The year drugs came first | Prescription Drugs

The year drugs came first

The best gift in sport’s Christmas stocking was the report this month that officially took the wrapping off US baseball’s worst-kept secret – the drug culture at its core.

Former senator George Mitchell’s document laid bare what most had long suspected, as spectators had begun to need tin hats as the home runs rained down on them.

He revealed claims of widespread doping in the game

'pumping iron' out of a syringe

for a decade, and named stars such as Barry Bonds among 78 players who had taken performance-enhancing substances.

Bonds was the talk all summer, as he swung his way to the all-time home-run record, because of suspicions that he had taken steroids. He will again hit the headlines in February when he is due in court charged with obstructing justice and perjury. The San Francisco slugger is alleged to have lied to federal investigators about drug use. He denies the charges and also ever knowingly to have taken banned substances.

The Mitchell report, which should help propel US sport even further from its previously lax attitude towards pharmaceutical aids, was one of a number of welcome victories against doping during 2007. Athlete Marion Jones was stripped of her five medals from the 2000 Sydney Olympics after finally confessing to taking steroids. Cycling also clobbered the cheats, with the Tour de France seeming to have more star riders withdrawing for drug-related reasons than it had mountain climbs. And at home this month came the news that Britain is setting up an independent anti-doping agency, free to pursue its role without fear or favour.

Mitchell’s document, together with the case of British runner Christine Ohuruogu, also prompted re-examination of a wider issue. This broader question is the debate about doping and drug-testing generally in sport. Some academics and observers have argued that it is time to give up the fight against drugs as a hopeless cause, and legalise their use. Their arguments, which strike me as naive and alien to the very soul of sport, are as follows:

●Doping is so widespread that it is a waste of time trying to combat it.

The same argument could be made about crimes such as rape or insider-trading. Both are difficult to prove and secure convictions on, but that does not mean a civilised society shrugs, sighs and legalises them.

●Drugs that are not harmful to athletes’ health should be legalised to create a level playing field.

Dangerous side-effects of pharmaceuticals are often not revealed until after they have entered general use. And testing would have to continue even if such a “safe” drug framework were allowed. Sportsmen and women have long known the risks of taking steroids and inducing high counts of red blood cells – the ghastly bodily changes suffered by former Soviet bloc athletes, for example, and the incidence of early death among professional cyclists. They are prepared to take those risks in order to claim the rich rewards of winning, so why would they not continue to cheat and gain an advantage by using dangerous drugs under a “safe” regime?

●Scientists will always come up with substances for which there is no test. For example, gene doping – absorbing genes that boost muscular growth – looms ever closer.

But anti-doping agencies do not stand still either. They develop techniques for detecting the previously undetectable drug. The investigation into the Balco scandal, which has brought Bonds and Jones before the courts, resulted from a test being devised for tetrahydrogestrinone, the wonder steroid developed by the San Francisco company.

●Drugs produce a better spectacle – the idea that forever faster, higher, longer is the only thrill to be had from sport.

This goes right to the essence of sport; whether it is only the next “wow” moment that matters – longer hits, faster tennis serves, world records continually broken – or whether competition based on talent, skill, intelligence and dedication lies at its heart. This is the freak show versus truly human endeavour.

In reaction to the Mitchell report, some marketing men argued, with a certain justification, that “fans just want to see home runs”. But eventually the law of diminishing returns would come into play. “Oh, there goes the home-run record again – ho hum.” It is the comparative rarity of world records that makes them special.

Those who really do think drugs are good for sport need only look at athletics and cycling. Any outstanding achievement in either is met with cynicism. Athletics is hugely diminished in terms of media coverage and spectator interest, and cycling sponsors have voted with their feet. T-Mobile and US insurance group Liberty openly withdrew because they did not wish to be associated with the sport any longer, and others have quietly not renewed.

Sport may be the modern opium of the masses, but I suspect that most fans want their heroes to reflect the best of the human spirit – not the best of the chemistry laboratory.

http://www.ft.com

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry