Performance Enhancing Drugs- The evolution
and future of drugs and how it has allowed humans to exceed their limitations
1. Executive Summary
Performance enhancing drugs (PED) has been used ever since men wanted to
outperform each other. However, the general population have little or almost no
knowledge about such PEDs and trust that athletes are drug free. Therefore, the
author chose to write about this topic to raise awareness of the subject, PED,
and hopefully provide insights into the current situation.
This paper will seek to understand the evolution of Performance
Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) and the future implications that it will bring about. In
order to gain a deeper understanding of PEDs, it is vital that we examine the
historical aspect of it first. After which, the author would analyze the
current situation on the use of performance enhancing drugs, and some of the
social implications that have risen with the usage of PEDs. The author would
also examine the current anti-doping policy and provide his inputs on the
policy. Lastly, the author would like to present a future perspective on the
use of PEDs, the author believes that we should embrace such advances due to
the potential it could bring to our society.
2. Introduction
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) defines Performance Enhancing Drug
(PED) if it follows the three criteria. First, it has the potential to enhance
or enhances sport performance. Second, it represents a potential or actual
health risk. Third, it is contrary to the spirit of sport (WADA, 2003).
In the past, when we were still living in hunter gatherer times, we were
judged based on how well we could hunt, fish and provide for our family. However,
with civilization, we are no longer required to perform such tasks and instead
we compete through sports. Due to the nature of humans’ attempt to establish
their legacy and superiority through setting world records, spectators
celebrate these records as it indicates human breakthroughs.
However, evolution doesn’t occur within the time frame of centuries,
much less within decades. Athletes often realized that they are restricted by
their natural abilities and found it tough to break barriers. Moreover,
spectators have high expectations of athletes, they expect to witness records
being broken every Olympic Games which is held once every 4 years. The stress
of performing can come from various sources, from coaches, parents, personal
pride and even media. These stress has pushed our athletes to engage in PEDs to
unlock their potential by allowing them to train more frequently to push past
their limit.
This paper will examine the historical use of PEDs, why some of them
were invented and their purposes. Following which, it will examine the current
situation and what are some social implications that has risen with usage of
PEDs and how the current anti-doping policy is doomed to fail. This paper will
also bring to you a future perspective of competition whereby we begin to
embrace such advances and also the implications that come with it.
The limitations of this paper will encompass a lack of reliable
resources to show the pervasive use of performance enhancing drugs as these are
considered to be trade secrets of athletes. In addition, the author could have
prior biasness against performance enhancing drugs as he is a competitive
natural bodybuilder and powerlifter. In his field of sports, it is common
practice to consume PEDs in order to maximize training frequency and intensity.
Despite the limitations, the author has tried his best to provide an objective
overview of the topic and his exposure to athletes who have used performance
enhancing drugs has allowed him to provide clearer perspectives.
3. Historical Perspective
After feeling inspired by the Ancient Olympic Games, Baron Pierre de
Coubertin established the Modern Olympic Games in 1894 (International Olympic
Committee, 2012). It was common practice then for coaches to have their own
unique mixture for their athletes to allow them to have an edge over their
competition. In 1904, Thomas Hick, an Olympic marathon runner, was using a
special concoction of brandy and strychnine which was supposed to boost his
endurance (ProCon, 2013).
PEDs has been used since the start of the original Olympic Games, from
779 BC to 393 BC (ProCon, 2013). Early forms of PEDs were naturally occurring
substances such as hydromel (an alcoholic beverage made from honey) and coffee.
These early PEDs allowed users to have an edge over their competitors and
outperform them as it gave the athletes heightened alertness and delayed their
fatigue levels (ProCon, 2013).
In 1950s, athletes were using amphetamines to ward off fatigue and increase
their alertness (Noakes, 2004). Amphetamines were created to treat attention
deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) but were subsequently abused by athletes in
order to better their competitors.
The explosion of PEDs happened in 1958, when Dr. John Bosley Zieglar
introduced an androgenic anabolic steroid called dianabol after witnessing the
success of Russian weightlifting team in the 1954 Olympic Games (Peters, 2005).
This was made worse when the Food and Drug Adminstration (FDA) of the US
approved the sale of steroids in 1958 after witnessing promising trials in
other countries (ProCon, 2013). Dianabol also known as Methandrostenolone
reacts strongly with the androgen receptors, which includes an increase in
protein synthesis, and muscle strength over a short span of time (Dianabol,
n.d). The effect is well observed in the bodybuilding scene where the use of
drugs is pervasive. Let us examine 2 renowned bodybuilders. Steve Reeves in
1950 and Arnold Schwarnenegger in 1970s. Schwarnenegger admitted to steroid
usage during his years as a champion bodybuilder. Objectively speaking,
Schwarnenegger weighed 235lbs at a height of 6 feet 2 inches (Pro Profiles,
n.d), while Steeve Reeves weighed 213lbs at a height of 6 feet 1 inches
(BodybuildingPro, n.d). That is a difference of over 20lbs of muscles which
accounts for almost 10% difference in muscle mass!
The pervasiveness of PEDs could also be observed in the sport of Track
and Field. The 100m race held on 24th September 1988, at the Seoul
Olympics has been labeled as the ‘dirtiest race in history’, six out of the
eight contestants competing in the 100m race were linked to the usage of drugs
(Moore, 2012). That race was considered as an utter disregard for ethics, fair
play and honesty, as it has trampled on the Olympic values of friendship,
respect and excellence (Moore, 2012). In particular, Ben Johnson, who was once
regarded as the best sprinter in the world, has been caught doping not only once,
but thrice! Johnson was tested positive for stanzolol, a synthetic anabolic
steroid, at the 1988 Olympics. Subsequently, in 1999, he got tested positive
for testosterone. Finally, Johnson got tested positive for a diuretic, a drug
that increases the passing of urine, commonly used as a form of masking agent
for other drugs to be flushed out of one’s system (Moore, 2012). From this
example, we could see that elite athletes such as Johnson took up the
calculated risk by taking PEDs in order to win the gold medal for honor and
glory.
In 1990, United State Congress passed the first anabolic control act,
placing anabolic steroids under Schedule III of
Controlled Substance Act (CSA) (ProCon, 2013). The objective of this was to
reduce the use of anabolic steroids in competitive sports as well as restrict
individuals from acquiring steroids for aesthetic purposes. While the intrinsic
reason for banning of steroids is legitimate, the author feels that there was a
lack of enforcement of this act, and we can observe this through the current
situation of doping.
In 2002, Dr.Don Catlin identified norbolethone,
the first reported designer steroid in an athlete’s urine sample. Designer
steroids are anabolic steroids that are created to cheat drug tests (ProCon,
2013). Subsequently, in the years 2003 and 2004, more designer steroids were
found. They were created with every intention to cheat the doping test and
athletes that used these forms of designer steroids can be considered as
deliberate cheaters (Groot and Koert, n.d). An example of an athlete whom used
designer steroids would be Tammy Thomas, a former American Track and Field
cyclist and a silver medalist at the 2001 UCI Track Cycling World Championships
in the individual sprint event. She was eventually convicted of anabolic abuse
and was banned from cycling for life (Williams, 2008). However, instead of
feeling remorseful of her actions, she actually accused the jury of taking away
her career away from her. What we can gather from this instance is that
athletes feel that even with doping, they are playing at a fair level because
they think that their fellow competitors are doping as well. As such, Thomas
after being convicted, felt that she was unfairly judged and stormed away from
the courtroom, casting light on the mentality of many of the world’s elite
athletes today.
PEDs are not just used to enhance human abilities, they are being used
to enhance race horses as well. In 2009, the winner of Kentucky Derby race was
tested positive for steroids for the first time (ProCon, 2013). Big Brown’s
trainer Rick Dutrow, was discovered to have administered stanozolol to his
horses every 15th of the month (ProCon, 2013). With regards to
injecting horses with steroids, it is not considered illegal. Animals are seen
as mere objects for humans to use in order to win and injecting them with PEDs
is considered a norm in order to stay competitive. However, the governing body
of Australian horse racing is considering the ban of anabolic steroid use for
their horses in a pledge for zero tolerance on PEDs (Drape, 2013).
After researching on these cases, the author is convinced that PEDs will
continue to plague our sports industry even with increasingly stringent doping
procedures. Therefore the author will examine the doping procedures later in this
paper and determine if they are adequate, and if not, provide alternative
solutions to this conundrum.
4. Current Perspective:
In this column, the author will examine firstly, how athletes are able
to abuse PEDs without getting caught. Secondly, the transition from using
anabolic steroids to Human Growth Hormones (HGH). Lastly, he will examine the
doping procedures and determine if they are adequate in curbing PEDs.
4.1 How athletes are able to abuse PEDs without getting caught
In particular, we will examine the case of Lance Armstrong, winner of 7
Tour De France, got caught for doping (Albergotti & O’Connell, 2012). How
is it possible, for someone to have passed all the doping tests while competing
over the span of a decade only to get busted later on? Lance Armstrong decided
to come clean only after being accused of doping by his former teammate, Floyd
Landis. Initially, the accusations from Mr Landis were just sent to a small
group of cyclist but it was eventually made public by Wall Street Journal (CNN,
2010). Mr Landis accused Armstrong of using a performance enhancing cocktail
that consisted of Erythropoietin
(EPO), Human Growth Hormones, testosterone and blood transfusion (CNN, 2010). These
drugs were used and monitored closely by his team’s doctor who had expertise
knowledge in these drugs and were able to manipulate Armstrong’s hormonal level
to cheat doping tests. For example, EPO boosts red blood cell counts giving the
user an enormous endurance advantage (Yahoo News, 2012). However, before the
year 2000, doping tests were unable to distinguish the synthetic hormone apart
from its natural counterpart. As such, as long as athletes were able to keep
their hematocrit in an
acceptable range (below 50%), they could use EPO to boost their red blood cell
counts. Another drug that was abused would be testosterone. Testosterone is
known to be the most anabolic hormone inside the human body. It allows one to
pack on muscle mass, increases the formation of red blood cells, and decreases
recovery time (Shugarman, n.d). However, testosterone levels vary from person
to person, and having an accurate baseline level would be near impossible. Athletes
in the 2012 Olympics were allowed to have four times the normal levels of
testosterone before they tipped a drug test (Yahoo News, 2012). Therefore, it
is possible for athletes to abuse testosterone in small dosages to give
themselves a competitive edge, yet not test positive for it. Athletes are still
subjected to surprise doping tests, but similarly, they have a counter measure
to these tests. Team doctors would dilute their blood with saline solution to
quickly drive down hematocrit level allowing them to pass both the EPO and
blood transfusion tests (Yahoo News, 2012).
Through this case study, the author wishes to highlight the limitations
of anti-doping tests and how athletes are able to find and exploit loopholes.
4.2 Advances of PEDs to Human Growth Hormones
According to Holt, the Human Growth Hormone is a naturally occurring
peptide hormone produced by the anterior pituitary gland (Holt, 2011). It was
an arduous and complicated task trying to acquire GH back in the 1940s because it
had to be isolated from the human pituitary gland and it was extremely limited
(Ayyar, 2011). Usage of GH was strictly limited to research or therapeutic
purposes. However, this changed in 1985 when they innovated the biosynthetic
human growth hormones also known as somatropin (Ayyar, 2011). They were able to
synthetically create a protein that is nearly identical to the main form of the
naturally occurring human growth hormone.
However, athletes who were trying to pursue their dreams, abused this
drug. The most famous case of GH abuse surfaced in 1988 following Ben Johnson’s
steroid scandal. Both he and his coach admitted under oath that Johnson was
taking a mix of GH and anabolic steroids (Guha et al., 2010). Another example
would be Canadian sprinter Angella Issanjenko who also admitted to using HGH
along with other drugs (Holt, 2011). It is believed that athletes switched from
anabolic steroids to HGH as it was considered highly undetectable and their doping
tests included a blood test that was extremely costly (Holt et al., 2009).
4.3 Anti-doping bound to fail
Figure
1: Olympic Drug Testing Chart.
Reproduced from CBS news (n.d)
Upon researching into the anti-doping system in sports, the author has
concluded that it is inadequate and bound to fail. The actual rate of success
of anti-doping testing in some cases has been said to be less than 10% and less
than 50% on average (Hermann & Henneberg, 2013). From Figure 3, the number
of athletes that got tested positive for steroids in the 2004 Athens game is
0.008%! This shows that the probability of getting tested positive is extremely
small. There are several components to which an athlete has to commit in order
to test positive. They are namely the window of detection, test sensitivity,
how often doping occurs and test predictability (Hermann & Henneberg, 2013).
The probability in which anti-doping agencies can successfully determine which
athlete is doping is extremely small. Furthermore, the cost of urine testing an
athlete per year is approximately 21,190.86 euros (Hermann & Henneberg,
2013). As such, in Germany where there is approximately 4000 athletes, the
total cost of testing every one of them would exceed 84 million euros (Hermann
& Henneberg, 2013)! However, the total annual revenue for the Nationale
Anti-Doping Agentur Germany in 2011 was approximately around 4.5 million euros,
which would result in close to 80 million euros shortfall (Hermann &
Henneberg, 2013)! Therefore, with the lack of appropriate funding, they could
only handpick random athletes to conduct tests on them. This is inadequate. In
order to have a fair and level playing field, every athlete has to be tested
and ensure they are not on any PEDs. With that said, even with testing, the
probability of ensuring that every athlete competing is drug-free is extremely
slim as athletes could also have used cleansing or masking drugs to cheat the
anti-doping tests.
5. Future perspectives
Looking into the future, PEDs will only become more sophisticated and
becoming increasingly difficult to detect. With gene therapy already in place,
there is no stopping athletes to abuse this aspect of technology. Instead of
injecting synthetic Erythropoietin (EPO) into their bodies, they could opt to
upgrade the gene responsible for producing more red blood cells (Naam, 2005). Investing
more money into anti-doping test is akin to throwing money at an abyss. Even
with anti-doping tests in place and banning of such substances, athletes will
still take the calculated risk and engage in PEDs in order to have competitive
advantage. Therefore the author suggests creating sub-categories for athletes
to compete in: natural, enhanced or prosthetic/genetically-enhanced athletes.
5.1 Sub
category for competition
Before the introduction of sub categories, we must first acknowledge
that PED usage is pervasive and will not stop. Instead of penalizing the usage
of PEDs, we should supervise athletes who have decided to go down this road.
These categories should be considered mutually exclusive with no basis of
comparisons even if they are competing in the same sport or event. There should
not be any discrimination of athletes in any categories because it is
considered as their choice and they are fully aware of the risks that they are
undertaking
For natural athletes, this category still require some forms of
anti-doping measures, however it should be reserved for the top athletes who
has a higher probability of doping. The results of this category could be used
to compare across different eras of athletes. This category of natural
competition can already be observed in the bodybuilding arena. There are
professional natural bodybuilding federations such as the Professional Natural
Bodybuilding Association (PNBA), World Natural Bodybuilding Federation (WNBF)
and International Natural Bodybuilding Association (INBA) are some avenues for
natural athletes to compete in. They do not explicitly state that other
bodybuilding shows are plagued with PEDs, but rather, they acknowledge the fact
that PEDs are rampant and provide an alternative avenue for natural athletes to
compete in.
How about in Singapore? The recent scandal of Singapore Bodybuilding
Federation (SBBF) being delisted by Singapore Sports Council after failing to
explain a number of controversies, including doping at the Singapore National
Bodybuilding and Physique Sports Championships. In addition, 7 bodybuilding
athletes got tested positive for prohibited substances and received a two-year
ban (Singapore Sports Council, 2012). The author feels that such a ban would
not discourage further usage of PEDs because it is common knowledge that
bodybuilders use such anabolics to prepare themselves for competition. These
banned athletes would simply treat this 2-year ban as a good time to indulge in
even more anabolic steroids and return even better than before. As such, the
author feels that instead of imposing just a 2-year ban, Singapore should have
imposed a heavier penalty such as a life-time ban. Singapore could be the venue
for drug free competition. We could be the first to host natural competitions in
South East Asia (SEA) once our national stadium is built, and if any athletes
were found to be using PEDs, they would be subjected to a lifetime ban and
never to return to Singapore to compete again. Such a ban could create a new
arena for natural athletes in SEA to aspire to compete in.
For enhanced athletes, this is a category whereby the athletes understand
the risks involved with the consumption of such PEDs and still wish to do so.
It can be assumed that all athletes participating in the enhanced categories
are under the influence of PEDs and their results may not be a good gauge of
athletic performance throughout the years as PEDs continue to advance and have
even greater effects on human performance. Most of the anti-doping funds could be
channeled into this category. It could be used to provide athletes with proper
doctor supervision of their PEDs. This category of athletes will allow doctors
to experiment with different drug usage and witness for themselves the effects
of their drugs. Spectators who constantly demand more out of an athlete could
be enticed to sponsor these athletes as they push the boundaries of human
capabilities and excite us with even more breath taking records.
Lastly, the most controversial category for prosthetic or genetically
enhanced athletes. This category of athletes would have undergone either
genetic manipulation or have enhanced prosthetics limbs. With gene therapy
already in place, it is not a longshot to say that gene manipulation could be
right around the corner. Gene manipulation will be possible in the near future,
creating a scenario where genes that control the production of red blood cells
could be upgraded and essentially these athletes could have superhuman
regenerative abilities (Naam, 2005). How about enhanced prosthetics? Robotic
arms or legs that outperform human limbs? The well-known blade runner Oscar Pistorius
who’s an amputee that competes in the normal Olympics, has caused a huge
dispute over his prosthetics. He runs with J-shaped carbon fibre prosthetics
called the “Flex-Foot Cheetah”, developed by biomedical engineer Van Philips and
manufactured by Ossur (Sokolove, 2012). Pistorius used significantly less
oxygen than able-bodied sprinters, 25% less during sprinting and 17% less
during jogging (Tucker & Dugas, 2011). How about the controversial swimsuit,
LZR, which allowed our athletes to break numerous world records at the 2008
Beijing Olympics? The swimsuit was able to compress a swimmer’s body into a
streamlined tube and trapped air, the former will reduce drag while the latter
will provide buoyancy that was unmatched (Kessel, 2008). 23 out of 25 world
records broken was done when LZR was worn (Paxman, 2011). FINA, swimming’s
world governing body, decided to ban the LZR suit as it was considered as
‘technology doping’ (Shipley, 2009). With this category in place, we will no
longer be impeding the advances of technology and engineers will be free to
invent such attachments. However, in order to ensure fair play amongst athletes
in this category, all of the athletes should be using the exact same attachments,
to ensure no discrepancies in their performances and also consistent competing
criteria. This category will also expedite the innovation process where
engineers are able to bring their products to the market as they now have the
incentive to do so.
5.2 Ethics of PEDs usage
Some argue that athletes using PEDs are considered as cheaters and
ethically wrong because they have an unfair advantage over their competitors.
However, the underlying assumption is that other competitors are not under the influence
of PEDs, this is usually not the case. Just look into the controversial
baseball PED scandal in America, where Major League Baseball (MLB) stars Alex
Rodriguez, Gio Gonzalez and Barry Bonds are tied to the steroid scandal.
Another case would be seven times Tour De France champion Lance Armstrong, once
looked upon as the best cyclist we ever had eventually admitted to the use of
PEDs. The author is trying to highlight that competition is extremely stiff,
especially so when there is fame and money attached to it. Therefore, spectators
should acknowledge that athletes are willing to take that calculated risk in
order to win and gain fame or success in their sport. However, we could solve
this ethical issue of PED usage with the aforementioned sub category
competitions. The author feels that
taking PEDs is a personal choice, and PEDs are by no means a miracle drug,
athletes that consume PEDs train more frequently and intensely than drug-free
athletes.
6.
Conclusion
Encapsulating the aforementioned, the author has examined the
development of Performance Enhancing Drugs, from the invention back in 1958 to
the evolution into Human Growth Hormones in 1985. Currently, we are labeled as
the steroid era, whereby there is no sport that has not been tainted by the use
of PEDs. This is due to the competitive nature of humans wanting to outperform
each other, even at the expense of using PEDs. Even in Singapore, the advent of
PEDs can be seen by our local bodybuilders testing positive for their doping
tests (Singapore Sports Council, 2012). Furthermore, the author has looked into
the anti-doping policy and found that it is inadequate. He has provided a
viable option to create sub categories for athletes to compete in, this would
not only solve ethical issues concerning PEDs but also a reallocation of
resources to ensure the health of our athletes while promoting the spirit of
sports at the same time.
Through this paper, the author wishes to raise awareness regarding the
prevalence of PEDs and the ignorance that the general public have about their
athletes. He feels that resisting PEDs is a lost cause which would result in
the loss of millions of dollars and still provide no concrete solution to this
conundrum. Therefore, he urges the general public to become more receptive of
PEDs, as this will allow our athletes to come clean with their PED usage and engage
in doctor supervision.
Reference
Hematocrit: The ratio of red blood cells to the total volume of blood
(Hematocrit, n.d).
