Anti-doping and a level playing field

PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT has been the quest of mankind from the dawn of civilisation. Used mainly in war, substances were administered to soldiers to increase alertness and aggression. Sport is another area where performance enhancement provides great rewards. With increasing financial gain and fame, it was inevitable that athletes would do whatever possible to optimise their performances.

Performance enhancement is done to improve all aspects of one’s physique; Strengthening muscles, improved oxygen carrying capacity to the muscles, proper nutrition providing adequate fuels to the muscles, proper recovery techniques to allow the body to be ready for action quickly (e.g. rehydration) and improved biomechanics to increase efficiency. For example, 1.7% dehydration decreased speed in cyclists by just less than two seconds. This was the difference between first and last place! There is also the enhancement of mental preparedness as well through sport psychology techniques. These are all legitimate methods. Then there is doping.

In competitive sport, doping is the use of banned athletic performance-enhancing drugs (or methods) by athletic competitors. History is replete with examples for centuries of persons taking concoctions that were said to improve performance. Long-distance running events, even in large world games, had persons being handed substances to improve their endurance during the event.

The use of synthesised anabolic steroids was introduced in the 1950s. These were designed to increase muscle mass and make an athlete stronger and faster. Being synthesised, their potency became enhanced and ability to be detected diminished. The manufacturers were a step ahead of the detectors. For endurance events, methods like blood doping where one takes and stores their own blood and reinjects it before an event to increase oxygen carrying capacity started being replaced by taking substances that would increase blood production within the body itself.

Things came to a head in 1988 when 100m champion Ben Johnson was stripped of his title in the Seoul Olympics as he tested positive for stanozolol, a banned anabolic steroid. His banning and defamation is well documented. Jamaica’s Grace Jackson could consider herself unlucky to have won a silver in the same Olympic games as a cloud remains over the gold medallist till today. What may not be remembered is that Carl Lewis had tested positive at the US qualifying event before those Olympics but was let off by his Olympic Association as they deemed that he inadvertently took banned substances so it wasn’t his fault. Not that this was the first time a blind eye was turned to doping. The Eastern German, Russian and Chinese programmes were famous for use of doping in Olympics. Even the West German football teams were suspected to be involved.

The disparity in standards, coupled with increased cry about an unlevel playing field, led to the formation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999, in preparation for the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney. Set up as the watchdog against doping, it set rules with a zero-tolerance policy. Any athlete found violating these rules would be charged by their respective national sporting body. While good in principle, this has still led to disparate punishment.

The WADA code was very Eurocentric and immediately had persons questioning why alcohol, for example, was permitted while cannabinoids, which did not have any proven performance-enhancing qualities, were banned. Persons writing the codes explicitly spoke of their biases in this regard which made many uncomfortable. Countries and sporting organisations ended up having to adopt the code at the risk of not competing at world events. Imposition of national policy superseded particular sports. The 2003 World Cup of Cricket in South Africa was held under the South African Anti-Doping Commission guidelines even though the International Cricket Council (ICC) had not formulated their own code. It was because of this that Shane Warne was caught with a diuretic that he claims his mother gave him to trim him down. That led to a one-year suspension and he fell out of the race with Muttiah Muralitharan to become the world’s highest wicket-taker.

The same year, the Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO) was formed. Whereas the rest of the Caribbean went with a Regional Anti-Doping Commission, Jamaica decided to do it alone. Its formation involved persons with very little knowledge and insight in sports being asked to run a complex organisation and it was not a surprise that they got into a tangle and had to be systematically replaced. Many who were involved at an international level with anti-doping programmes were curiously not included. Even though local expertise existed, it was not called upon.

To its credit, JADCO maintained a zero-tolerance policy, such that athletes who inadvertently took contaminated supplements were punished, Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce who was given a banned painkiller by her coaching staff was suspended, a national netballer who received medication by uninformed specialist for an unrelated medical problem ended up being banned, and all others caught were shown no mercy. Andre Russell was punished for repeatedly not being present when they arrived for testing. Many legal suits have followed allowing persons like Veronica Campbell-Brown to be vindicated. However, the zero-tolerance vigilance remained constant. It is based on these standards that one will keenly watch how JADCO will deal with their own mismanagement of testing at the recent Carifta games, that robbed Jamaica of a world record.

But the zero-tolerance policy and meting out of strict punishment seems to waver from country to country. Many sprinters, especially from the USA, seem to get lighter sentences, which are conveniently timed around world games and see their athletes return to sport earlier than in other countries. Though WADA has successfully listed banned substances, by leaving the punishment open to local organisations the field may not be as level as everyone thinks.

Sport Pulse will look at details of the anti-doping programmes and what it entails in a practical manner in future columns.

Sport Pulse and Sport Matters are fortnightly columns highlighting advances that impact Sport. We look forward to your continued readership.

Dr Akshai Mansingh is Dean, Faculty of Sport, UWI. He can be reached at akshai.mansingh@uwi.edu