Okay, I was just flipping through my recent copy of Triathlete Magazine when I came across yet another point-counter point article on doping. I figured I would weigh-in with my opinion on my own web site, where I have enough space to really exbound on my ideas. I am thoroughly anti-doping, but I intend on making an argument based on sound ideas, not just emontion, so here goes.
First, a rehashing of what has already been said in favor of legalizing drug use:
A lot of the “proponents of drug use in sport” say that the problem with drugs is not the drug itself, it is the tag of “illegal”. They claim that the real problem is that these drugs (such as erythropoeitin, or anabolic steroids) are not regulated efficiently to prevent athlete deaths because they are illegal. These drug proponents also say that it is the label of shame that is dropped on a sport when an athlete is caught/charged with using drugs (Barry Bonds for example, or more strikingly Lance Armstrong with Cycling). The final argument is typically that athletes who wish to dope will always find a way to dope, regardless of testing.
First, drug proponents often use a “Regulation over Prohibition” argument, saying that it would be easier and safer to regulate a legal drug than an illegal drug. Sudafed is legal, does that stop people from crushing it up and making methamphetamine? No. These athletes are abusing drugs when their use is illegal. If you can convince yourself that winning is worth doing something illegal, do you think you would refrain from doing more of something legal to win? It would be like telling a professional Ironman athlete they could only work out 30 hours a week or they will be disqualified. Everybody who is abusing illegal EPO would continue to abuse legal EPO. EPO deaths are not occuring from tainted drugs, they are happening from abuse, plain and simple. Making it legal would only make it more available. This is a thinly veiled attempt at making this argument sound like it has the athlete’s best interests at heart for health reasons.
Second, the “Label of Shame” position states that it is not drugs themselves that ruin a sport, but the public scrutiny of those who use drugs. Nobody ever told people to stop watching the Tour de France because of the Lance Armstrong/Floyd Landis doping controversy, our wondeful public illustrated their position on this argument very clearly. They turned off Le Tour. The general athletic public is of the opinion that performance enhancing drugs are a bane to sport, and they don’t want to watch drug-hyped athletes. The “Label of Shame” exists not because these drugs are illegal, but because the public views their use as shameful.
The last typical argument is the “Impossible Fight” argument, where these drug-use proponents say that it is just too difficult, too costly, too time consuming to carry on with drug screening. Cost may be prohibitive to some, but a basic drug screen costs about $20 per test, I was recently drug-tested for school as a requirement and I had to pay $18 for a laboratory to do my testing. $30 catches more performance enhancing drugs, and if you want to go all-out you can test for nearly everything for $80 per test. Initial positives are backed up with a confirmation test, which drives the cost up a bit, but only if you have a lot of dopers. Say you run a local triathlon and you want to randomly test one of the top three finishers from the following divisions (Elite Male, Elite Female, M20-24, F20-24, M25-29, F25-29, M30-34, F30-34, M35-39, F35-39, M40-45, F40-45). That is 12 tests, which costs between $240 and $960. Assuming you have 400 contestants, this raises the entry fee per person by between $0.60 and $2.40. Want to test all of the top three in those divisions? $1.80-$9.60. If the race has 2,000 participants like many of the Ironman and 70.3 events the cost is hardly prohibitive to test these athletes. I only picked the typically largest age groups, but you can see that the math works out. What about how time consuming these tests are? Not at all. The athlete has to pee in a cup, big deal. The organizers don’t have to wait for the results of the test to announce winners and hand out plaques or whatever. If checks are involved, they will be mailed pending the results of the drug screening. With everything being computerized nowadays it is easy to change the results of a race with a few clicks to move somebody to the DQ list. Lastly, is it too difficult? Sure, testing athletes for performance enhancing drugs is difficult, but last I checked so is completing a triathlon. Should we give up because something is difficult?
Now I get to make a few points of my own. Your reason for not using performance enhancing drugs should depend on your situation. If you are a professional athlete, who makes a living off of your performance on one single day, you may be tempted to dope. Your livelihood depends on your performance. Do you want to risk your job? Consider the ramifications of being caught. From a monetary standpoint there is the fact that your winnings will be stripped for that race, and you will probably be banned from further competition. Performance enhancing drugs take money out of the professional athlete’s pocket. Also, if you are a professional or otherwise, consider the “Label of Shame”. I have yet to see an athlete say, with squared shoulders and an upturned chin, “Yes, I am a doper, and proud of it!”
What about the age grouper who just wants to stay healthy? Doping should not even be on the radar for this athlete. Doping is about as unhealthy as you can get. Just check these links out for EPO, anabolic steroids, and amphetamines. The end resultof abusing these drugs is death.
Lastly, an important argument that I have not seen made before in popular publication is relationship between success and other’s use of performance enhancing drugs. I call this the ”Inspirational User”. The Inspirational User may be a user for whatever reason; they may be a professional who races for money, they may be an average person who just wants to be faster than their friends so they can have a bit of admiration. The problem is that we all inspire others, no matter how we perform. The Inspirational User, like most users, has rationalized their drug abuse. Sorry to those few athletes who may have been doped by trainers, most of the abusers knew and made some convoluted logic up to justify what they were doing. The problem is when this Inspirational User convinces a friend, family member, co-worker, training partner or anyone else to do a sport. They are the role model, and as such they are the gateway for others’ use of drugs. The use of anabolic steroids in high school athletes is skyrocketing, and can the kids really be blamed when their successful role models are shown to be abusing performance enhancing drugs?
Okay, that’s my soapbox. Want some more light reading on doping? Check here.
