Steroid hormones: most women in this country are advised, by their medical advisers, to take steroid hormones at some point in their lives - that is, they go on to the pill or to HRT
These drugs are of course made up of 'female' hormones … but they, & their metabolic routes in the body, are closely related to the male steroid hormones such as testosterone
Taken as drugs, both male & female hormones have, or may have, side effects, such as increased risk of cancer or of liver damage, not to mention disruption of whatever it is that makes us essentially male or female. When set against the risks, dangers or discomforts of pregnancy or hot flushes, they are considered acceptable: when set against the disappointment of not making an Olympic final - no … no way … disgraceful
And in the vicious circle of medical ethics, since drugs in sport are unethical, research into the effects of drugs in sport is unethical …
Other drugs But it is not just steroid hormones. We have set up a category performance enhancing drugs which includes simple everyday remedies such as the ephedrine in cough mixture. We also, rather confusedly, extend the category, for sport, to include 'recreational' drugs such as cocaine or marijuana. Why not also include alcohol & tobacco? Are these drugs performance enhancing, or have we mixed up a general concern for health here? Why should we have a particular locus to interfere with the health of sportsmen when we make no such overwhelming claim to interfere directly with the health of the ordinary Joe Smoker?
One minor side question: we hear a lot about contamination of food supplements eg by nandrolone. Is this meant to imply that manufacturers add hormones to the supplements, or could it be that there is something like phyto oestrogens which have the same kind of metabolic effect? Soya seems to be particularly indictable here, since it is thought to be both healthy & is known to have oestrogen like effects. If I eat lots of soya would it show up as oestrogen metabolites in my urine?
Ethics These attitudes depend in part on ideas of fairness, fairness in competition. But why is drug taking more unfair than being, one way or another, wealthy enough to be able to take time to train full time, to not have to work in office or factory to earn ones daily bread?
Why is drug taking more unfair than having access to, & being able to afford, the diet & supplements which meet current nutritional advice on how to perform best?
Why is drug taking more unfair than drawing a winning ticket in the alleged genetic or environmental lottery of life by being born black, white, in the Kenyan highlands …
Why is drug taking more unfair than indulging in strange practices such as ice baths, dedicating ones life to training in an obsessional way, even to the detriment of family life? I for one lack the gene that allows me to admire people such as Steve Redgrave or Paula Radcliffe
Why is drug taking more unfair than having access to the best physiotherapists, visual acuity trainers …
Why is it OK to take pain killers so that one can play through injury?
Why is it OK to set up this demeaning system of urine tests, under the eye of a beholder, any time, any place, anywhere?
The doctrine of absolute liability means that an athlete is guilty of a doping offence if they fail one of these urine tests, even if all who judge are satisfied that there was no guilty intent. One can see why to do otherwise would be problematic, to say the least. But I for one find offensive those who say, smugly, that athletes ought to know what they are taking, to be able to avoid all risk, there is plenty of information out there ...
There is plenty of health, nutrition & ingredient information on food packaging
Suppose I were to be held absolutely liable for the offence of having some metabolite of Vitamin C or one of a long list of other banned substances in my urine? How am I meant to be able to understand whether a ready meal of spaghetti carbonara is safe to eat? Not to mention the way in which supermarkets are always tinkering with the recipes while keeping the packaging ostensibly the same
There is evidence that a life devoted to sport can impose serious health problems in later life any way - problems such as arthritis from excessive strain on joints or brain degeneration caused by heading a football
The question is, as usual, one of balance. There are undoubtedly serious dangers of drugs in sport - something like a dozen cyclists have died in the past year or so of heart problems allegedly caused by EPO. And few would want to justify the kind of doping of young women athletes that took place in East Germany. But nor would one want to justify some of the more brutal but non-chemical training methods, whether imposed on young athletes or self imposed by obsessed adults
The particular demonisation of drugs seems part of a generalised modern demonisation of chemicals & a naïve acceptance of things we think of as natural. What we need is a more balanced attitude, one that would allow sensible, ethical research into the effects of all aspects of sport & training, including 'drugs'
