Performance Enhancing Drugs in our Sports - Why we should allow it?
( The Time Has Come to Allow for Sports Enhancement - fitFlex Articles - Learn, Share and Discover! ) ..
It's time to legalize performance-enhancing drugs in sports. This radical step would not only rid sports of its current hypocrisy, but also level the
playing field for all athletes. Success in Olympic or professional sports is a genetic crapshoot. If you aren't born with the right genes you will never
make it, no matter how hard you train. Drugs can help level the playing field by making up for genetic deficiencies.
Athletes get drugs on the black market from dubious sources. Legalizing drugs and supplements in sports would bring the practice to the surface. Athletes
could take them safely under the direction of physicians and obtain them from FDA-approved sources rather than from veterinary medicine supply houses and
offshore pharmacies.
The health risks of performance-enhancing drugs are often cited as the main reason for banning them. This position is ludicrous and inconsistent. The
Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 made it a crime to take testosterone or related substances for athletic or cosmetic enhancement, yet plastic surgery
is condoned and even encouraged. Liposuction is the world's most popular elective surgery, particularly in America, where millions of people undergo the
procedure every year. For every 100,000 people who have the surgery, 20 can expect to die from blood clots or infection. That makes liposuction more dangerous
than driving a car, smoking cigarettes or fighting in Iraq. Millions of Americans also take anabolic steroids to improve appearance and performance. An
objective review of the medical literature shows that few, if any, people have died from taking these drugs. In fact, the drugs have proven therapeutic
benefits in many people when taken in reasonable doses.
Opposing Forces
Very powerful forces oppose legalizing performance-enhancing drugs. President Bush called for a crusade against drugs in sports in last year's State of the
Union address. Well-meaning politicians, such as Senator John McCain from Arizona, have called for strict drug testing in professional sports. Their view is
that drugs upset the purity of sport.
Drugs and supplements represent scientific progress in the technology of human performance that is consistent with changes in equipment, such as the fiberglass
pole, Astroturf and all-weather tracks, and changes in training methods, such as weight training, plyometrics and selective muscle fiber recruitment during
exercise. It's difficult to separate breakthroughs in sports nutrition from drug and supplement use. New sports nutrition techniques speed muscle hypertrophy,
stimulate hormone release and maximize muscle and liver fuel stores. Drugs do exactly the same thing. Why is it okay to use a fiberglass pole that catapults
athletes to truly amazing heights, while it's illegal to take a substance such as testosterone or erythropoietin (EPO) that the body makes naturally?
Serious athletes prepare thoroughly for their sport. They build muscle to the max, hone and develop highly complex movement techniques, fuel their bodies with
the best foods and supplements and regulate their metabolic capacity so they can produce elite performances on demand. One benefit of training is that it builds
fitness to train even harder. Many performance-enhancing drugs also help speed recovery and allow athletes to train intensely.
Contrary to what the president said, most athletes do not use performance-enhancing drugs as shortcuts to athletic success. Rather, they use them as training
tools to help them prepare for their sport. Give testosterone, growth hormone, or EPO (boosts red blood cells) to 1,000 random adults for three months and not
one of them could compete in the Tour de France, hit a home run against major league pitching, look like a Mr. Olympia contestant or withstand a blindside tackle
from a pro football linebacker. Drugs and supplements don't make great athletes; they help athletes achieve their dreams and be the best they can be.
Gender, Genes and Drugs
Men and women compete separately because of large differences in size, strength, muscle mass, endurance and power. Separate competitions allow each gender to
compete fairly and maximize their potential. Genetic differences have similar effects on performance within each gender. Natural differences in total and free
testosterone, IGF-1 (a muscle growth factor), growth hormone, insulin activity and myostatin activity each determine, in part, who will be successful in power
sports and bodybuilding. Research from Drew Medical College in Los Angeles, led by Drs. Sholander Bhasin and Tom Storer, found a direct relationship between
circulating free and total testosterone levels and strength and the capacity to gain muscle strength, size and power. Fast, powerful people often have more
fast-twitch muscle fibers in critical muscles, while people with superior endurance often have naturally higher levels of red blood cells, mitochondria and
cardiac output capacity.
East African distance runners dominate the world, in part because they have higher hemoglobin levels and mitochondrial density than people living in other parts
of the world. Hemoglobin and mitochondria are important factors in oxygen metabolism, Why not match running competitions by hematocrit (percent of cells in the
blood) and mitochondrial content, just as is done by gender. Yet, when athletes take the drug EPO (erythropoietin) to increase their blood count, they are called
cheaters.
People who win the genetic lottery have a natural advantage in sports, but we don't have separate athletic contests for the genetically gifted and challenged.
Drugs can help balance the playing field by equalizing anabolic hormone levels and oxygen transport capacity. Professor Julian Savulescu and colleagues from the
Department of Practical Ethics at Oxford University in England argued that drugs that improve our natural potential are not against the spirit of sport. Rather,
biological manipulation embodies the human spirit-the capacity to change on the basis of reason and judgment. Allowing performance-enhancing substances insures
that the winner will not necessarily be the person who was born with the best genetic potential. The winner will be the person with a combination of the genetic
potential, training, psychology and judgment. Elite athletic performance would be the result of human creativity and choice, not just people with the best genes.
Genetics have largely determined the winner of past Olympics and other sports. That will change as scientists learn to manipulate genes. Dr Miguel Rivera, a
professor at the University of Puerto Rico School of Medicine, is one of the world's top experts in genetics, sports and exercise. He studies gene variants that
determine speed, endurance, strength and body composition. "We have identified about eight percent of the genes responsible for physical performance and success
in sports' he said. "Sports genetics is a new field. We are as close to meaningful gene manipulation in athletes as we are to putting a manned spacecraft on Mars.
But that won't deter scientists, coaches and athletes from attempting these methods before they're safe:' New genetic manipulation techniques may soon make the
controversy over drugs and sport irrelevant.
Athletes as Artists
Spectators pay to see elite athletes playing at the top of their game. Pro football linemen from the 1950s often weighed less than 220 pounds. While they were
great athletes, they did not have the crowd appeal of today's lightening-fast behemoths. People want to see larger-than-life bodybuilders, hitters pounding the
ball over the outside wall and sprinters running faster than ever. New training methods, improved sports nutrition and effective supplements and drugs have pushed
performances into the stratosphere. We love to watch athletes like Michael Jordan or Barry Bonds because they win, but even more so because of the poetry and
perfection of their movements.
Elite musicians often improve the quality of their work by taking drugs called beta-blockers, which slow down heart rates and reduce anxiety. Music is just as
competitive as sports. Yet no one has ever said these musicians should not be allowed to play because their performances have been artificially enhanced. Likewise,
no one complains when beauty contest winners get boob jobs or business-men get plastic surgery or students use "smart" drugs like Provigil during the SATs to get an
edge on the competition.
Sports are invented by people and have ever-changing rules. Homerun hitters, such as Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire who used performance-enhancing substances, electrified
a dying game because of their stellar exploits. These brilliant athletes used supplements to help them prepare to play their best and they succeeded marvelously. Rule
changes have accommodated the forward pass, fiberglass poles, starting blocks, the Fosbury Flop and should do the same for performance-enhancing drugs and supplements.
Performance-Enhancing Drugs and Health
Dr. Norman Fost is a graduate of Harvard Medical School and a professor of pediatrics and director of the Medical Ethics Program at the University of Wisconsin Medical
School. He has been a voice in the wilderness promoting the legal use of anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in sports. Dr. Fost said, "In 20 years
of writing and talking about this topic, I have yet to hear a coherent rebuttal to the points I have been making!'
Dr. Fost said the media has whipped up a frenzy about "sports drugs" that is not based on scientific fact. The drugs have some side effects, but most are reversible
and mild. For some irrational reason, the press distorts and overstates them. They continue to dwell on the evils of steroids when the information is patently false.
Drugs and supplements may be artificial performance aids, but so are running shoes and Nautilus machines.
Anabolic steroids are the most misunderstood drugs used in sports. Steroids have been linked to liver cancer, yet there's no evidence anywhere showing that injectable
steroids cause liver cancer. Injectable testosterone does not even go to the liver or the gut.
The media was equally irresponsible in the Lyle Alzado case. The Oakland Raiders football star developed a brain tumor, which he attributed to long-term steroid use.
Leading media outlets ran with the story and supported Alzado's pseudo-scientific explanation of the causes of his disease, with no corroboration from experts. More
recently, the media had a field day with a German woman who blamed her transvestitism on steroid use. Again, there was no scientific evidence to support her claim.
At a meeting of sports drug experts in Sitges, Spain, Dr. Allan Betterman of the University of Manchester in the UK said, "Several athletes that I have worked with
have accused sports scientists of using only selective evidence to show that performance-enhancing drugs are dangerous. We cite random observations for evidence of
adverse side effects. On the other hand, we require strictly controlled studies for evidence that the drugs boost performance. Scientists can't have it both ways.
They must look at the pluses and minuses of these drugs objectively!'
Dr. Fost discussed unsubstantiated or overstated claims about heart disease. "Long-term use can change the blood lipid count unfavorably, but that's a long way from
a heart attack!" The depressed HDL levels seen in anabolic steroid users may reflect an increased clearance rate rather than anything pathological.
Risks of Drug Use vs Risks of Sports
Performance-enhancing drugs have side effects, but the risks are small compared to the risks of the sport itself. Legions of former football players are permanently
disabled from playing the sport. More than 500 athletes died playing football since 1950, while many others suffered catastrophic spine, knee and back injuries.
Downhill-skiers, divers, rugby players, bike racers, boxers, wrestlers, equestrian athletes and kayakers take risks that far exceed those posed by steroids. Four
lacrosse players died last year from cardiac arrests caused by chest trauma from lacrosse balls. Countless former swimmers, pitchers and gymnasts are left with
permanently injured shoulders and backs from years of intense training during their youth.
Should we ban these sports because they are dangerous and bad for the health. The risks posed by most sports far exceed those from taking performance-enhancing drugs.
A competent adult who can make a rational decision about playing a crippling game should be able to make an informed choice about taking drugs and supplements that have
relatively mild side effects.
Drugs and the Level Playing Field
Athletes are not coerced to use drugs to be successful. Performance-enhancing drugs, along with weight training, do confer an advantage, but athletes are free not to
participate. Football also requires backbreaking work, hours in the weight room and chronic pain from contact that can last a lifetime. Athletes who say they are coerced
to use drugs fail to distinguish an opportunity from a threat. They are also free not to use modern weight machines, food supplements that work like drugs, mental
techniques designed to improve focus, downhill running tracks and plyometric benches.
Drugs are unnatural, but so are running shoes, weight machines, and athletic fluid replacement beverages. Why not insist that athletes lift rocks instead of training on
today's weightlifting machines. There is no moral distinction between natural and artificial performance aids. In the 1988 Olympics in Seoul, South Korea, Ben Johnson was
disgraced for taking steroids. He was called a cheater for taking advantage of his opponents. The sweetheart of the Olympics was swimming star Janet Evans, who won in part
because she wore a "speed suit" developed by American engineers that was kept secret from the East Germans. Evans used a performance aid nobody else had while Johnson used
steroids that were available to anyone and were probably used by the majority of the athletes in the field. Johnson's problem was that he got caught, not that he had created
an unequal competition.
Technological advances have always been part of sports. People used shoes to help them run on rocky, uneven surfaces, added spikes to increase traction and used high-tech
components to lighten their weight. Dutch Warmerdam amazed the world when he pole-vaulted 15 feet in the 1940s using a bamboo pole. Bamboo was an improvement on rigid poles
made from pine. Today, 14 feet isn't even a good high school mark. Advances in pole technology have enabled vaulters to exceed 20 feet.The best vaulting poles are so expensive
that they're unavailable to most athletes. Bobsledding is another good example of technology giving some people advantages over others. Nobody when the famous but rag-tag
Jamaican bobsled team competed and lost using second-rate equipment against teams such as Switzerland and Austria, that used technologically advanced sleds. Yet, if the Jamaicans
had tested positive for doping, there would have been an international uproar.
Countries like Australia and China have upped their Olympic medal counts substantially because they spend a lot of money on their national teams. Small, poor countries, such
as Sierra Leone, do not have this luxury. Taking drugs like EPO can increase red blood cells, but athletes can get the same benefit from sleeping in a chamber contaming
reduced oxygen. These chambers cost more than $10,000 and are out of reach for most athletes. Nevertheless, it's legal to use the chamber, but illegal to take EPO. Is this a
level playing field?
Are the people running Olympic and professional sports really interested in a level playing field? John Powell, per- the greatest discus technician of all time, Won two bronze
medals in four Olympic games. With the fall of the Iron Curtain, we have documented evidence that athletes who used steroids beat him. Powell asked, "Why weren't their medals
taken away? I would love to have a couple of silver medals' Powell will never be awarded those medals because it is not politically expedient to do so.
It's Time to Legalize Performance-Enhancing Drugs
The health of athletes should be our primary concern, Rather than testing athletes for drugs, we should make sure it's healthy for them to compete. A high red blood cell count
increases the risk of stroke and heart attack, regardless of whether sleeping in an altitude chamber or taking EPO causes the increase. Athletes with dangerous health conditions
(high hematocrit, hypertension, etc.) caused by excessive drug use, training or high altitude exposure should not be allowed to compete for their own good. Oxford ethicist
Julian Savulescu ably summed up why we should legalize performance-enhancing drugs when he said, "We can vainly try to turn the clock back, or we can rethink who we are and what
sport is and make a new 21st Century Olympics. Not a super Olympics, but a more human Olympics. Our crusade against drugs in sport has failed. Rather than fearing drugs, we should
embrace them. Performance enhancement is not against the spirit of sport; it is the spirit of sport. To choose to be better is to be human. Athletes should be given this choice.
Their welfare should be paramount. But taking drugs is not necessarily cheating. The legalization of drugs in sport may be fairer and safer.
|
