Lets say a drug company develops a drug to treat a non life-threatening disease but finds that it has the following dire consequences for patients:

• Stillbirth risk increases 32 times
• 40 percent of patients develop suicidal tendencies
• 60 percent of patients have psychiatric problems
• 25 percent will go onto developing cancer
• 10 percent of the offspring from these patients will be born with serious physical deformities and about 25 percent will have asthma and chronic allergies

The drug company would be run out of town (not to mention be sued left, right and centre) by the regulators because the treatment is far worse than the disease.

'Why would anyone who is otherwise healthy even contemplate taking this drug with its huge risks?'


Chances are no one in their right mind with a non life-threatening disease would take the risk. So why would anyone who is otherwise healthy even contemplate taking this drug with its huge risks?

It seems that for some athletes the rewards totally outweigh the risks. This drug is the one that was force-fed to thousands of East German athletes as part of its state-sponsored doping program; anabolic steroid. These anabolic steroids are still producing unintended consequences further compounded by the fact that off-spring of athletes involved in the massive doping program are now suffering as well. Dr Giselher Spitzer from the Humboldt University in Germany has just released the frightening numbers above, ones which echo many previous stories.

For the protagonists of legalized doping, take a good hard look at Dr Spitzer's report and try and convince the public that legal doping would overcome the current problems. In any case why should the rights of the cheats trample over the rights of athletes who do not want to take drugs which may cause real medical problems later in life? Have the cheats lost sight of the fact that sport is in this bloody mess because of their actions, not the actions of clean athletes. When the ‘corporates’ invaded sport and waved the cheque books in front of them they could have said no to doping.

It could be argued that the rights of clean athletes were compromised a long time ago when testing began for drugs back in the 1968 Mexico games. They have had to put up with same inconvenience as the cheats, except of course from being named and shamed as cheats. But they still get hounded down by the testers, they still get tested and they have to watch every morsel they put in their mouths. The only time I hear that dope testing is an infringement of an athletes right is when someone tests positive. Andrey Kashechkin (Astana cycling team member) claims he should not have been tested while on ‘holidays’. The rest just get on with it.

So, calls this week from Australian researcher Dr Mike Ashenden to fit GPS’s to all athletes has sent the cheats and the corrupted scurrying at the prospect of being tracked, making it difficult for them to hide and to take drugs in secrecy far from prying eyes. If this ever gets approval, then the cheats have only themselves to blame.

But whether doping is state-sponsored or by choice, the cheats may ultimately reap health-wise anyway, what they sow now in the future, or should that be in the near future; you see Dr Spitzers study included athletes in the 40 - 60 year age group, not exactly old-age.

To legalise doping would be to go back to the future. Does sport really want to go there?

Will a tracking system help to weed out the drug cheats in sport? Post your comments below or submit an article to Sportingo.