I LOST MY ENTIRE JOB, BECAUSE I WAS HIGH (Drugs in Sport (Doping))

Name: dadofthree

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Drugs in Sport (Doping)
Date:	05/04/06 (1042 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Athletes perform better, faster and longer.

Disadvantages: It's unfair competition and can be harmful in the longrun to the individual who is abusing

I have some quite strong views on this topic but shall try to remain impartial... but starting with a question, why are drugs illegal in sport?

Drugs were initially illegalised in most sports due to the damaging effects it can have on an individual in the long run. Although performance enhancing drugs are designed to ensure a rapid increase in performance, be it adrenalin or other stimulation, they were harmful to athletes who were developing all sorts of problems after extended use. Steroids messes with your hormones and can leave women with male features and indeed men with too much stress on the heart leading to heart attacks etc... Either way its a premature death for the person concerned, often in a rather drawn out and painful manner.

So they were illegalised in sport, in the interest of the athletes. This then led to the question of unfair competition. Those who act against the rules of their sport are often gaining an unfair advantage over their opponents. A sprinter on steroids will have unnaturally strong muscles and be a blast off the blocks for instance. So came another problem, how do we monitor it to make sure nobody is using them?

Well, this will be an ever ongoing battle, and one that has turned almost farcical in my opinion. Firstly, there are clear examples where people can avoid detection by simply inventing new drugs that bypass the current testing methods. To avoid this, the authorities in each given sport have to invest in new testing techniques and keep up to speed on what drugs athletes are taking and what their effects are.

Here in lies another problem. A governing body cannot ban a drug until it can reliably prove that the drug has a performance enhancing effect. To do this they must firstly be aware of the drug, then they have to test it in various manners to ensure they can prove their findings, only then can they ban it. Having achieved this, they then have to find a test that can reliably detect it. All this takes time, time in which some athletes will almost certainly have gained an advantage.

My opinion is that drugs in sport are bad, and that the people who take them are simply out to cheat the sport and cheat the fans. I use football as a classic example. Adrian Mutu was fined by Chelsea, sacked, banned by the FA and also by FIFA for taking drugs. He was found guilty and was given a substantial sentence. Yet I see him on TV today as Juventus play Arsenal acting like nothing happened, still earning a paycheck that has more 0's per week than I will earn in my Lifetime. But how long did he manage to evade the authorities before he was discovered? And more to the point, why did he do it in the first place.

This is where my strict opinion starts to wane. In an ideal world, all drug users would be banned for life. But there are always circumstances that allow for some cause of argument about the manner in which they are taken. There are incidents (such as a Uruguayan team who I fail to recall the year) where it has been proven that the coaching team were knowingly 'spiking' the half time drinks to enhance their players performances. The players knew nothing about it. In this instance we have a dilemma.

The coaches are clearly in breach of all regulations, both in terms of sportsmanship, in terms of ethics and now, in terms of the law. But what about the players. They were guilty of trusting someone. They didn't knowingly take the drugs but they were clearly gaining an advantage from them. Indeed, they would continue to do so until the drugs left their system. It's really unfair to ban them, but also unfair to punish them with a ban when they have done nothing intentionally wrong.

Along this same contentious line, I have to draw your attention to the fairly recent discovery that headache tablets with the wrong mix of paracetamol can actually provide a positive drugs test under some authorities (notably Lindford Christy was found guilty, but later cleared). In these instances, athletes are presumed guilty until proven innocent, leading to a loss of earnings, sometimes a loss of prestige and a severe dent on their reputation. Fortunately Lindford won his case, but what of those without the funds to hire medical professionals and top lawyers, those who are just starting out in their sport with great potential?

Sport has a lot to attempt to deal with. It has the cheats who cause all the problems in the first place, the legal red tape that comes with trying to prove a cheat and the protection of those who are not cheating, but are implicated through the methods used to detect cheats being flawed in one way or another.

I feel there are certain things that could still be done to improve the situation in our current climate. Firstly I would look to the media coverage. At present, newspapers get a whiff of a drugs test and its front page, they may apologise in the middle pages later in the week but the damage will have been done. I feel that the media should be declined the chance to publish anything about drugs with a specific named athlete until after an appeal hearing.

Secondly, a fund should be set up to ensure that athletes get proper legal and medical assistance when found guilty. While this can make it harder to prove guilt in cheaters, even one innocent person mistakenly punished is too much. What if Lindfords case had been at the start of his Career? He would have never had his sporting life and the UK would have missed out on one of its world famous athletes.

Further, I would continue investment as it is on testing methods. While it would be easy to say 'pump in cash and perfect them', it would never be perfected as new drugs are always becoming available and new tests will always be needed. Money is a finite substance and investing more than is currently ploughed into testing would mean it has to come from somewhere... less sporting academies for instance? I dont want cheats to force the youth to do without...

With this change we would see better control and less destruction of individuals when it comes to incorrect drugs testing and protection of human rights.

Drugs remain the vain of the sporting world and are in no way supported by me, but in the same tone, I disagree with innocent people being caught in a trap - and this is far worse than anyone cheating.

Summary: Cheats are bad, but careful not to harm innocent people with mistakes...