Once upon a time, during the era portrayed in Chariots of Fire, athletics were genteel. Many sportsmen competed without any structured training program. In fact, in some sports, like running, the ideal was to see what one could do with one’s “natural” talents.
Over time, athletes and coaches got more structured in their race or competition preparations and started doing things like regular training regimens. Practicing the sport to become stronger, faster and to develop more endurance.
And as time went on, new technologies developed that have enabled athletes to do better still. And all of these developments could be called performance enhancement techniques. Seems to me, underlying the whole question of doping is what kinds of performance enhancement should be allowed and what kinds shouldn’t be.
If you’re a bike racer or serious athlete in some other sport, think about the training tools you might be using: pulse rate monitor, power meter, some fancy running watch that computes distance, speed, time, elevation gain or loss. Should those be legal? They certainly enhance your performance. None of them puts your life or anyone else’s life at risk. I’d say they’re OK, wouldn’t you?
When I do time trials, I don’t use a speedometer on my bike. I have my pulse monitor centered on my aero bars, where I can watch my pulse rate easily. It helps me maintain a constant effort over the entire distance. Get the pulse to 170 or 175 and keep it there the whole time. Crossing the finish line, if I’ve done things right, I shouldn’t be able to push very many more pedal strokes before I almost keel over from exhaustion.
But what about the racers who can’t afford a pulse monitor? Is it fair that I use one if they can’t? Ditto for a power meter or whatever fancy gadgets your sport might have. Goodness knows there’s an ever expanding array of toys out there.
In most amateur competition there’s no limit on how low your bicycle’s weight can go (disclaimer: I haven’t read USA Cycling’s rules in full lately … maybe they got around to implementing some rules on this). Got a 1-pound unobtainium wonder bike? By all means use it. But when you get to the level of competition of say, the Tour, there’s even rules on how light your bike can be for the mountain stages. Can’t be too light, according to the Tour’s rulemakers. That would be unfair.
What’s fair or not is a pretty tricky question. And extending it to performance enhancing drugs gets to be trickier still. Caffeine, at least in certain quantities, is still legal. Booze isn’t. Neither is wacky tabacky. I’ve been in races with riders on the edge of legal vis-a-vis caffeine, and it’s not a pretty sight. Pretty much the best thing to do with them is get ahead of them and stay there. Let them crash out behind you, and hope no one else gets taken out with them.
I know I wouldn’t want to be in a race with a drunk cyclist (but I can’t imagine someone in that state being able to ride, anyway) and I don’t think I’d like being in a race with someone who’s stoned, either. I heard one Cat 1 I know once say that he used to take Xanax prior to races. I once had to take that for medical reasons, and let me tell you, it’s not something I’d use if I was going to race. I hate that feeling of my brain being disconnected from the rest of my body. It’s just plain weird and feels out of control. I hope he was joking. I sure can’t imagine racing that way.
Reader ORG makes the suggestion that performance enhancing drugs and techniques (like oxygen tents for that high-altitude training effect) should be allowed under medical supervision. He goes on to say that perhaps these techniques should be banned for high school age and younger athletes, to make sure there’s no harmful health consequences.
It’s an interesting suggestion, and worthy of further consideration. I think Pedro Delgado was on the right track when he said that the list of banned substances should be made shorter, not longer. And I’d take it one step further and say that it should be specific to each sport. Testosterone, supposedly, doesn’t do as much for a bicycle racer as it might for a weight-lifter. But blood doping, on the other hand, increases the oxygen-carrying capacity of your blood, which in an endurance sport like cycling is probably more important.
So is that a lot of work for WADA and the national ADAs to draw up all those lists? Sure. But it’s what they’re being paid to do. A big long laundry list, one-size fits all approach is a cop-out in my opinion. Make it specific to each sport, and then develop a series of standard tests to be implemented by all labs in the same manner across the board. There’s too much variation in how things are done between the various anti-doping labs to call this a consistent enforcement regime.
So what performance enhancement should be allowed and what shouldn’t? I think there’s a pretty common sense answer to that: If your “performance enhancement” endangers your health or the safety of other athletes in competition, it shouldn’t be allowed. If it doesn’t (even if that means with the monitoring of a doctor to ensure that it doesn’t), then it should be legal.
Rant,
Your common sense approach is wonderful…but I fear that lawyers would eat it alive. I’m married to one, and we have some great (if frustrating) discussions on common sense vs. lawyerese.
For example, smoking tobacco is legal in this country, or “allowed.” Yet it endangers not only the smoker’s health, but those around him. Friday night we attended a tree lighting ceremony and someone — within his rights — walked by in the open air, smoking a cigarette. My allergies were already acting up, and I had to go hunting for a cough drop when Mr. Smoker walked by, so as not to choke to death. So by your rules, this should be illegal, but it’s not. (I wonder if there are any asthmatic cyclists? You’d think so, given the USADA’s exemptions and forms for the steriods for such, but I digress).
Then I wonder if those who cannot take things like caffeine will feel they are discriminated against, because all the other riders will be able to take advantage of a substance they can’t? Will riders with moral issues against things like alcohol, caffeine, or transfusions also feel discriminated against? (Maybe these things aren’t sued over in Europe as much as they are here?). I can see a team coach or doctor advising these methods for enhancement, and a rider having to defy that person because their religion or ethics forbids them to partake of said substance.
I heard Carlton Reid talk about how there is a limit to bike weight because riders in some countries (I think he used the example of African riders) cannot find/afford the lightweight bikes with the technology that other riders have. I’m not sure how I feel about that. If a rider is very good, wouldn’t they be hired by a team that would supply team bikes?
Anyway, these are just some quick thoughts in response to your proposal of common sense. I guess my point is that it means different things to different people, which is exactly why the rules are so inconsistent from agency to agency, and we need them to be made consistent for all.
Some thoughts
1) In addition to the list of what is a PED (which I agree is too long and should be shortened), the level that triggers a positive AAF is also an issue. Right now WADA sets these levesl as low as possible. The idea is to catch someone at the end of a cycle.
The problem with this is (IMO) their are getting too many false positives. If you eat a big mac and the beef came from a ranch that juiced their steer, you might test positive for low levels of ‘riods.
They need to re-consider their levels.
2) You say ban anyhting that is dangerous. How about long training rides. Floyd has a bad hip from a training ride. How about we ban moutnain stages because descending is too dangerous? Should we ban the use of radios when cycling for the same reason we are restricting cell phones while driving?
How about runners training in excess of 100 miles a week? This is the cause of more injuries among 5k to marathon runners than any other activity.
Where do we draw the line with safety and where do we let personally responsibility take over?
ORG,
Long training rides are part of the preparation for racing. Descending is at least partly a skill, though it can be dangerous depending on road conditions and weather. At some point, we have to let personal responsibility take over. I would, for example, advocate banning the use of hallucinogens or opiates while racing, due to the danger it might pose to the other athletes. If an athlete trains on his/her own that way, and suffers ill consequences, that’s the athlete’s responsibility. I would hope, however, if there were any ill consequences that it would only affect the athlete and no one else.
Debby,
You’re right common sense means many things to many people. I think what we need is a simplified system that is consistently implemented, consistently enforced and easy for all to understand. It may not quite qualify as common sense, but it would be much closer than what we currently have.
– Rant