Dope testing in sports: a bad idea
Go Home.
Articles
. . . Dope testing in sports: a bad idea ___ Olympic Games (TM) page
Dope testing in sports: a bad idea
I heard an interesting interview on 27 June 01 at about 2:15 AM on Radio Netherlands on the World Radio Network on CBC Radio 1, with Johann Steinberger, a Sports Philosopher. He believes that there should be no monitoring of, and control over, what drugs or substances athletes take by sports bodies, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC). I agree fully with his views. I shall summarize them here [in maroon, even though they are paraphrased by me], and expand upon them [in brackets, in black]. I think that he and I are in a small minority of those who are opposed to such drug testing in any form.
He argues that the primary aim of events such as the Olympics is ostensibly to test who can perform an athletic stunt the best -- i.e., faster, higher, etc. If a drug will enhance such performance, then by definition, restricting such competitions to those who take no drugs cannot determine the best performer. [For a comprehensive listing of such restricted drugs (including Coca-Cola (a major sponsor, ironically), steroids, and coffee), see IOC below or http://www.olympic.org/.] To those who object that the aim of the Olympics is not just best performance in the stunts, but that the IOC is concerned with the health of athletes, he offers the comments that: (a) the IOC awards prizes for running fastest, not being healthier; and, (b) neither the IOC nor sponsoring countries are concerned about health effects: otherwise they would not sponsor or encourage such events, because such events and the preparation for them are definitely harmful to the athlete's health, apart from any question of drug use. [I cite as one example the fact that high-performance swimmers are at markedly increased risk of acquiring asthma. See Asthma in swimming pools below. I have also seen a picture of a sprinter in his first or second step out of the starting gate who had exerted so much pressure on his leg that he had broken the lower bone in his leg in half, and it was jutting out through his skin. I have seen videos of several major-league pitchers breaking an arm throwing a fastball. It smarts, judging by their screams and writhings!]
To those who maintain that the aim of drug testing is to create a level playing field of equal opportunity for the athletes, he objects that this aim is not only invalid and unreasonable, but is unobtainable. In order to be closer to its attainment, we would also need to restrict many other aspects of the athlete's preparation, not just drug use. For example: practice times, types of equipment, extent of coaching and physical and financial facilities afforded. Even with many restrictions there can be no level playing field, and for one simple reason: genetics. High-performance athletes are high performers due in no small part to their genetic inheritance. Why pretend that all people have an equal chance to win a gold medal? [It is an irrational dream!]
To those who argue that athletes should undergo drug testing because they serve as role models, he retorts that athletes should not be role models. Why should we make a role model of an athlete just because he can run fast? By virtue of winning a gold medal, he is not a role model for how to achieve good health -- or anything else, for that matter -- by virtue of being able to run fast. In fact, he has probably hampered his health. Just because one has done something superlative in one particular field does not mean that one should serve as a role model, especially if it pertains to a different field of endeavor. [I would go further, and argue that such athletes serve, in a way, as negative role models. I think it does a great disservice to young persons to encourage or support them in a life in which they spend six hours a day for four years in mindless training to perform a stunt at the next Olympics, in which the odds against winning gold, and a consequent career, are 100,000 to 1. Apart from the detrimental health effects of such a regimen, what does such training offer that could allow the person to attain a job of higher intellectual effort than that of digging ditches by hand? In fact, why is not digging ditches an Olympic event? It would be very appropriate indeed! I think that society harms itself by encouraging such high admiration of athletes. In my view, the ability to play a reasonably good game of chess or to design a basic video game is of far more significance and importance, and far more worthy of respect, than winning a gold medal at running. After, all, horses and rats run fast too! So what?]
He feels that if athletes do take drugs, they should do so under medical supervision, so as not too endanger their health. A common assumption is that performance-enhancing drugs are harmful to health. He states that this is false. To the contrary, many of such drugs, including some steroids, are beneficial to health.
As to the question of government cooperation with such control measures, he argues that government should keep hands off.
He feels that the next stage beyond drug use will be genetic manipulation.
I have following concerns additional to those set out above, linked to other parts of my Web site:
(See my letters to the editor Ban the Olympics and Ban the Olympic Games, and my Olympic Games (TM) page.)
(a) The IOC policy of drug testing invades the privacy of athletes and, by publicly announcing and publishing such results, violates the privacy of the athlete's medical records. It is all in keeping with the mentality that supports the fight against so-called drug abuse. See Drug wars below, and The Nouveau Puritanism of the anti-smoking zealots, in which I agree with our former Privacy Commissioner, Bruce Philips, that, for example, Ben Johnson should never have been penalized for using steroids.
(b) The IOC serves as a foreign, undemocratic, power, invading and usurping the sovereignty of the host country.
(c) Olympic events and facilities are a colossal waste of money.
(d) The Olympic games serve as a poor role model for preparing young people for life in the modern world, in that is stunts their ability** to contribute anything useful to society, and hampers their ability to get a useful and meaningful job. [** The athletes spend many hours of mindless training instead of studying and learning new things that could be of help to themselves and to society. I see no intrinsic value in being able to run fast, nor in spending thousands of hours in preparing to do so. In fact, I consider the latter to be idiotic!]
(e) It is illogical for society to help impose drug testing in the field of athletics. If such restrictions had been imposed in other fields, such as literature, art, science, politics, acting, and singing, society would be far poorer for it. Some of those people drink too much coffee (a restricted substance) or brandy to quieten nerves (many solo musical performers). The committee for the awarding of Nobel Prizes does not, to my knowledge, impose drug tests! It would be rather ironic if the inventor of dynamite objected to the idea that applied chemistry could help society!
(f) The IOC mentality in relation to the abuse of human rights helps support the devastatingly harmful, futile, and expensive war on drugs being foisted upon the world by the USA, with Canada as an all-too-willing accomplice. See Drug wars below.
Performance-enhancing surgery: another bugaboo for the IOC to test for? (Continuation of above article.)
Why is there such a great emphasis by the sporting bureaucracies on the use of drugs? Presumably, because the athletes can take drugs on their own. But what of other measures which might enhance performance? Why do they seem to be given so little, if any, attention? I heard an interview with a physician from the University of Utrecht on Radio Netherlands, via World Radio Network, CBC Radio 1, at about 1:20 am, 6 July 01, concerning what I would deem to be performance-enhancing surgery being performed on athletes -- particularly bicyclists. A professional bicyclist flexes his hip eight million times in a lifetime. That can lead to a kink in a major artery in the upper leg near the hip, with a consequent impairment of high-volume blood flow to the leg. This condition is enough to end a career, and therefore, a livelihood. The condition can also occur in non-athletes; however, it is not really a problem for most them because they do not impose such extensive demands upon their bodies as do athletes. This is just another example, to me, of how exercise can be damaging to health! His clinic performs operations on such athletes to adjust the support mechanism of the artery, such that there is no longer the kink in it. I would characterize this as performance-enhancing surgery. If the IOC is so concerned about using unnatural measures to enhance performance, why does it not object to not only the use of drugs, but to performance-enhancing surgery?
The link given on the air by Radio Netherlands was as follows, but, after a visit to it, you will find that is not quite the right one!
IOC's Home On The Web: http://www.ioc.org International Outreach Center is a local church with an international vision. A vision to reach the lost and hurting with the saving, healing and delivering POWER of the Gospel of Jesus Christ . . . This IOC would also probably be all in favor of drug testing!
http://www.ioc.com also seems to lead to the same place as above -- or should I say heavens above!
IOC - Official sites of the International Olympic Committee: http://www.olympic.org/ For all the dope on dope, see WADA .
Bread Not Circuses: http://www.breadnotcircuses.org/home.html a coalition of groups concerned about Toronto's 2008 olympic bid. [For concerned, read against.]
Asthma in swimming pools: http://www.isrm.co.uk/105.htm “Swimming in indoor pools is excellent exercise for asthmatics.” This is the conventional wisdom of aquatic organisations, asthmatic societies, paediatricians and many chest physicians. However, there are now an increasing number of chest physicians and occupational physicians (including some who specialise in respiratory ailments) who are willing to say that a swimming pool atmosphere may cause (not just trigger) asthma. Either because of the presence of a sensitiser in the pool atmosphere or irritant(s) or both.
House of Lords: http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld199899/ldjudgmt/jd990722/modahl.htm Judgments - Modahl v. British Athletic Federation Limited. . . .
Diane Modahl is a well known British international athlete. On 6 Sep 94 she was suspended from competition by the British Athletic Federation ("BAF") because of an allegation that she had breached Rule 24(5)(a) of its Rules for Competition by committing the offence of doping. After a hearing before the Disciplinary Committee on 13 Dec 94 she was found guilty. But her appeal to an Independent Appeal Panel was successful. On 26 July 95 the finding of the Disciplinary Committee was set aside. The Panel held that there was a reasonable doubt as to whether the laboratory test on her urine sample which had given a positive result was reliable. She was reinstated. Now she is suing the BAF for damages. She alleges that her suspension and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings were in breach of the contract between her and the BAF. This was constituted by its Rules, read against the background of those of the International Amateur Athletic Federation ("IAAF") to which it is affiliated. She claims damages for the financial loss she suffered because for nearly a year she was unable to compete in international athletics. . . .
My Lords, I break off the narrative at this point to explain why Mrs. Modahl alleges that LADB was not at the time an accredited laboratory. Although it was on the IOC list of officially accredited laboratories, she says that it had moved its premises without notifying the IOC or IAAF. This is alleged to have vitiated its accredited status. . . .
Mr. Donaldson Q.C., who appeared for Mrs. Modahl, submitted that a laboratory which had changed its premises was in some deep ontological sense no longer the laboratory which had been accredited. But why should this particular attribute should be regarded as essential to its identity? . . .
I would therefore dismiss the appeal.
TIME May The Best Drug Win!: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/1998/int/980810/cover_story__.may_the_be14.html The Tour de France is in a shambles and the I.O.C. is red-faced. What can be done to stop substance abuse? . . .
Lawyers have been playing an increasing role in sport since German sprinter Katrin Krabbe was suspended for four years for taking the banned drug clenbuterol in 1992. In 1995 she successfully sued the International Amateur Athletic Federation in a Munich civil court. It ruled that a four-year penalty was too long a restriction, given an athlete's short career. . . .
Part of the problem is that many of the substances being used occur naturally in the body. These include human-growth hormone (HGH) and one of the substances police seized during this year's Tour, EPO, or erythropoietin, which is used properly to treat anemia, . . .
Another indication of athletes' attitudes is an informal survey conducted every two years since 1982 by Bob Goldman, president of the National Academy of Sports Medicine in Chicago. He asks Olympic-level U.S. athletes: If you were offered an illegal substance that guaranteed you would win and not be caught, would you take it? In 1995, 195 of 198 athletes said yes. Asked if they would take a banned substance that would enable them to win every competition for five years but then kill them, more than half the athletes said yes.** "With the money athletes can make, the kids don't really care about taking drugs," says Goldman.
** I think that the so-called problem is not that athletes take drugs, but : (a) that the IOC tests for drugs; and, (b) the over-glorification of athletics. Why should the fastest runner in the world get a gold medal and $10 million, whereas the best high-school teacher gets a handshake and a $50 wall plaque? What society considers to be important sometimes reflects badly upon society! That is why I am not in favor of referendums.
Argosynet Sports: http://argosy.mta.ca/argosy99-00/03.30.00/sports/sports5.htm Steroids and What Not, by Mark Elton. Where do you draw the line when it comes to performance enhancing drugs? If you can use Creatine, what stops you from moving on to the "bigger and better" drugs? . . . Some advocate a "Steroid Olympics," where no restrictions exist on what athletes can do to enhance their training. Any technology may be used. . . . It may be, that fifty years from now, the world will look back on our opposition to performance-enhancement drugs as silly and arbitrary. But what does the future hold? Performance-enhancing surgery? Muscle and tendon implants could improve strength and flexibility. How about drilling out heel bones and inserting springs? . . . More relevant today are the possibilities surrounding genetic engineering; . . .
Why are professional athletes paid, in some cases, millions of dollars? Because they are the best at what they do? That only explains the relative difference in salaries of professional athletes of varying skill. It does not account for the relative differences between the salaries of the best professional basketball player in North America and, say, the best high school teacher.
Indiana Invaders - Track & Field Club: http://www.indianainvaders.com/meets/registration.shtml 2001 Meet Registration Form. . . . By completing this meet registration form and clicking submit you agree to assume all risks associated in your voluntary participation in this event. You agree to waive all rights to sue and WAIVE, RELEASE AND DISCHARGE the Indiana Invaders, all sponsors, volunteers, for ANY AND ALL claims or liability. You further grant full permission to sponsors, organizers, and/or agents authorized by them, to use any photographs, videotapes, motion pictures, recordings, or other record of the event for any reasonable purpose.
Slashdot Olympic Committee Cracks Down On Domain Owners: http://www.slashdot.org/articles/00/07/14/0554230.shtml 14 July 01. RollingThunder writes: "The Globe and Mail has a story about the International Olympic Committee suing to have 1,800 domains removed. All the domains contain the words 'Olympic', 'Olympics', or 'Olympiad', and variations thereof like '2004olimpics.com'. Interesting that they're going after the DNS hierarchy (the lawsuit is filed in Alexandria, Va.) rather than the daunting task of going after the domain owners themselves."
Another example of the overwhelming self-righteousness of the IOC, and why the IOC sets a poor ethical standard for society!
The following offers an introduction to, and criticism of, the War on drugs. I might augment this later and turn it into a separate page. I consider the War on drugs to be not only a failure in practice and a direct threat to human rights, but a quasi-religiously inspired moral crusade that is, itself, immoral. It is a major reason why society must be ever vigilant in its limiting of the imposition of religiously inspired belief, the chief defining characteristic of which is faith, i.e., irrationality, i.e., delusion.
The logic of this Holy War escapes me. It is said by its supporters to be a war against drug abuse. If one is taking an aspirin a day (on doctor's advice), one is taking a drug. Is this drug abuse? Perhaps taking 20 aspirins a day would be! If one is smoking a few joints of marijuana a day, is this drug abuse? Or is it drug use? The promoters of the Holy War do not seem to know the difference. What moral imperative inspires these zealous crusaders to worry so much about why a neighbor is taking an aspirin a day or smoking a few joints per day? If we were to legalize the joints, the supposed problem would go away. So would an illicit industry of drug trafficking. Have these crusaders not stopped to think why there is no illicit trade in the sale of aspirin (except for the unrelated question of patent infringement -- a separate issue)?
National - Special Report Losing the War on Drugs - Ottawa Citizen Online: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/national/drugs/000905/4090140.html Why the War on Drugs has failed. Uncle Sam's global campaign to end drug abuse has empowered criminals, corrupted governments and eroded liberty, but still there are more addicts than ever before. Dan Gardner, The Ottawa Citizen.
On June 6, 1998, a surprising letter was delivered to Kofi Annan, secretary general of the United Nations. "We believe," the letter declared, "that the global war on drugs is now causing more harm than drug abuse itself."
The letter was signed by statesmen, politicians, academics and other public figures. Former UN secretary general Javier Perez de Cuellar signed. So did George Shultz, the former American secretary of state, and Joycelyn Elders, the former American surgeon general. Nobel laureates such as Milton Friedman and Argentina's Adolfo Perez Esquivel added their names. Four former presidents and seven former cabinet ministers from Latin American countries signed. And several eminent Canadians were among the signatories.
The drug policies the world has been following for decades are a destructive failure, they said. Trying to stamp out drug abuse by banning drugs has only created an illegal industry worth $400 billion U.S. "or roughly eight per cent of international trade." The letter continued: "This industry has empowered organized criminals, corrupted governments at all levels, eroded internal security, stimulated violence, and distorted both economic markets and moral values." And it concluded that these were the consequences "not of drug use per se, but of decades of failed and futile drug war policies." . . .
. . . a large and growing number of world leaders and experts think the war on drugs is nothing less than a humanitarian disaster.
Yet, governments are all but unanimous in supporting drug prohibition . . .
A SOCIETY OF SUSPECTS: THE WAR ON DRUGS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-180.html by Steven Wisotsky. Steven Wisotsky is a professor of law at Nova University, in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and is the author of many studies on drug law and policy including Beyond the War on Drugs (1990). He is also a member of the advisory board of the Drug Policy Foundation in Washington, D.C.
Every friend of freedom . . . must be as revolted as I am by the prospect of turning the U.S. into an armed camp, by the vision of jails filled with casual drug users and of an army of enforcers empowered to invade the liberty of citizens on slight evidence. -- Milton Friedman
On December 15, 1991, America celebrated the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. On October 2, 1992, we mark the 10th anniversary of an antithetical undertaking--the War on Drugs, declared by President Reagan in 1982 and aggressively escalated by President Bush in 1989. This country's Founders would be disappointed with what we have done to their legacy of liberty: The War on Drugs, by its very nature, is a war on the Bill of Rights.
When the Founders rebelled against British tyranny, they grounded their cause in a belief in the natural rights of the individual and the Enlightenment ideas of progress through reason. . . .
With the War on Drugs, however, the wisdom of the Founders has been cast aside. In their shortsighted zeal to create a "Drug-Free America" by 1995, our political leaders -- state and federal, elected and appointed -- have acted as though the end justifies the means, repudiating our heritage of limited government and individual freedoms while endowing the bureaucratic state with unprecedented powers. . . .
This is a devastating and detailed critique of the disaster of the invasion of human rights being foisted upon societies by the War on drugs in an irrational obsession with the supposed evils of drug use and political correctness. It is empowered to a great degree by the religious zeal of a holier-than-thou attitude reminiscent of the Spanish Inquisition. The irrational quasi-religious beliefs inherent in this crusade, backed by the political and military power of the religious forces in America, constitute a direct threat to human rights worldwide.
A call to end the war on drugs: http://www.november.org/0203.html by G. Patrick Callahan, Prisoner of War in America. November Coalition News. "Many criminologists have begun to ponder the unthinkable: that the criminal justice system itself, rather than guarding the peace, contributes to social instability in America." The Real War on Crime, from the Report of the National Criminal Justice Commission, Harper Perennial Press, 1996. . . .
You can e-mail me at waynerp@sympatico.ca