There may be some rain (and doping)
scheduled for this year’s Olympic parade, writes Nick van der Leek
So the countdown continues to the opening
ceremony at 8 minutes past 8, on the 8th of the 8th,
2008. Even the Chinese are resorting to
luck to guard against air pollution, terrorism and other possible
nuisances.
45 athletes from 11 countries have already
been ruled out of this year’s Olympics – for doping or other
contraventions. This includes about a
dozen Greek weightlifters, and the entire Bulgarian weightlifting squad, and a
smattering of swimmers, fencers, cyclists and runners. Three of these are Chinese athletes: Song
Hongjuan (a race walker), Ouyang Kunpeng (swimming) and the wrestler Luo Meng.
The American swimmer Jessica Hardy has attracted a lot of attention so
far. She had a positive test for
clenbuterol – an agent which increases muscle protein and is prohibited as an
anabolic agent. Clenbuterol is prescribed to treat asthma (and Nevertheless, there are restrictions on these banned substances. Albuterol, for example, may not exceed 1,000 nanograms per millilitre. Some writers postulate that asthmatics may try to ‘stay just below the limit, say at 990’.
The result of this is that at least 10% of
swimmers applying for exemption were found not to be asthma suffers. L.A. Times:After doing a series of articles in 1993 that used
statistical anomalies to suggest strongly that China's performances in women's
swimming owed to doping, I weighed the opinion of Chinese officials who said
such analysis owed to Western ignorance of Chinese culture. In 1994, Chinese
swim stars began testing positive in droves.”
Whilst the uneducated TV audiences cry
foul, the point is, it is well nigh impossible to draw a line in the
increasingly grey space that exists between what is considered to be doping,
and what isn’t. It’s also apparent that
in the modern era, the average person uses artificial means to conduct their
affairs more effectively (from aspirin to quell stress headaches to caffeine to
hold back fatigue). Lines are drawn, but
the pharmaceutical environment is changing so rapidly, that morphing on both
sides of the line means that revisions need to made far more frequently.
The intention ought to be to encourage
performance, not to engage excessively in finding ways to prevent athletes from
taking part (as in the Hardy example).
While Hersh cynically queries Torres’ asthma diagnosis 18 months ago
(admittedly quite late for a 41 year old 5 time Olympian), the flip side of the
coin is that all the athletes who compete at the Olympics, or the Tour de
France, or any other major event, have to work hard against stiff
competition. You don’t get to that level
by sitting on the couch and ingesting drugs.
Personally I feel the authorities that adjudicate ought to take a
balanced view, and on merit, each individual case. Once again, the intention ought to be to find
ways to allow the athlete to perform, not to seek to punish or ban them
unnecessarily.
One of the reasons for this is the sheer
complexity of administering doping controls. (writing for Slate+) asks:
“What counts as artificial? Training at high altitude boosts your
red-blood-cell count; the code says it would be absurd to ban this practice
just because it enhances performance. Yet the IOC bars athletes…from using hypobaric
tents, which simulate high-altitude air…Athletes from flat countries say they
need the tents to match the conditioning of athletes from mountainous
countries…If Mohammed can't go to the mountain, why shouldn't the mountain come
to Mohammed?”
Saletan also queries blanket prohibitions
on "exogenous" (synthesized outside the body) performance enhancers
rather than “endogenous." He quite
correctly points to the use of ‘autologous’ blood, which is endogenous, it is in
fact ‘synthesized by the organism’, except it’s banned.
Saletan goes on to ridicule what he calls
‘nonsensical’ rules that differ from sport to sport. “In billiards,” Saletan writes, “you're
allowed two-tenths of a gram of alcohol per liter of blood. In power-boating,
you're allowed three-tenths. At a quarter of a gram per liter, you're sober
enough to operate a flying death machine but not a cue stick.” Saletan also cites
odd (and shifting) alcohol levels for skiing and motorcycling.
I reiterate: the
intention ought to be to allow the athlete to perform, not to seek to punish or
ban them unnecessarily. And the vital
question to ask is: “What harm does it do?”
While the above might seem to constitute an
almost blasphemous statement, consider South Africa ’s
‘blade runner’ Oscar Pistorius. The
double amputee would not be able to run at all without the use of artificial
limbs, carbon fibre blades known – ironically - as Cheetahs. Pistorius challenged a decision to ban his
participation at this year’s Olympics, and won the appeal. Unfortunately it has turned out to be moot,
as he was unable to run the 400m in the 45.55 Olympic qualifying time (he ran a
46.25).
Pistorius’ case is useful. It illustrates that what we want to see, and
experience, is the excitement of human beings pursuing excellence. That his artificial limbs put him in the
ballpark (rather than far ahead or behind) of a standard of excellence only
makes his participation more compelling.
But there is no question, Pistorius has an artificial advantage that
allows him to compete and nevertheless he should compete.
In the same way, all other athletes ought
to have the benefit of the doubt, unless the infringement is gross. Gross infringements would include the use of
substances that are obviously detrimental to human health, and certain acts of
subterfuge aimed at masking the abuse of substances.
A list of banned substances should be
updated on a regular basis, and specifically for events like the Olympics,
coaches and athletes competing for events ought to specify which substances are
being consumed (or blood samples voluntarily supplied) well in advance of the
event in order to ascertain a possible violation. A violation ought to have a concurrent
opportunity to remove the substance from the system.
Unfortunately, the level of competition is
so extremely high, that the likes of Marion Jones and Floyd Landis have
appeared. The onus ought to be on
athletes also to take responsibility for crossing the line by mistake. What then, to do about the obvious liars and
cheats? Landis, who won a Tour de
France, defended exhaustively a positive test for testosterone – a process he
finally lost effectively bankrupting the cyclist.
Meanwhile, five Russian track and field
Olympians (now ex-Olympians) have recently been suspended by the IAAF. Two of the five caught swapping urine samples
included Yelena Soboleva and double world champion Tatyana Tomashova. This was an obvious effort to beat doping
controls, and Soboleva and Tomashova were both gold medal candidates. In cases
such as these, of willful violation, lifelong bans ought to be introduced. This is something like the death penalty for
sport – intended as a deterrent.
In Athens Beijing 8pm .
+The nonsense of Olympic doping rules
*Article titled: Dara
Torres hype hides doping questions
Another View: In London, the world is seeing a sprinter doing things that no one has done before, in terms of both his leg-swing times and his personal perseverance.
"What Oscar has done represents for a lot of people an unwillingness to accept expectations others might impose on you," Weyand says. "And that part is inspiring and makes you feel great about human nature."
On that, all can agree.
Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/olympics/2012/writers/david_epstein/08/03/oscar-pistorius-london-olympics/index.html#ixzz2LOz1fpgA
No comments:
Post a Comment