fbpx

Hunt Fitness

Flexible Dieting / Strength and Conditioning

/

Drug Testing in the Olympics Revisited

Author’s Note: Steroids have many drawbacks, and I do not recommend athletes use them. This article is a thought experiment and for educational purposes only.

As we come together every four years to celebrate the incredible feats of athleticism at the Olympic Games, a big question hangs in the air: Are we sure drug testing in the Olympics is still the best option?

Athletes are always looking for an edge. It started with early Olympic competitors who ate deer liver, lion heart, and exotic herbs, hoping to improve their strength, speed, and performance. The demand for advanced ergogenic aids is more visible than ever in today’s sports world. 

While this competitiveness and drive to win has resulted in implements that counter the values of fair play, it is also why sports science exists. In the past few decades, new research has provided athletes insight into improving their training, nutrition, and recovery methods. Unfortunately, the advancements don’t stop there. The performance-enhancing drug protocols have advanced as well. 

For a long time, the Olympics have been a symbol of hard work, unity, and honesty, all built on the idea that athletes should compete on their natural abilities alone. To make this possible, athletes get tested for substances that could give them an unfair advantage. Drug testing has been a crucial part of the Olympic spirit, ensuring success comes from talent and dedication, not from taking shortcuts.

But times change, and so do the ways we think about things. In today’s world, where technology is advancing fast, and people’s opinions are shifting, it’s a good time to look at how we test for drugs in the Olympics. We must ask whether the current system is still the best way to keep the games fair, safe for athletes, and accurate to the Olympic values.

Table of contents:

  • Drug testing is not drug-free.
  • The beginning of drug testing in the Olympics.
  • After drug testing in the Olympics.
  • Do steroids create an unequal playing field?
  • The issue of tainted supplements.
  • Where do we draw the line?
  • The Goldman Dilemma.
  • Athlete safety.
  • Should we end drug testing in the Olympics?

Drug Tested is Not Drug-Free

One of the first documented cases of drug use in the Olympics occurred during the 1904 games. Marathon runner Thomas Hicks and his coaches mixed up a mid-event cocktail of brandy and strychnine to improve performance. On the surface, it worked. He won the race. However, shortly after crossing the finish line, he collapsed and almost died.

In the early 1900s, mixtures of strychnine, cocaine, and caffeine were widely used by athletes, and each team created its own unique formula [1]. Although the drugs have changed, stimulants are just as popular today, as evident by the growing energy drink and pre-workout market.

A few decades later, amphetamines and steroids burst onto the scene. The 1952 Oslo Olympics were marred by heavy amphetamine use [2]. During this same period, the Soviets began injecting weightlifters with testosterone. It wasn’t long before the Americans also got their hand on steroids. From there, the battle to create the best performance-enhancing drugs was on. Call it the PED race.

Steroid use escalated throughout the 50s and 60s, leading to the first implementation of drug testing at the Olympics in the late 1960s.

The Beginning of Drug Testing in the Olympics

In 1967 the International Olympic Committee put out a list of banned substances and began testing at the 1968 Olympics [3]. Before the drug testing protocols were implemented in 1968, drug use was a part of the sport. However, as we will discover, the implementation of drug testing doesn’t mean drug-free.

Steroid use at the Olympics didn’t hit the mainstream until twenty years after the first test. During the 1988 Olympics, Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson was disqualified after a gold medal performance in the 100m dash. He failed the drug test for the anabolic steroid Stanozolol. The gold medal was awarded to second-place finisher Carl Lewis.

Ben Johnson’s main argument for cheating was that he felt other athletes were also using banned substances. Ironically, Carl Lewis and six out of eight competitors in the 100m final in 1988 tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs at some point in their careers [4].

After Drug Testing in the Olympics

In 1989, less than a year after the Ben Johnson scandal, Olympic shotputter Jim Doehring admitted using steroids to help him remain a world-class track and field competitor [5]. In a Los Angeles Times article, Doehring said, “It is impossible for an athlete to train–and therefore compete–at the current world-class level without performance-enhancing drugs.” He goes on to say, “There’s no way that the testing is going to catch up to the athletes…the athletes are too far ahead. They’ve got blocking agents, masking agents . . . you’ve got all kinds of things helping the athletes out…I’d have to say everyone’s using something, and I’m not excluding myself from that.”

But that was in 1989. Things have changed, right?

Over the years, drug testing protocols have become more advanced. However, so have the drugs. The list of athletes who have used steroids and passed drug tests is long. It would be impossible to know for sure. Still, we can assume, based on later admissions and reporting, that athletes such as Marion Jones, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds, Lance Armstrong, and Alex Rodriguez all used steroids for years before getting caught.

How do we make the Olympics truly drug-free? We likely can’t. It’s impossible to catch everyone.

Do Steroids Create an Unequal Playing Field?

If you ask the average sports fan why there is drug testing in the Olympics, you will likely get an answer about fair play. How would the Olympics be an equal playing field if cheating was allowed?

The better question might be, is taking steroids cheating? By the Olympic rulebook, they are. The World Anti-Doping Agency prohibits substances and medications that may improve performance, harm the athlete, or contradict the spirit of sport. Some may be banned solely during competitions, while others are prohibited at all times [6].

On the surface, this makes sense. If you take two athletes, one on steroids and the other, not, an unfair advantage exists. But, as we already discussed, drug testing in the Olympics doesn’t eliminate this issue.

Besides, the Olympics have never been a level playing field. Athletes do well, at least partly based on genetic advantages. This is not to take away from the hard work and dedication elite athletics require. However, being seven feet tall is a huge advantage in playing basketball.

Let’s take Michael Phelps, one of the most decorated Olympic athletes ever. He is built to be an elite swimmer. His long and lean 6’4″ frame provides an advantageous wingspan of 6’7″, allowing him to cover more distance per stroke. Phelps’ unusually long torso and relatively short legs reduce drag and enhance his streamlined body position. Moreover, with large feet and double-jointed ankles, he has natural flippers, enabling powerful propulsion.

In a paper titled “Why we should allow performance-enhancing drugs in sport,” the authors speculate, “By allowing everyone to take performance-enhancing drugs, we level the playing field. We remove the effect of genetic inequality. Far from being unfair, allowing performance enhancement promotes equality” [7].

What about Socioeconomic Inequalities?

Socioeconomic inequalities also create unequal playing fields for athletes in the Olympics. Some athletes have access to elite coaches, exceptional training facilities, and the top of the line equipment, making them better at their sport. Additionally, they have doctors, physical therapists, and trainers to keep them healthy and recover faster from injuries. But only select athletes have these advantages.

Unfortunately, these inequalities start long before athletes reach the Olympic level. Research shows strong socioeconomic disparities in children’s sports participation and outdoor play [8]. Some athletes can’t travel to competitions because it costs too much, and others need help finding places to practice. Moreover, many Olympic sports are expensive to participate in.

The bottom line is that steroids create an advantage but are not solely responsible for unfairness in sports. Drug testing further favors those with the resources to help beat the test.

The Issue of Tainted Supplements  

Tainted supplements refer to dietary or nutritional products contaminated with banned substances, often including performance-enhancing drugs. When athletes consume these products, they inadvertently take substances that lead to failed drug tests.

Supplement companies are responsible for maintaining product labeling and substantiating the safety of ingredients. However, they are not obliged to acquire FDA clearance before creating or marketing dietary supplements, nor are they required to establish clinical efficacy. Before a dietary supplement gets removed from the market, the FDA must prove adulteration, misbranding, or a risk of illness/injury [9].

Tainted supplements can occur due to poor manufacturing practices, lack of quality control, or intentional adulteration by dishonest manufacturers. The limited regulation allows for some shady practices. 

Even though an athlete may not intentionally take banned substances, the presence of these substances in a supplement can still result in positive drug test results. According to researchers, tainted dietary supplements account for between 6.4% and 8.8% of all positive drug tests in competitive sports [10].

Even if the athlete proves the failed drug test came from a tainted supplement, it damages their reputation and potentially costs the athlete the chance to compete.

To avoid such situations, the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) recommends using only supplements certified by NSF Certified for Sport [11]. Although this is an excellent option for safety, it is not always practical. And a ruined reputation is a harsh consequence for an athlete using the wrong product they bought at their local supplement shop.

Where Do We Draw The Line?

While we are on supplements, where is the line between a performance-enhancing supplement and a performance-enhancing drug?

The line separating supplements from drugs can sometimes be unclear. We typically define supplements as products containing natural ingredients like vitamins, minerals, and herbal extracts considered legal within sports regulations. Examples include protein powder, amino acids, creatine, caffeine, citrulline, etc. These products complement an athlete’s nutritional intake, aid recovery, and support training efforts.

On the other hand, performance-enhancing drugs usually involve synthetic or pharmaceutical substances that can significantly improve physical performance by altering physiological processes.

If we use the WADA definition, they prohibit substances and medications that may improve performance. There is a lot of gray area here. For example, creatine is a supplement that is not a banned substance, nor is it a performance-enhancing drug. Research shows that creatine supplementation increases strength, fat-free mass, sprinting ability, and aerobic endurance, all while enhancing recovery [12]. Should creatine be banned? It’s not because, although beneficial, the effects are minuscule compared to steroids. The line gets even more blurry when introducing SARMs, Peptides, etc.

What about marijuana? Leading up to the Tokyo Olympics, track athlete Sha’Carri Richardson failed a drug test for THC [13]. Following the failed test, she got suspended for one month, including the 100m race at the Olympics she qualified for. Marijuana is prohibited during competition despite little evidence that it provides any athletic advantage [14]. As more and more states make marijuana legal, it begs the question of why it is still a banned substance.

The Goldman Dilemma

In 1982 a physician named Bob Goldman devised a scenario to ask athletes. He asked if you are offered a prohibited performance-enhancing substance and know you will not be caught and will win, would you take it?

To up the ante, he had a follow-up question. Under the same circumstances, the drug guarantees you will win every competition and not get caught. However, this time the side effects will kill you. Would you still take it?

The second question is known as the “Goldman Dilemma.” From 1982 until 1995, the answers remained the same. In a 1995 poll of 198 sprinters, swimmers, and other assorted aspiring Olympians, more than half the athletes said they would take a drug that guaranteed victory even if it killed them within five years later [15].

In addition to fair play, protecting the athletes’ safety is the most common reason why steroid testing exists. Goldman’s data likely plays a role in this. If over half of competitive athletes are willing to die young to win a gold medal, athletes need saving from themselves.

However, research in the last decade consistently shows that while athletes are still willing to take performance-enhancing drugs, they are not willing to risk their lives [16,17,18].

Athlete Safety

The side effects of steroids are well documented, including acne, hair loss, disrupting natural hormone balance, liver toxicity, and potential infertility. That said, existing data implies that the medical risk of anabolic steroid use may have been overstated in some cases [19].

Going back to protecting player safety, is it the Olympic’s job to protect athletes from themselves? While ensuring athlete safety is of utmost importance, there is also an argument that athletes share a significant responsibility for their well-being. Sports inherently come with a degree of risk. Olympic sports are no different. Skiing, hockey, bobsleigh, BMX racing, boxing, and gymnastics athletes all risk injury and bodily harm simply by participating. Likewise, choosing to take a performance-enhancing drug is a personal decision. Regarding safety, the athlete must weigh the pros and cons and decide for themselves.

Should We End Drug Testing in the Olympics?

Advocating for the Olympics without drug testing is a controversial perspective that challenges the prevailing emphasis on fair play and athlete safety. While such a stance goes against established norms, exploring different viewpoints is essential. I’m not sure if it is the right decision or not.

However, as we discovered, many of the reasons why drug testing is deemed vital are not evidence-based. Drug testing does not mean sports are drug-free. Athletes have been beating drug tests since the inception. Likewise, drug-tested sports are not an equal playing field. Genetics and economic factors favor certain athletes. The use of supplements is a vast gray area. Tainted supplements have ruined multiple athletes’ reputations, and there is no solid evidence to support why some substances are banned while others are not. Lastly, athlete health is essential, but it is up to the athlete to assess how far they are willing to go in their pursuit of athletic prowess.

Enhanced sports are not as ludicrous as they might seem on the surface. Many professional sports organizations operated for decades without drug testing policies. Specific bodybuilding, powerlifting, strongman, and Jiu-Jitsu organizations still run without a drug testing program. Moreover, a new organization called “The Enhanced Games” wants to create an Olympics-like event without drug testing.

As science advances and it becomes increasingly more difficult to circumvent, the right decision might be to let athletes enhance their performance in any way they choose.

Author: Kyle Hunt

Instagram: @huntfitness

YouTube: @HuntFitnessTV

Hire Kyle as your coach: http://www.kylehuntfitness.com/services/

References

  1. BARON, D. A., MARTIN, D. M., & MAGD, S. A. (2007). Doping in sports and its spread to at-risk populations: An international review. World Psychiatry, 6(2), 118-123. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2219897/
  2. Woods., R. (2011) Social Issues in Sport, 2nd ed. Human Kinetics.
  3. Jill Pilgrim and Kim Betz, A Journey through Olympic Drug Testing Rules: A Practitioner’s Guide to Understanding, 2 Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law 210 (2020) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/jetlaw/vol2/iss2/6
  4. Ben Johnson broke his own world record but was disqualified for doping at the 1988 Seoul Olympics. (2022, September 24). Firstpost. https://www.firstpost.com/sports/on-this-day-in-1988-the-dirtiest-race-in-history-was-held-at-seoul-olympics-11323251.html
  5. Ludovise, B. (1989, August 6). Olympian Feels Forced to Take Steroids : Shotputter Doehring Admits He Uses the Drug to Stay Competitive. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1989-08-06-sp-494-story.html
  6. Hughes D. (2015). The World Anti-Doping Code in Sport: Update for 2015. Australian prescriber, 38(5), 167–170. https://doi.org/10.18773/austprescr.2015.059
  7. Savulescu J, Foddy B, Clayton M, Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2004;38:666-670.
  8. Wijtzes, A. I., Jansen, W., Bouthoorn, S. H., Pot, N., Hofman, A., Jaddoe, V. W., & Raat, H. (2014). Social inequalities in young children’s sports participation and outdoor play. The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 11, 155. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12966-014-0155-3
  9. Mathews N. M. (2018). Prohibited Contaminants in Dietary Supplements. Sports Health, 10(1), 19–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1941738117727736
  10. Bryan E. Denham (2017) When contaminated dietary supplements cause positive drug tests: methylhexaneamine as a doping agent in sport, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 9:4, 677-689, DOI: 10.1080/19406940.2017.1348963
  11. Supplement Connect | U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). (2019, May 3). https://www.usada.org/athletes/substances/supplement-connect/
  12. Wax, B., Kerksick, C. M., Jagim, A. R., Mayo, J. J., Lyons, B. C., & Kreider, R. B. (2021). Creatine for Exercise and Sports Performance, with Recovery Considerations for Healthy Populations. Nutrients, 13(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13061915
  13. Fieldstadt, E. (2021, July 2). U.S. sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson was suspended for one month after failed drug test. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/sports/sha-carri-richardson-could-miss-olympics-after-failed-drug-test-n1272960
  14. Burr, J. F., Cheung, C. P., Kasper, A. M., Gillham, S. H., & Close, G. L. (2020). Cannabis and Athletic Performance. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.z.), 51(Suppl 1), 75-87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-021-01505-x
  15. Bamberger, M. (1997, April 14). OVER THE EDGE AWARE THAT DRUG TESTING IS A SHAM, ATHLETES TO RELY MORE THAN EVER ON BANNED PERFORMANCE ENHANCERS. Sports Illustrated Vault | SI.com. https://vault.si.com/vault/1997/04/14/over-the-edge-aware-that-drug-testing-is-a-sham-athletes-to-rely-more-than-ever-on-banned-performance-enhancers
  16. Connor J, Woolf J, Mazanov J. Would they dope? Revisiting the Goldman dilemma. British Journal of Sports Medicine 2013;47:697-700.
  17. J. Woolf, J. Mazanov & J. Connor (2017) The Goldman Dilemma is dead: what elite athletes really think about doping, winning, and death, International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 9:3, 453-467, DOI: 10.1080/19406940.2016.1194875
  18. González, J. M., Johnson, F. R., Fedoruk, M., Posner, J., & Bowers, L. (2018). Trading Health Risks for Glory: A Reformulation of the Goldman Dilemma. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 48(8), 1963–1969. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0881-9
  19. Hoffman, J. R., & Ratamess, N. A. (2006). Medical issues associated with anabolic steroid use: are they exaggerated?. Journal of sports science & medicine, 5(2), 182–193.

Recent Posts