• Home
• UK Politics
• World Politics
• Policy
• Media
• Lifestyle
• Sport
• Contributors
• Topics

Are We Living in a Doping Paradise?

Doping can mean different things to different people. Oliver Parsons tries to get to the bottom of what we mean by doping.

By Oliver Parsons

3 Jul 2011, 21:07

With the Grand Depart of the Tour De France having taken place this last weekend the world is once again tuned into the world’s greatest bicycle race.  However the great sport of cycling is still trying to come to terms with the latest doping debate; should Albert Contador be riding with the CAS ruling hanging over him after last year’s failed doping test?  But perhaps it is time for us to reassess doping in sport and not just cycling.

As fans we love to believe that our favourite sportsmen are clean and are competing on an even playing field, but are we all naively doping ourselves to believe this?  And where do we draw the line when it comes to performance enhancement?

When considering sport it is obvious that the professionals are not working in the same sphere as amateurs.  With the hi-tech science teams now involved in all sports, competitors are given ‘nutritional supplements’ and other remedies to give them the boosts needed to make them world beaters, products we amateurs would never get access to.

Then consider a footballer such as Lionel Messi.  Messi joined Barcelona as an 11 year old.  A Spanish club and not one of the great institutions of Argentine football, such as Boca Juniors or River Plate, as you would normally expect of a young gifted Argentine footballer.  Why was this?  Messi was diagnosed with a growth hormone deficiency and no local club could afford to pay the $900 a month required to treat this condition.  But in treating this condition Messi was treated with human growth hormones, which essentially are banned products. Should this not be considered doping?  Is the world’s best footballer an example of how promising athletes are doped as youngsters?

Finally when it comes to the doctors employed by major sporting clubs and teams across the world, surely these large teams with their huge sponsorship deals and large balance sheets can afford to pay the premium to get the best in the business, if they feel it will increase performance and in turn increase the teams profile.  Whilst those employed by the anti-doping agencies will no doubt be excellent, they cannot compete against these well-bankrolled machines.  As with the financial service sector, where the banks employ high-level staff to work out the limits of regulation and to cut the corners, do we believe that major sporting franchises don’t do the same?

But even if any of the above is actually true, does it really affect the pleasure we can take from watching our favourite sports? Watching Marco Pantani attack at Oropa in the 1999 Giro D’Italia after puncturing is still an amazing spectacle in spite of the fact he failed a hematocrit test in the following days.  As fans we can become caught up in the concept of doping, yet in reality it isn’t a black and white issue.  There are many grey areas, what happens for instance when a new medical product comes on the market that a doctor finds out can aid athletic performance.  At this point it is not banned by any anti-doping body, so the doctor gives it to the athletes in his team and their performances improve.  The following season this product then appears on the prohibited substances list, but then someone develops another product to replace it and so on. 

Sometimes it is best to not dwell too long on the issue of doping and just enjoy the spectacle of sports, but I still don’t think Contador should be riding the Tour!