Drugs in Sport; It's Complicated!

Drugs in Sport: It's Complicated!

Firstly, I would like to dispel a myth that sport is fair. It really isn't! At an elite level the literal playing field you compete on may be level but that is where equality ends. Genetics, technology, finance, nationalistic interest and support systems are just some of the ways that sport is unfair! Being born in a country where your genetic make up gives you a distinct advantage in distance running is not questioned on the grounds of fairness. Growing up in a family who can afford to pay private coaches to accelerate your development is not questioned on the grounds of fairness. Living in a country who at a Governmental level plough millions in to elite sport in the pursuit of medals is not questioned on the grounds of fairness. So why are drugs? Why is it people have such scorn for their place in sport? Perhaps it is the fact that it would enable only certain athletes with the finances and access to gain an upper hand by utilising them. But, this would seem to already be the case when it comes to technology! Let me explain further. 

We are living in an age of great technological development and it's impact on sport has been dramatic! See the LZR Racing suit in swimming, the Nike Vaporfly running shoe and Nike Zoom X Dragonfly track spike. These have caused outrage amongst some as to how can sport claim to have and maintain integrity when only those who possess the most up to date technology are capable of winning? This would seem to follow the same argument as to why drugs are banned, right? Well, no. There is something seemingly more at play here. When the President of World Athletics Seb Coe states in an interview with the Guardian that “At the moment I’m pretty calm about this (refeing to the Nike Dragonfly show). And the balance of judgment here is always – and I guess this is a personal instinct of mine as well – that we shouldn’t be in the business of trying to suffocate innovation” you have to start to question why are drugs not seen in the same way as technology. 

My exploration of this topic has led to me believe two things change when looking at the use of drugs in sport when compared to things like technology. These are health and money!

Drugs in society are inherently seen as bad so, why would we be comfortable with our sporting heroes doing something that world governments spend trillions of pounds every year trying to prevent? A good question and clearly we shouldn't! But, can it be that simple? Well again, the answer is probably no. If sport is lauded for promoting health and wellness then do we need to take a closer look at what this means at an elite level. How healthy is something that sees a percentage of its participants (we may never know exactly what percentage) continually dealing with mental stresses that can lead to personality issues, breakdowns and even suicide! Every day athletes struggle with the physical pain that comes with being an elite performer. Training or competing hurt, hiding injuries or conditions from medics to ensure they can play or even receive their next contract, undergoing operations to repair and replace damaged body parts! These issues can have profound and long lasting effects on their lives during and after sport. So why are we comfortable with this and not their use of drugs? They already use drugs to recover and enable them to participate but as soon as they are deemed to 'enhance' their performance we draw the line! Is it because the issues of injury or mental wellbeing are deemed to be 'natural parts' of sport and elite performance? Is it just a price athletes have to pay if they want to be the worlds best or a 'winner'? Sport at a community level may be about health and the benefits of being physically active but it would appear at an elite level it can be anything but healthy for those involved!

When it comes to money the discussion gets even more complex! Let's focus on the Olympics here and specifically the IOC, WADA, the people and the corporations involved. WADA's funding is received from World Governments and the IOC. Whatever the Governments pay, WADA matches dollar for dollar. In 2020 this was just over 37.4 million US dollars. On the surface this would seem like a positive and equal way of sharing the financial load. But when we start to look at the power dynamics within this it starts to become somewhat questionable. The IOC made roughly 5.7 billion dollars between 2013 and 2016. 91% of its value is derived from broadcasting and marketing. Founded on the premise that drug scandals in sport reduce its credibility, value and appeal (which isn't proven as far as I can see but seems to be the general consensus) how comfortable are the IOC going to be with WADA damaging its own product and the one that in turn funds their work? Now, you may say this is a leap and there are safeguards in place etc etc which, all may well be true. But, until WADA are independently funded this would remain a sizeable nagging doubt for me! Further to this as the 'Icarus' documentary exposed with Dr Grigory Rodchenkov, how independent and trustworthy can a system ever truly be when Governments are involved?

Similar can be said for the people and the corporations involved in sport. Athletics and Lord Coe being a prime example. For clarity here I am not suggesting there is wrong doing or Coe is in anyway some mastermind villain behind the scenes pulling strings. What I am aspiring to explain or even for you to question for yourself is how complex and interconnected the landscape is. As an example, Lord Coe was a paid Nike ambassador for nearly 40 years, finishing in 2015. For eight of those years he was also the IAAF Vice President. He stepped down as an Ambassador for Nike when in 2015 he became the IAAF President. As IAAF President he joined the IOC committee in 2020. Throughout this time he was also chairman of CSM Sport & Entertainment, a global branding agency which works with a number of sports stars and firms with links to the Olympics. When joining the IOC he had to move in to a different role with CSM Sport and Entertainment as it was claimed there was a conflict of interest between the two. 

So, here we have a highly influential individual undertaking paid employment with a multi billion dollar corporation which also has a large influence within the sport. The same corporation who set up and sponsored the Oregon Project training programme between 2001 and 2019 which, had to disbanded when Alberto Salazar (coach) and Jeffrey Brown (doctor) received 4 year bans for doping violations. A corporation who's board, according to the New York Times, were aware of the doping being undertaken.

'According to emails contained in a decision by the American Arbitration Association in a case between U.S. Anti-Doping Agency and the Nike-backed running coach Alberto Salazar, Parker and other top Nike officials were briefed on several occasions between 2009 and 2011 regarding medical experiments being conducted to determine the effects of performance-enhancing drugs and how much of the substances could be used by athletes without being detected.'

Add to this the fact that Nike were sponsoring the Oregon project to the tune of '$460m across a 26-year deal with US Track and Field, the national governing body for the sport' (Financial Times extract) and you can start to see just how complex this gets! 

By this point you may be thinking I need to put my tin foil hat away and that may be fair. My point is to merely to highlight how an individual can be employed by a corporation which has a sponsorship deal with the Governing body of that sport which, reports directly to the aforementioned individual in their capacity as a leader in the global regulatory body of that sport! Conflict of interest seems to be somewhat of an understatement!

Knowing what we do about this complex web of regulatory bodies and doping control I'd like to invite you to undertake a thought experiment. 

Let's take a talented young athlete in a sport that needs a revival who has certain 'genetic gifts' and who lives in a country where doping controls are arguably more relaxed than others. Let's say this individual goes on to be a global superstar, the face of championships, olympics and everything in between. The superstar on which the sport focuses and sells itself to a global audience, in a market worth hundreds of millions. Someone, who is continually portrayed as 'good' in the ongoing narrative of 'good vs evil drug cheats' in their sport. Someone, who in the top 30 fastest times ever run in their sport was the only one on the list not to have been found guilty of doping. 

How hard would the organisations involved look? 

How much would we question the results? 

How skeptical of the narrative would we be?

How big a leap is it to think that such an individual might be protected, or deemed 'too big' to fail?

I present this merely as an exercise to challenge our perspective on drugs in sport and how far reaching the issues could extend. I have no evidence of any wrongdoing by anyone and I sincerely hope there is none but, I can't help but wonder. 

Sport is so much more than just competing on a field or a court or a track against other people. It is a global business worth trillions. It is a mouthpiece for national interest and political ideologies. It is a way to influence the lives of millions arguably billions of people. When so much is at stake is it then any wonder that athletes will do whatever it takes to succeed? Or, be put under life threatening pressure to conform and dope as part of a regime? Can we really hope to make any sort of inroad to the doping issue with athlete onyly focussed interventions when the issues and pressures come from the very people who run the programmes, organisations or countries in which they inhabit? Is it a fight we are destined to lose due to the nature of the very societal constructs in which it exists? 

As Lance Armstrong who is perhaps sports 'greatest' ever doper states in the ESPN documentary 'Lance' “It's complicated”. 

Note: This blog was written as part of a contemporary issues module for an MSc in Sports Coaching. The position I have taken is quite deliberately a contentious one as any feedback received will be used in a follow up presentation as part of the portfolio of work for the module. I would welcome your thoughts on anything I have mentioned but especially around the issues of fairness, health, nationalism, finance and how they impact our perspective of drug use in sports.