17).
I think that drug testing should be a mandatory event in every college
whether or not it is an invasion of their privacy.
A constant battle has been fought as the International Olympic Committee
struggles to keep drug testing up-to-date and effective. We have come to
associate drug use with a few famous names of fallen heroes, such as Ben
Johnson, but few realize just how widespread drug use is in Olympic sports and
how small a percentage of offenders ever get caught. Recent studies show that
increased testing procedures have done little to deter athletes from relying on
drugs to aid performance and that drug use among Olympic athletes is actually on
the rise (Dolan 29). Performance-enhancing drug use is not limited to the
Olympic games. There are few sports that have not been affected in some way by
drug use. The fact is that there are numerous substances currently available
with potential benefits for athletes in all sports. Most professional sports do
not have rigorous testing procedures for performance enhancing drugs for the
simple facts that there are too many drugs to test for, and the tests are too
easy to beat says Hank Nuwer. This presents the International Olympic Committee
(IOC) with one of it?s greatest challenges; trying to keep it?s drug testing
procedures on par with the technology of today?s pharmacists (63). Don Kardong
reports that the IOC faces major problems when posing these tests:
Is that many of these drugs can be cycled, where the athlete stops taking
doses long enough ahead of time so that no trace of the drug will show up in
urine samples. Another problem is the testing procedure itself. Samples are
tested for a list of known substances, and since new drugs have to be used and
discovered in tests before the IOC is aware of them and can include them on the
list, those athletes who have access to the newest products have the advantage
of using drugs not yet on the banned list.
In addition, many of these athletes according to Jeff Meer have access to the
same high-tech equipment used by the IOC to detect drugs, allowing them to
familiarize themselves with levels of detection and necessary clearance times
for different drugs. This is how many athletes are able to consistently avoid
testing positive, while maintaining a diverse regimen of drugs. In addition to
the difficulties involved in detecting many drugs and illegal procedures, Meer
feels the IOC is faced with the tremendous cost involved in implementing an
all-encompassing testing protocol for all athletes. In his article ?The Drug
Detectives?, Mike Lupica states that the IOC ?is deploying hand-picked
technicians and three $700,000 high-resolution mass spectrometers? to perform
drug tests at a cost of about $800 per test (Lupica 1). Although many recent
studies estimate that roughly 80 percent of all Olympic athletes are currently
using, or have at some time used, some type of performance-enhancing drug, only
a handful have ever been caught and punished according to Hank Nuwer?s studies
(23). This again points to the inefficiency of the IOC?s efforts to diminish
the prevalence of drugs in Olympic competition. Due to the lack of success that
the IOC has had in controlling the rampant spread of drug use, many have asked
why they do not simply go with the popular trends and legalize the use of these
drugs in competition. While most will agree that drug use is now rampant
throughout the Olympics, eliminating the tests and lifting bans would surely
cause the use and abuse of these substances to increase dramatically. If allowed
into the Olympics and other sports, we would surely see a drastic rise in the
black-market. While these bans are forced, athletes who chose to remain natural
and compete without drugs still have a chance. Lifting the bans would
effectively force all serious Olympic hopefuls to take potentially dangerous
drugs. Even with the current bans and testing procedures, ?the nationalistic
driving force for Olympic competition has been athletic performance, and because
of this relationship, sports medicine has become an integral component of the
Olympic movement? (Tipton 2). Another reason why the use of these substances
is controlled is that many substances are potentially dangerous to the health of
the athlete. Athletes have been known to suffer from liver and kidney
dysfunction to various forms of cancer (Rogak 96). Many of the drugs today lack
the extensive testing needed to predict possible side effects and consequences
of long-term use (96). Many would ask why athletes would put themselves at such
tremendous risks to both their health and reputations. To many athletes, these
rewards of stardom are worth any risk. I mean, the common motto in sports is ?win
at all costs?. Americans do not hope for success from their athletes, they
expect and even demand it, and ?exposing the public to the darker side of
elite-level sports could produce negative sentiments towards the Olympic Games?
(Moore 4). It seems that the best plan for the IOC is to continue with their
current procedure, and enforce testing wherever possible. The IOC is sending a
message to athletes, that they are aware of the use of drugs but they will never
condone it, and that they will continue to implement testing in an attempt to
discourage the spread of the use of supplements throughout sports. With
continued funding and research, the IOC may someday develop testing procedures
more advanced than the technology available to the athletes. This would
hopefully eliminate the use performance-enhancing drugs and return professional
sports to a level playing field that was originally intended. Because doctors
and IOC officials know very little about the many types of performance-enhancing
drugs and steroids, they have yet to come up with good ways of detecting them
(61). According to Michael Bamberger and Don Yaeger of Sports Illustrated, the
only ways the IOC can test right now is to use urine tests, a gaschromato graph,
and a high-resolution mass spectrometer, yet there are many ways to bypass all
three of these tests (61). Also, Bamberger and Yaeger note that, the
sophisticated athlete who wants to take drugs has switched to things we can?t
even test for. To be caught is not easy; it only happens, says David Reid,
director of the doping control center, when an athlete is either incredibly
sloppy, incredibly stupid, or both (79). Another way to deceive drug tests is to
use special performance-enhancing drugs, which are made especially for one
person to do one specific duty. These drugs do not have the same chemical parts
as the ones the IOC tests for, and therefore these athletes are not usually
caught. But, these drugs are extremely expensive, sometimes costing the athletes
up to $1,500 a month (Bamberger and Yaeger 64). Also, legal
performance-enhancing drugs such as creatine and androstenedione, which may also
have adverse side affects, and both of which are used by professional baseball
player Mark McGwire, are seen as drugs that help a person to become stronger and
better, without any of the negative results in which some illegal
performance-enhancing drugs and steroids can bring. Young athletes have heard
and seen that established athletes whom they admire use [performance-enhancing
drugs], and they want to follow the same victorious paths of their heroes (Nuwer
12). According to an article written in the October 1998 issue of People Weekly,
…sales of the steroid (androstenedione) are expected to top $100 million this
year, up from $5 million in 1997 (144). Many of these sales will be from younger
athletes competing at the high school level, unaware of the dangers of this
legal substance. According to a USA Today report, …175,000 teenage girls in
the United States have reported taking anabolic steroids at least once within a
year of the time surveyed–a rise of 100% since 1991 (Winner A3). This compares
to the estimated 325,000 teenage boys who currently use steroids (A3).
George Will notes that ?A society?s recreation is charged with moral
significance, sports and a society that takes it seriously would be debased if
it did not strictly for bid things that blur the distinction between the triumph
of character and the triumph of chemistry? (Edelson 139). One action that
these organizations must take in the near future is to spend a lot of time and
money on the study of performance-enhancing drugs and steroids. Thus, they would
be able to come up with better ways to be able to test athletes. These
regulations are needed not only to protect the athletes, but also to bring some
integrity back to the world of sports. These athletes care only about themselves
and do not have enough discipline and desire to train hard, the honest way
without the use of supplements.
Work Cited
Alvin, Virginia, and Robert Silerstein. Steroids: Big Muscles, Big Problems.
New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1992: 64-68.
August, Paul N. Drugs and Women. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1987
Bach, Julie S., ed. Drug Abuse, Opposing View Points. St. Paul: Green haven
Press, 1988.
Bamberger, Michael and Don Yeager. ?Over the Edge with Performance
Enhancing Drug
Use.? Sports Illustrated v86: 14 April 1997: 60-64+
Blair, Tim. ?Just Say Go To The Latest Performance Boosting Drugs
Impossible To
Detect, and For Many Athletes, Impossible To Resist.? Time International
27 July 1998.
Butcher, Pat. ?Live Fast, Die Young.? Independent 23 September 1998.
Cowart, Virginia S. ?Athletes and Steroids- A Bad Bargain?
Saturday Evening Post 11 January 1987: 30-37.
Day, Michael. New Scientist. 10 October 1998: 45-46.
Dolan, Edward F. Drugs In Sports. New York: Sports Chrome East/West, 1986:
27-29.
Edelson, Edward. ?Sports Medicine.? The Encyclopedia of Health. Chelsea
House
Publishers 1988: 135-141.
Gildea, William. ?Life and Drugs-In Sports Fast Lane.? Readers Digest, 9
January
1988: 57-58.
Green, Gary A. Drugs and the Athlete. Delaware: Medical Journal, September
1987.
Harris, Jonathan. Drugged Athletes. New York: For Winds Press, 1987: 90-91+
Hazard Alert. People Weekly v50 no13: 12 October 1998: 143-144.
Jaffe, Steven L. and Dynise Balcavage. Junior Drug Awareness ?Steroids?
Philadelphia: Chelsea House Publishers, 1997.
Kardong, Don. ?Precious Medal.? Runners World. V33 no8: August 1998
70-73.
Lupica, Mike. ?The Drug Detective.? Esquire September 1992: 23-25.
Meer, Jeff. ?Drugs and Sports.? The Encyclopedia of Psychoactive Drugs.
New York:
Chelsea House Publishers, 1987. Vol. 2: 60-61,97.
Moore, Kenny. ?The U.S. Olympic Women Swimmers of 1976 Swept Into Montreal.?
Sports Illustrated 13 July 1992.
Nardo, Don. Drugs and Sports. San Diego: Lucent Books, Inc. 1990: 15-24.
Nuwer, Hank. Steroids. New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, Inc. 1992: 15,17,19+
Papanke, John ?Athletes or Role Models?? Sports Illustrated 15 June 1997:
16-18.
Reid, David C. ?Sports Medicine? The Sports Encyclopedia 1997: 40-47.
Reilly, Rick. ?Hey Mac, Do What Comes Natural.? Sports Illustrated: v90
no9: 1 March
1999: 42,90-91.
Rogak, Lisa A. Steroids: Dangerous Game. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications
Company,
1992. 95-98.
Telander, Rick ?The Nightmare of Steroids.? Sports Illustrated 24 October
1998.
Tipton, Paul. ?Dope and Glory.? Runner?s World. December 1996: 2+
Voy, Robert M. Drugs, Sports, and Politics. Champaign: Leisure Press 1991.
Wadler, Gary I. And Brian Hainline. Drugs and the Athlete. Philadelphia:
Davis
Company 1989.
Winner, Christopher P. ?Sports Doping Crisis Faces a Crossroads.? USA
Today 28
September 1998: 2A-3A.
Wright, James E. and Virginia Cowart. Anabolic Steroids: Altered States New
Jersey:
National Institute 1989.
317