Before the Olympics began, many pundits and a few well-placed officials took guesses at how many athletes would test positive during the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games. Even Jacques Rogge, the head of the International Olympic Committee, got in on the act. Just before the Olympic Games began, Rogge was quoted by a number of news outlets as predicting that between 30 and 40 athletes would test positive in Beijing. As the Independent reported on August 8th:
Speaking … at the Main Press Centre, Jacques Rogge, president of the International Olympic Committee, forecast “between 30 and 40” positive tests in the 15 days of action to come and acknowledged the bleak reality that drugs in sport, like criminality in society, is here to stay.
Another Olympic official, however, did not expect to see so many cases. Dr. Arne Ljungqvist, the current chairman of the IOC’s medical commission, has decidedly lower expectations for how many cheats will be caught doping during the 2008 Summer Games.
“I’ve not expected that many cases to occur during the Olympic Games, we usually have 12 cases or so. But this time many federations have conducted intensive out of competition testing before the Games and we have seen the consequences of that,” the Swede told a news conference.
With the Olympics a bit past the halfway point, I thought it would be a good time to put Rogge’s theory to the test and see how many athletes have been reported positive since the Olympic Village opened its doors.
The number of athletes testing positive during the Olympics, that I’ve found, is six. And here they are, the athletes accused of testing positive in Beijing:
Maria Isabel Moreno was the first person ejected from the Olympics (although she left Beijing before the games began, and even before her test results were announced, due to “anxiety”). Moreno was recently questioned by Spanish police regarding her positive test for EPO.
Chang Tai-shan, a baseball player from Taiwan, tested positive for something, although news stories haven’t specified exactly what. According to statements made to the press, one explanation for what happened is that Chang has been taking an unidentified “fertility medication.”
Kim Jong Su, the North Korean who won a medal in air-pistol shooting, tested positive for the beta blocker propranolol, and became the first participant in Beijing to have his medal revoked.
Do Thi Ngan Thuong, a Vietnamese athlete competing in women’s gymnastics (she placed 59th in her event), tested positive for furosemide. Dr. Ljungkvist opined that her positive test was probably an unintentional violation.
Ljungqvist blamed her case on “poor information” for the young athlete who doesn’t have the necessary knowledge regarding what is not allowed to take.
Is it me, or does the good doctor seem dangerously close to skating over the line and having some sympathy for an athlete accused of a doping offense?
Fani Halkia, a Greek hurdler, tested positive for the steroid methyltrienolone, on both her A and B samples. The Associated Press reports that she’s the 15th Greek athlete to test positive for the drug this year.
Daniela Yordanova, a Bulgarian middle distance runner who competes in the 1500-meter event, tested positive for testosterone during a pre-Olympic test in June. Her positive result was announced just this past Saturday (the 16th), before she was scheduled to fly to Beijing to race in her event.
For some of these athletes, only an A sample result has been announced, as far as I can tell. At the rate we’re going, it appears that Dr. Ljungqvist is more likely to be correct on the number of positive tests that will occur in Beijing. Jacques Rogge’s estimate, right now, is looking quite high. But there’s a week left, and anything’s possible between now and the closing ceremonies. (Although some positive results could, conceivably, be announced after all the athletes have packed up and headed for home.)
As with all of events of this magnitude, it’s hard to believe that they would conclude without a single doping violation occurring. And certainly there will be no shortage of controversy about who should have won what medal.
Still, on the issue of doping at the games, Dr. Ljungqvist appears optimistic about the numbers.
“It’s encouraging,” he said of the relatively low number of positive doping tests, “and [it] shows that hopefully the athletes here competing are clean.”
Other forms of cheating may be more difficult to root out, such as lying about one’s age. Again, Dr. Ljungqvist observes:
“This is a problem when you have an age limit that there is a temptation for manipulation. How to prove this is scientifically very difficult,” said Ljungvist.
“There are ways but it is not a scientifically or legally accurate way of doing it. It can be plus or minus two years and can be manipulated using certain substances.”
The temptation to cheat will always exist. Sometimes it involves performance-enhancing drugs, and sometimes it involves a “performance-enhanced” passport. Either way, sad to say, cheating happens.
While not official yet….
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OLY_BLONSKA_DOPING?SITE=ORBAK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
and what about…
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OLY_VOL_BULGARIA_KONSTANTINOV?SITE=ORBAK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Ok, who can explain why he had to go home to take a test, and miss a few games to do it?????
And I would have to include these …
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OLY_ATH_DOPING_RUSSIAN_WOMEN?SITE=ORBAK&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
If there is a lower than expected number of doping cases, it is because the system is not catching all of the dopers (system is a failure)? Or is it because the system is successfully deterring athletes from doping, and athletes are now “getting the message” that they can’t get away with doping (system is a success)?
There’s no way to answer these questions with the data at hand.
The problem is compounded by what happens when the ADAs effectively crack down and accuse a lot of high-profile dopers, as arguably took place in the 2006 and 2007 Tour de France. Such an effort can have a positive long-term effect (assuming that the crackdown is fair and effective), as riders are deterred from future doping. But the short-term effect on the sport and the event is negative: sponsors leave the sport, TV outlets cancel their coverage and the media stop reporting on the competition and focus only on the doping.
This dichotomy between the short-term and long-term becomes skewed if we look at an event like the summer Olympics, which is run on a one-time basis by the host country. China (or for that matter, ANY host country) has little interest in aggressively pursuing dopers, as the positive long-term effect (deterring future dopers) will primarily benefit the NEXT guys to run an Olympics. The Chinese should logically be focused on the short-term, as their role as host country ends in just a few days. And the short-term focus is, of course, on avoiding doping controversies, not seeking them out.
Rant’s readership will point out that the Chinese do not entirely control the anti-doping effort in the Olympics. WADA plays its part, as do the various national anti-doping agencies and international sporting federations. However, everyone involved in these Olympics has walked carefully so as not to offend the Chinese authorities. And the testing for these Olympics is (I believe) all being done in a Chinese lab. We have no evidence that everything is not on the up-and-up, but if you wanted to write a favorable anti-doping script for the Chinese, you could not do any better than Rant’s description of what has transpired so far. You have a half-dozen doping positives so far, enough to prove that the Chinese are working diligently to catch the dopers, but there are no high profile doping violations that would mar the games and distract our attention from the competition and the pagentry.
Of course, even the anti-doping agencies want to claim a success or two whenever they can. Actually, from WADA’s perspective, it’s important to both sound the alarm (dopers are everywhere!) AND to self-praise (we’re making progress, dopers are on the run!), whenever possible. If WADA has convinced athletes that it’s foolish to dope, then we don’t need WADA anymore — this would diminish WADA’s importance, and be bad for WADA funding. But if doping is seen as bad and getting worse, then WADA appears to be ineffective, and that’s also bad for WADA. WADA’s PR goal should be to convince us that doping is a serious problem that they’re handing effectively.
(Without getting too cynical, this is also the PR job of the men and women in charge of global anti-terrorism.)
So, what about Rant’s “Olympic Scorecard”? It’s handy and helpful. But it tells us nothing about whether the testing is effective, whether the dopers are being caught, or how serious the doping problem may be at the moment. All we know is that the “Scorecard” is the story that they (the Chinese, WADA and the others) want us to hear.
To whatever extent athletes are getting away with doping, there are 2 main reasons: 1. not everyone gets tested, at least short term. I am not sure what the protocol is for Olympic testing, but I would imagine that medal winners get tested plus a certain number of “random” tests. Certainly not every athlete at the games gets tested. 2. Testing produces false negatives.
The cost of testing everyone at the Olympics or a big Tour is prohibitive. It would be possible to design a program to test a statistically valid random sample in order to draw some meaningful conclusions, but that too could be rather expensive.
I’d bet that WADA at al are quite satisfied with the status quo in regard to knowledge of the exact state of the doping problem. As Larry says, as long as positive results are kept within a certain range, they can be spun to show both there is a problem and something is being done about it. Now I am not saying there is a big conspiracy to manipulate results, or to cover up undesired results, although I wouldn’t doubt that such occasionally occurs. More than likely, the current amount of testing as well as the normally occurring rate of positives, false or otherwise, fulfills WADA’s requirements quite well.
Dave,
I would definitely include the first two on the scorecard. That last story falls into a related category, “Athletes Whose Positive Tests Occurred in the Run-Up to the Olympics.” Rogge’s comments, as I understood them, were to suggest that 30 to 40 athletes would test positive in Beijing. I would include the 7 Russians in the group of Olympic team members or Olympic prospects caught by various anti-doping efforts before going to Beijing.
Larry,
As you point out, we can’t draw any conclusions on the effectiveness of anti-doping efforts in Beijing or beyond. The athletes who’ve currently been implicated serve a useful purpose — both to the the Chinese and WADA. It shows that the system is working (or, at least, appears to be), while avoiding any high-profile scandals. “The truth is out there” as someone once said. But it’s fleeting and mysterious. Are anti-doping efforts really working? Or are we just being given window dressing that suggests they are? My guess is that it’s a bit of both.
I am sure to some extent anti-doping efforts are working. Firstly, there are the athletes who have been caught and sanctioned And I am sure that there are some athletes who are deterred from doping by this.
An interesting thought has occurred to me: is it possible that there has been one form of partial success, athletes who dope, but dope less. The idea that by controlling dosage and timing, one can avoid detection, at least with current methods. So, whereas in 1995, for example, someone might have taken large doses of EPO, today’s doper might take far less in order to fly under the radar. This might mean less benefit in terms of illegally increased performance, and also it might mean athletes at less risk of side effects. Now I am not condoning doping, even at lower levels, but this sort of thing, if indeed it is happening, could be seen as a partial victory.
On a different note, there was a column from the Orlando Sentinel reprinted in the local paper last night to the effect that NASCAR is the most cheating sport. The original link is here:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/orl-whitley1908aug19,0,7436621.column
William,
I thought the two unofficial mottoes of Nascar are:
1) If you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t tryin’.
2) It ain’t cheatin’ if y’all don’t get caught.
🙂
I agree that the number of pre-olympic positives should reduce the number of positives during the games. Steroid Nation has compiled a list: “Working list of doping-banned athletes Pre-Olympics” of 78 athletes. Clearly there are a great number of optimistic athletes out there.
2008http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2008/08/nathan-baggaley.html
Looks like equestrianism is back in the news again and teh product being used will resurrect the rapping claims made four years ago.
In terms of top athletes not being caught at the Olympics – aren’t most of them intelligent enough to have doped when they’re not likely to be tested? Particularly out of season. Conte’s claims about Jamaica – alongside Pound’s previous comments about his meeting with Conte and WADA’s lack of follow-up – do offer food for though and confirm what a lot of people already suspect.
Trying to keep track of the doping at these Games is getting confusing. Officially, I think there’s now nine positives from IOC testing:
* Lyudmila Blonska (Ukrain) (Heptathlon) (Silver medal)
* Kim Jong Su (North Korea) (Shooting) (Silver medal)
* Do Thi Ngan Thuong (North Vietnam) (Gymnastics)
* Maria Isabel Moreno (Spain) (Cycling)
* Fani Halkia (Greece) (Hurdles)
* Bernado Alves (Brazil) (Equestrianism)
* Christian Ahlmann (Germany) (Equestrianism)
* Denis Lynch (Ireland) (Equestrianism)
* Tory Andre Hansen (Norway) (Equestrianism)
Then there’s at least three others who were pulled from the Village after pre-Olympics testing showed them positive:
* Daniela Yordanova (Bulgaria) (Middle Distance Running)
* Kim Hyun-woong (North Korea) (Shooting)
* Chang Tai-shan (Taiwan) (Baseball)
The list of athletes caught before the Games – and the effect their non-presence has had on some event scheduling – is an interesting story.
The tally won’t be complete for some years. They didn’t get to Mrs. Jones for a while. And if you’re one of her teammates on a relay win, does that mean you had to give back your medal “because of doping?” 🙁
And heck, now they even get the horse you rode in on:
http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/beijing-games/story.html?id=740087
I believe that the relay teams on which Jones and/or other convicted dopers ran have been officially DQ’ed. Stands to reason, they presumably won in part because of Jones enhanced performance. This is not to say the others knew about Jones’ PED use. It would be like a HS or college team that used an ineligible player – the teams have to forfeit any games won if the player played even a minimum amount.
I am not sure if there has been any attempt to get them to return their medals – the IOC would have little force if anyone refused to return the medals.
fmk,
That’s looking to be the list at the moment, isn’t it? Four doping positives in equestrianism? Makes me wonder what the security is like in the stables. And who, exactly, is doping these horses. Bad enough when people decide to dope, at least that’s their informed (or foolish) choice. The horses have no say in the matter. Someone comes along and shoots them up with whatever. I know, it’s an old “tradition” in the sport. Amazingly, I’m not hearing too many of the reigning powers that be harrumphing over all of this. (Probably missed those articles, I suspect, what with a new job assignment and no computer in the new office, yet.)
eightzero,
I wonder if the tally for any Olympics will ever be complete. Same for the yearly editions of the Tour, Vuelta and Giro — and just about everything else. Sad, really.
William,
I’m not sure about whether the whole teams have been DQ’d or not. In some cases (not necessarily Jones’) that hasn’t been done. In others, it has. Nothing like consistency, eh? More than once, the IOC has pulled a medal from someone and then the athlete hasn’t returned it. They are, in some ways, a paper tiger. And in other ways, not.
“Makes me wonder what the security is like in the stables. And who, exactly, is doping these horses.”
Why? I think all four riders have admitted they’ve used the product, in a saddle cream.
I know Lance is a saint and never even took an aspirin without checking with his team doctor but get used to it, there are people out there who use things they shouldn’t, some deliberately, some through stupidity.
fmk,
You’ve obviously seen some articles that I haven’t. If they’ve admitted using the product, then that’s pretty much that. Even if they’d used it without knowing what was in it, or whether it was banned, they broke the current anti-doping rules.
Have you ever heard me call Lance a saint? I don’t think so. I’m well aware that there are many people who use things they shouldn’t, whether on purpose or out of stupidity. Heck, one could even write a book about such things. 😉
My understanding is that all the riders seem to be saying the banned product came from the same brand of saddle cream. Certainly the Irish rider – even though insisting on the B test – knew quickly what the substance was and was able to identify the product it came from.
I’m the one calling Lance a saint. Even if I’m wrong and the cynics are right the man’s still a fucking miracle worker. JC could only turn water into wine, but LA could make all dem substances Walsh et al insist he took simply disappear from his blood and urine.
My point is about equestrianism – there’s a lot of use of banned substances going on simply because they’re getting away with it. The vet of the Irish guy was of the view the cream was safe simply because he’s been using it for years and it’s never tested positive before. This is why so few of the riders ever get more than a three month ban. It’s written off to ignorance of the rules. Ignorance of the rule is actually tolerated in equestrianism. Given this, leaping to the age-old excuses of a-big-boy-did-it-and-ran-away just seems … naive. Certainly it’s unnecessary given how inventive the culprits themselves usually are in coming up with excuses.
fmk,
Point take about the story and about Lance. I’m probably guilty of what my headmaster years ago at the Western Road School in Lewes (near Brighton) would call thinking before I … well, in this case … wrote. Lax security in the stables has been part of the doping problem in horseracing (some of the doping meant to slow horses down, even). So it came to mind. My bad. If you’ve got any good links to stories, I always appreciate them. Makes updating the Afterword to Dope easier when I’ve got the sources at hand.
OCI prez Pat Hickey’s comments might interest you: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2008/0823/1219416999761.html and http://www.independent.ie/sport/other-sports/olympics-2008/furious-olympics-boss-sick-and-tired-of-drugs-scandals-1461705.html (linked stories on those two pages should give you the Irish version of this doping episode – a lot if it is purely local politics, given what horses contribute to our economy).
Basically Hickey is suggesting that equestrianism is now the most likely sport to face the axe come the post-Olympic review (there seems to be an understanding among a lot of officials that at least one sport is on its way out of the Olympics, to make room for new sports).
With the B tests being doesn’t this weekend I don’t imagine much is going to be heard of this story until the middle/end of next week. There is the possibility of at least one medal being redistributed, so it should get reported.
It seems to me there were a number of fairly high-profile no-shows due to injuries just before the games. We heard about some from the US team; there must be many more from the other national teams we don’t know as much about. Some of these injuries, I’m sure, were legit, and great disappointments to the individual athletes and their teams. Others, you wonder whether they provided a diplomatic veil to avoid testing and exposure. Not a scrap of proof, of course, but I suspect the number of positives might be increased by a certain number of these no-shows.
It is possible that some of the injuries are just stories to cover when an athlete withdraws so s/he isn’t uncovered as a doper. But why would an athlete go all the way through the qualifying and then withdraw at the last minute if it wasn’t really an injury?
It would be useful to get names and dates for these alleged withdrawals.
Some were anticipated when it was revealed the CERA test existed – that there’d be a lot of tendonitis and the like, á la Sella – but I haven’t actually heard of many cases, certainly not many notable ones anyway.
OK, I can see where an athlete might be using CERA, thinking it is undetectable, and then after the Tour results decide it isn’t worth the risk. So, are the number of scratches this year higher in proportion to the total number of athletes than in past Olympics?
Hey Rant-
I stopped reading your site a while back when I got fed up with the whole Landis affair. I was looking through my bookmarks and came across one for your site. I’m happy to see you still have something to Blog about.
Keep up the good work.
-James
fmk,
Thanks for the links. Most appreciated.
James,
Welcome back. It’s been a week since my last post, so I’ll have to get writing on something new. Fortunately, I have a two-part interview that I’ll be publishing this week. Well, the first part, anyway. The second may be a few days afterwards. I took a quick look at your site. Looks good.
Marc,
Glad to see you back, too.
And now, on to writing tonight’s post …
The Irish horse’s B sample result is back and the man from Del Montr, he say yes. The horse was doped. Sob-story to be wheeled out in front of FEI next week and slap on the wrist administered. Haven’t had a chance to Google and see if the other three Bs are back yet but presume they must be if the Irish one is.
Yup, all four Bs positive. Plus a fifth horse named. http://www.fei.org/Media/News_Centre/News/Pages/summ.aspx?newsName=updatemedication_27august.aspx
fmk,
Thanks for the link. I saw another story earlier that said the same thing. All four B samples confirm the As, and a fifth rider was also named. It will be interesting to see if any other positive test results from the Beijing Games turn up over the next week or so.
and then there were six: http://www.fei.org/Media/News_Centre/News/Pages/summ.aspx?newsName=updatedoping_medication_1september.aspx
fmk,
Thanks for the link. Most appreciated.
Makes me wonder what, if any, other revelations (in equestrianism or other sports) are still lurking out there.