During an interview broadcast around the world, one of the world’s pre-eminent sporting superstars, and a leading charity fundraiser, officially brought an end to years of intense media speculation. However, by admitting to using performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) during each of his seven Tour de France victories, Lance Armstrong has placed the issue of drug use in sport firmly in the spotlight once more.
The use, alleged or otherwise, of PEDs in sport is not a new concept, with anecdotal narrative and factual records painting a narcissistic picture of mankind that prizes victory above all else, at all costs. From Thomas Hicks, who won marathon gold at the 1904 Olympics, through to Ben Johnson, the winner of the 100m at the Seoul Games in 1988, the use of illicit substances to enhance performance has become increasingly sophisticated.
The Tour itself is famed for its chequered past, particularly in relation to the use of prohibited performance-enhancing techniques. As far back as the 1920s, the Pélissier brothers openly admitted to carrying ‘cocaine to go in our eyes, [and] chloroform for our gums’ as a means of reducing the pain of exhaustive competition. Since 1996, six winners of the Tour have been subjected to sanctions for doping offences. Throughout the same period, only three have remained sanction-free.
What makes the Lance Armstrong story so disconcerting is that he was able, with the assistance and complicity of as yet unnamed associates, to cover up what the US Anti-Doping Agency has termed the ‘most sophisticated, professional and successful doping programme that sport has ever seen’. Moreover, he did so in a believable fashion, tarring the name of professional sport in the process of deceiving fans and supporters.
It is damaging for cycling, and sport more broadly, that Armstrong has received greater media attention for admitting much-speculated wrongdoing than the countless clean athletes that work tirelessly within the boundaries of sporting conduct. For instance, while the global media circus has swarmed to cover the implications of Armstrong’s misdeeds, Shelley Rudman became the first British woman to win gold at the skeleton world championships in Switzerland – an achievement barely recognised beyond a hard core of enthusiasts and pundits. This retrograde outlook could serve to glamorise such behaviour if the emphasis on wrongdoing and retribution is not carefully focussed.
The uncovering of PED usage has become progressively frequent, largely as a consequence of constantly evolving detection methods. However, competitors often remain a vital step ahead of regulators in the race for success. It is this predicament that partly explains how Armstrong was able to escape detection for a sustained period.
In common with competitors in the Tour’s early days, Armstrong himself believed that victory in a gruelling event of the magnitude of the Tour was possible only with assistance. This outlook – that doping is as necessary as ‘putting water in out bottles’ or ‘air in our tyres’ – needs to be addressed immediately if popular support for sporting competition is to survive.
Incidentally, this unscrupulous mindset is one that afflicts competitors and supporters alike and has resulted in an inconvenient double-standard, albeit not yet in reference to the use of PEDs. To highlight this point, one must look no further than Premier League football. Were Luis Suarez, for instance, to admit to diving and be seen to “cost” his side a penalty, condemnation and denunciation would ensue from both fans and teammates. Such pretense, while deceitful, is routinely dismissed as “professionalism”; if officials are unable to distinguish such foul play, responsibility stops with them. However, it is these same individuals who chastise the opposition for similar acts. To beat drug cheats, this double-standard of dishonesty cannot be allowed to spill over into the murky world of doping violations.
There are numerous and influential incentives to cheat the system, ranging from financial openings through to the honour of victory and the pride of competing on the international stage. The likelihood of detection, and the associated scandal and opprobrium, is constantly increasing as methods of testing and prevention improve. However, that competitors continue their efforts to circumvent the system indicates that potential gains to be had from doping frequently outweigh perceived risks in the deceit calculation. While the reputations of specific disciplines differ, the use of PEDs in any sporting arena has a detrimental impact on the sporting world more widely.
As evidence of this unhappy state of affairs, whereby strong performances incite suspicion and accusations of cheating in one form or another, witness the outstanding accomplishment of Chinese swimmer Ye Shiwen at the London 2012 Olympics. Ye’s achievement, setting a new world record for the 400m individual medley and swimming the final 50m leg in a faster time than Ryan Lochte in the men’s event, was the subject of much disbelief and uncomfortable questioning.
What the Armstrong debacle makes abundantly evident is that anti-doping programmes are limited in their ability to identify those attempting to defraud the system. While it is unlikely that any system can be foolproof, given the determination to evade identification that some competitors have demonstrated, improvements can definitely be made both in detection and enforcement.
A primary shortcoming of the regime has been its retrogressive nature, detecting the use of an identified range of substances, but crucially not outwitting those inclined to cheat by predicting and pre-empting the future development path of PEDs. While the ability to backdate the testing of samples is a powerful tool, with an eight-year statute of limitations applying to sample testing to account for the frequent revisions made to the list of banned substances, such retrospective action remains reactionary rather than preventive.
The implementation of biological passports is certainly a step in the right direction, monitoring minuscule fluctuations in blood and urine profiles over a sustained timeframe that could indicate doping violations. Movement towards universalising such a system would be a good starting point to strengthen the current system of detection, though more could be done to anticipate further developments.
For this reason, it is important that Armstrong and his co-conspirators are compelled to give evidence, under oath, to a “truth and reconciliation” commission administered by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Input from those whose philosophy is underpinned by a ‘victory at all costs’ attitude will serve to bolster testing procedures and identify weaknesses with current protocols, placing regulators on an even footing with those seeking to cheat the system.
To enhance the current testing regime, blood testing needs to become the norm rather than urine testing. As the only way to identify the ‘cocktail’ of drugs favoured by modern-age charlatans, with Armstrong admitting to using both erythropoetin (EPO) and testosterone alongside blood transfusion techniques, increased blood testing would facilitate an accurate and reliable biological passport system.
The most recent statistics from WADA, which cover 2011, highlight steps taken by cycling to address the image problem that has arisen from years of doping violations. With the introduction of biological passports, over one-third of all drugs tests in cycling in 2011 were blood tests. Others, however, lag alarmingly behind: athletics, another discipline whose reputation is far from unblemished, had 17.6% blood tests. Boxing employed 3.5% blood tests – particularly alarming given the nature of the sport – while tennis stood at 3% and gymnastics recorded only 1% of drug testing as being blood tests.
With these figures in mind, WADA President John Fahey’s goal of all sports hitting a minimum target of 10% of tests conducted to use blood samples is a sign of progress. However, despite this low initial target, WADA’s executive board recently failed to approve such a minimum requirement in the 2013 WADA Code update.
Incidentally, through extending the quota of blood testing, and with the implementation of increasingly sensitive testing procedures alongside biological passports, a lifetime ban policy similar to that previously applied by the British Olympic Association becomes more sustainable. While arguments exist that the burden of proof necessary for such a policy would be too high for current testing methods to fulfil, rational individuals would be more likely to select against doping when assessing risk were the punishment for being caught to be enhanced. Such an effect would be intensified further were it to occur alongside an increased likelihood of detection.
In the case of Armstrong, a lifetime ban from all competition is the only acceptable outcome; a competitor who knowingly flouts anti-doping regulations in such a calculated manner to gain an advantage at the expense of others does not deserve the privilege of a lesser penalty. To be sure, the strong suspicion surrounding whether Armstrong really was “clean” during his brief comeback serves only to cement this outlook amongst many in the sporting community.
With a combination of increased blood testing, both in and out of competition, alongside the universal introduction of biological passports and a pre-emptive outlook towards testing, the integrity of sporting competition can be rescued. While the cost of realising this goal is necessarily prohibitive, sport must not be priced out of the market for integrity; athletes who truly wish to restore the honour and probity of their profession would be willing to sacrifice a purse percentage to establish such a system and foster clean competition. To this end, both Andy Murray and Roger Federer – both Australian Open finalists in 2013 – have called for increased blood testing in tennis. Progress towards these goals is urgently needed to restore faith.
