Just like the flu that’s spreading as rampantly as wildfire here, it would seem that doping is also contagious. Take for instance the now-discredited rabble of the Astana cycling team, not one, not two but three of its riders were caught doping, never mind the Rasmussen affair and Mayos positive also during this year's Tour de France.

Predictably though, the revelations of the tour have prompted fresh calls for doping to be legalised. Dan Gardner in the Ottawa Citizen stated that sport itself is more dangerous than doping. There is little doubt that pro-cycling can be dangerous but not as dangerous as doping. The more than 30 professional cyclists who have died since 1987allegedly linked to blood doping using EPO belies Gardner's claim.

Joe Papp, a former US pro-cyclist, gives a sobering reminder of the dangers of doping in his recent frightening and disturbing interview. And Lincoln Allison (author of Amateurism in Sport 2001) says that doping is cheating only because it's a rule of sport and should be dropped. Using his logic lets drop the rule that prevents a heavyweight boxer fighting a lightweight boxer - see how fair the competition would be then.

'do we really want to shove drugs down our kids' throats today so that tomorrow they too can become a Barry Bonds or a Ben Johnson?'


For those who  view sport as nothing more than entertainment, like the gladiatorial days when competitors fought to the death with weapons, in a pro-doping world it would be the same, only with drugs. But what if the doping was done under ‘medical supervision it would be OK, right? Wrong! How many East German athletes, how many professional cyclists, professional wrestlers, footballers etc have died allegedly doping under medical supervision?

While the current anti-doping system is not perfect in any way, a pro-doping environment would open up a whole new set of problems. Some of the issues that would keep me awake at night if it ever became a reality would be:

  • Who decides that it is legal to dope in the first place; the IOC, WADA, sporting federations, governments, health authorities etc?
  • Would all athletes have the same access to same drugs or would it be ‘user pays’?
  • Would athletes have access to both generic and brand-name drugs because there are sure to be different effects between them? (Drugs work differently in different people so what may not even ‘touch the sides’ in one may kill another).
  • Would everyone have to be taking the same drug with the same dose and at the same time?
  • Who would supervise, regulate and oversee this?
  • Would the WADA then be in the business of approving rather than banning drugs?
  • What drugs would be allowed to be on the ‘abused’ list?
  • What would constitute a banned or ‘non-performance’ enhancing drug?
  • Would there be an age limit imposed on drug use, like alcohol?

The Hippocratic Oath taken by doctors would be turned on its head. Instead of treating sick people to get better, we would have doctors ‘treating’ healthy people with the possibility of making them sick or even dying. Also if a doctor is part of the sporting enterprise and receives a ‘cut’ from winnings, what would be the temptation to pump the athlete with as many drugs as it takes to ‘win’ rather than it takes to get the optimal performance from them? We could end up with discarded athletes along with the already discarded or neglected under-performing greyhounds and racehorses - and, who knows, possibly even humans already.

For the drug companies there would be no need to change the job descriptions of their chemists, though, because they are already in the business of making drugs used for doping anyway (albeit not their intention, or is it). Viagara and Ritalin are enhancement drugs! It would be a marketing free-for-all with fraudsters and con-artists in backyard jobs also milking the ‘performance’ market for all it was worth. Soon the protagonists will be saying why bother with doctors at all, why can’t an athlete just go down to the local ‘harmacist’ and get performance enhancers ‘over the counter’.

Have we become so bored with our sporting lot that a ‘normal’ performance is an unacceptable performance? Why does our ‘fast-forward’ society seemingly want ‘fast-forward athletes’ or is this just the media hype being fed to the gullible masses in the name of entertainment and ratings and ultimately bags of money for them?

But before any sensible argument can be mounted for doping to be legalised, genetic therapies already being used will pose a reality of doping without drugs. If genetic therapies offer opportunities to enhance all humans resulting in longer, more productive and satisfying lives, will elite athletes be excluded from this new gene pool (not that everyone who is genetically enhanced could be an elite athlete anyway)? Who is going to make that call? The problem with genetic therapies ‘for all’ is that even with a new genetically enhanced level playing field, history tells us that drugs will still be abused because everyone wants to be a winner.

One thing that seems to escape protagonists for doping is this; do we really want to shove drugs down our kids' throats today so that tomorrow they too can become a Barry Bonds or a Ben Johnson? Are home run records and 100m records to be cherished above all else? Why should we aspire to the lowest common denominator?

Those who support doping are either in complete denial or beyond frustration with the current anti-doping system. The alternative will only make things worse.