Doping in Sport - Reaction From Sports Organizations

Reaction From Sports Organizations

Many sports organizations have banned the use of performance enhancing drugs and have very strict rules and consequences for people who are caught using them. The International Amateur Athletic Federation, now the International Association of Athletics Federations, were the first international governing body of sport to take the situation seriously. In 1928 they banned participants from doping, but with little in the way of testing available they had to rely on the word of the athlete that they were clean.

It was not until 1966 that FIFA (world football) and Union Cycliste Internationale (cycling) joined the IAAF in the fight against drugs, closely followed by the International Olympic Committee the following year.

Progression in pharmacology has always outstripped the ability of sports federations to implement rigorous testing procedures but since the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency in 1999 more and more athletes are being caught.

The first tests for athletes were at the 1966 European Championships and two years later the IOC implemented their first drug tests at both the Summer and Winter Olympics. Anabolic steroids became prevalent during the 1970s and after a method of detection was found they were added to the IOC's prohibited substances list in 1976.

Over the years, different sporting bodies have evolved differently to the war against doping. Some, such as athletics and cycling, are becoming increasingly vigilant against doping in their sports. However, there has been criticism that sports such as soccer and baseball are doing nothing about the issue, and letting athletes implicated in doping away unpunished. An example of this was Operation Puerto—approximately 200 sportspersons were implicated in blood doping. Of these, approximately 50 were cyclists and 150 were other sportspersons, including several "high profile soccer and tennis players" . The cyclists were pursued over their involvement, with many of them getting bans, such as Ivan Basso and Tyler Hamilton. By contrast, not a single soccer player involved in the doping ring was named, and to this day, all remain unpunished.

A handful of commentators maintain that, as outright prevention of doping is an impossibility, all doping should be legalised. Most disagree with this assertion, pointing out the claimed harmful long-term effects of many doping agents. However, with no medical data to support these claimed health problems, it is, at best, questionable. Opponents claim that with doping legal, all competitive athletes would be compelled to use drugs, and the net effect would be a level playing field but with widespread health consequences. Considering that anti-doping is largely ineffective due to both testing limitations and lack of enforcement, this is not markedly different than the situation already in existence.

Another point of view is that doping could be legalized to some extent using a drug whitelist and medical counseling, such that medical safety is ensured, with all usage published. Under such a system, it is likely that athletes would attempt cheat by exceeding official limits to try to gain an advantage; this could be considered conjecture as drug amounts do not always correlate linearly with performance gains. To police such a system could be as difficult as policing a total ban on performance enhancing drugs.