Rio 2016: Faster, higher, stronger… from Ben Johnson to Lance Armstrong and Tyson Gay
After systematic doping in Russia was exposed by the World Anti-Doping Agency, SunSport got the low-down on drug use in sport on the eve of the Olympics
FROM Ben Johnson to Lance Armstrong, to Tyson Gay.
After the systematic doping in Russia was exposed by the World Anti-Doping Agency, SunSport got the low-down on drug use in sport from Prof Chris Cooper, professor of biochemistry at the University of Essex and author of the book ‘Run, Swim, Throw, Cheat’.
DO THE DOPING METHODS VARY DEPENDING ON THE SPORT?
Yes indeed. Put simply, explosive sports benefit from anabolic steroids, endurance sports benefit from blood doping.
Steroids increase muscle mass and give you the ability to accelerate to a higher peak speed or lift a heavier weight, so are ideal for sprinting, lifting and throwing events.
For exercise that lasts longer, oxygen is critical and the speed at which oxygen can be delivered to a muscle limits the performance of that muscle.
Increasing the amount of red blood cells – by taking EPO or using a red blood cell transfusion – increases the speed of oxygen delivery.
HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE CAN DOPING MAKE TO A PERFORMANCE?
The benefits vary depending on the individual and gender.
The biggest gains are when female athletes are given male sex hormones such as anabolic steroids – testosterone, for example.
These build muscle mass and increase power, effectively making women a bit more like men. This could decrease times in a 100m sprint by as much as 0.2 seconds.
Doping gains will be less for men — perhaps 0.1 — as they have more testosterone to begin with. In longer distance events, different drugs are used and men and women will benefit equally.
Doping could decrease times in 5,000m and 10,000m running by five to ten seconds or even more in extreme cases.
WHICH SPORTS ARE LESS LIKELY TO SEE DOPING?
Where performance is based primarily on skill, reaction times and coordination, doping is likely to give smaller benefits.
Although there are new ‘smart drugs’ that claim to enhance these attributes, one would expect to see less doping in events such as archery, shooting, table tennis, golf, diving, badminton, fencing, sailing, equestrian, volleyball and football.
ARE THERE OBVIOUS TELL-TALE SIGNS OF DOPING?
Not really – otherwise we wouldn’t need testing! Women who take excessive anabolic steroids may appear more masculine — look at East Germans from the 1970s and 1980s!
However, looks can be deceptive and the variety of human genetics means some people are born with the benefits doping achieves.
The obvious example is Caster Semenya, who has an unusually high natural testosterone level.
Her 800m times would probably not decrease by doping with anabolic steroids.
HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU IN CURRENT TESTING PROCEDURES?
Theoretically, testing procedures can detect the vast majority of offences.
However, I am much less confident tests can be administered at the right time to be effective – for example, if an athlete is training on a secret military base or in a mountain range far from a testing lab.
And, of course, testers must want to catch cheats, not to actively help them, as happened in Russia.
WILL THE TESTERS EVER KEEP PACE WITH THE CHEATS?
It is an impossible-to-answer question. Will the police ever keep pace with all the criminals? Will we ever stop all footballers trying to cheat by diving?
Don’t let the science and technology of testing confuse the issue. Testing is only one part of this.
Investigative journalists, whistleblowers, rogue states, peer pressure, politics and money all play a key role. There is a continual battle between rule makers and rule breakers.
Athletes are not inherently more or less moral than any other people in society. The level of cheating is a question of the benefits balanced against the chance of being caught and the punishment.
Bottom line – sometimes the cheats are on top, sometimes they aren’t. They won’t ever go away completely.
HOW BADLY HAS THE RUSSIAN SCANDAL UNDERMINED THE OLYMPICS?
The key will be the response of the world community, including spectators and sponsors, to Russian performances.
I do feel the scandal has been made much worse by Russia’s refusal to admit state-sponsored doping and the IOC’s decision not to ban Russia completely.
This prevents us drawing a line under the scandal and starting again. The Tour de France needed several ‘never again’ moments to get to the relatively clean state it’s in now.
East German state-sponsored doping only stopped with the fall of the Berlin Wall and given that it is not in Russia’s DNA to admit to state cheating, it is possible they will try to cheat again.
Others may try similar schemes knowing they won’t face a complete ban.
At least the scandal means cheating will need to be even more covert and therefore probably less effective.
SHOULD WE SIMPLY ALLOW DOPING IN THE OLYMPICS?
Doping is a complex issue and there is not one simple rule. Some drugs (caffeine, Viagra) are permitted and others (steroids, EPO) are banned.
Rules have changed historically and could change again. It is entirely feasible all doping restrictions could be removed.
My personal view is that this would be a mistake. States would need to sanction team doctors to deliver drugs to athletes, some of which might be illegal or have unknown health consequences.
I don’t think female sport at the Olympics would survive. The high levels of anabolic steroids required to win gold would come with health risks many athletes would be uncomfortable with.
It would also create a competition that might prove visually unattractive to viewers and sponsors. Male sport could continue with lesser risks but I suspect many countries would not take part.
HOW CONFIDENT CAN WE BE THAT PERFORMANCES WE SEE IN RIO ARE ‘CLEAN’?
Given the effect of the restrictions on Russian athletes, I suspect that Rio will be somewhat cleaner than London. But nothing is ever 100 per cent clean.