the anti-doping policy and found
that it is inadequate. He has provided a viable option to create sub categories
for athletes to compete in, this would not only solve ethical issues concerning
PEDs but also a reallocation of resources to ensure the health of our athletes.
Through this paper, the author wishes to highlight awareness
regarding the prevalence of PEDs and the ignorance that the general public has
about their athletes. He feels that resisting PEDs is a zero-sum game which
would result in the loss of millions of dollars and still provide no concrete
solution to this conundrum. Therefore, he urges the general public to become
more receptive of PEDs, this will allow our athletes to come clean with their
PED usage and engage in doctor supervision.
Reference
Hematocrit: The ratio
of red blood cells to the total volume of blood
