Johnny O’Connor: The truth about performance-enhancing drugs

This week, Johnny enters into the debate about performance-enhancing drugs - and says that while sport needs stringent testing in order to maintain integrity, athletes also need protection from themselves.

 

The use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport is a very controversial topic. Because it has been so prevalent in sport in recent years, you might find yourself asking if it would be better if everyone was allowed use them in order to maximise their genetic potential.

It’s something that was brought up by Simon Barnes, the Chief Sports Writer with The Times, a few years back when he was covering the Beijing Olympics. It’s a controversial suggestion I know, but thanks to constant testing by WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) it’s not an option and we should be grateful for it because athletes need to be protected from themselves in sport.

I am curious as to the cut off point and the benefit a supplement must provide for an athlete before it makes it to the banned substance list.

Whatever about illegal substances, it is clear that there is already a problem with legalised supplements because people abuse them through overuse and damage their health as a result. Legalising performance-enhancing drugs gives people a false pretense of exactly what it takes to succeed at the highest level in sport. Improving physically whilst you have the skillset will help, but it is only one part of the success.

Success in sport also requires raw talent, dedication, knowledge, coaching and desire. I feel if everyone was allowed take drugs and did in fact take drugs, you would still have the same people at the top of their game in sports such as sprinting, swimming, rugby etc. because it’s the competitors with the greatest amount of the qualities listed above that always seem to rise to the top.

Fairness

I agree with doping testing because there has to be fairness in sport for both the participants and the spectators/supporters. Respect is also vital and mutual respect amongst players is key – if a team knows one player is getting an unfair advantage, team morale is reduced, as is trust amongst the players.

The same applies to individual sports – if the person in the lane beside you is taking drugs, why should they be allowed get away with an unfair advantage? A uniform ban on performance enhancing drugs is paramount to the survival and continued success of all sports. Even though everyone knows it’s wrong, there are still people who will take the risk and still cheat, but constant regulation acts as a huge deterrent.

Alberto Contador's reputation has suffered due to allegations of drug use

But is there anything to be said for a different stance that would allow performance enhancing drugs to be used across the board?

You could argue that it allows for complete transparency within the sporting industry – all athletes are allowed take drugs, everybody has equal access to them and in return they will reap or suffer the consequences of their decision. From a spectator’s viewpoint, they are aware of the athletes’ access to drugs and if they knew what was going on, their interest and following of a sport might not decline as a result.

A murky area

Also, why are some substances banned and not others? It seems that the more effective a substance is with regard to performance - regardless of how safe it is - they seem to inevitably become a banned substance.

I am curious as to the cut off point and the benefit a supplement must provide for an athlete before it makes it to the banned substance list. Some supplements, for example creatine and beta-alanine, which have a positive effect on performance, are allowed and commonly used by professional athletes, whereas EPO - of which there are 50 varieties regarded as safe - is completely banned.

I don’t want to get into too much detail about the differences between these substances and their effects, but as the basic job of all of them is to enhance performance (albeit to different levels), where is the tipping point to when a substance is deemed to have such a positive effect on performance that it is banned?

Health shops and the performance enhancing products they sell are a massive business now throughout the world, with products promising to enhance strength, power and fitness. Basically, whatever your weakness is, there will be a product available to fix it. Why then, are these products not made illegal and placed on the banned substances list?

Is it a case that it is too difficult for WADA or the relevant sporting bodies to police? Or are the economic advantages too great to interfere with? Should we not take the gloves off and allow athletes to decide for themselves what they deem necessary to take to progress in their sport and also to avoid the confusion and often costly mistakes that occur when a substance suddenly becomes banned or unbanned?

Safety

In my opinion, the answer is no. Safety should always be the primary concern and if you give free rein to athletes, some don’t know the concept of moderation and will do harm to themselves as a result.

The long term health effects of substances such as steroids and other known banned drugs can be detremental and cause significant health problems down the line. As for other lesser known drugs, we simply have no idea what effect they will have on the body and what negative side effects might come about if taken on a long term basis.

Playing to the rules is paramount in any sport and cheating by taking performance enhancing drugs to gain an unfair advantage just isn’t on.

You will have seen for yourself the disastrous effects that illegal drug taking has had on sports such as cycling and swimming, whereas the likes of rugby and tennis have not carried the same shame. No sport is free from drug taking but some are less affected. This may in part be due to the very regular and random drug taking that takes place. One of the reasons so many cyclists are found out, for example,  is because it is one of the most closely monitored sports.

In sport, the grind and dedication that is required to succeed is enormous and by allowing people to accelerate or skip past certain parts of that journey is simply wrong. The respect and admiration bestowed upon any athlete is gained because of the appreciation of their hard work and the sacrifices they make.

Most people have been involved in some type of sporting activity and reached their sticking point; you’ve probably been there yourself. To see an athlete push through these points and to succeed where they have previously failed is what people admire and what makes sport so popular.

When you add drugs into the equation, any admiration is lost – just look at the battering the reputations of cyclist Alberto Contador or baseball player Barry Bonds have taken after being linked with performance enhancing drugs.

Challenges

When you think about what sport is all about, it revolves around the overcoming of challenges. It inspires us by appealing to our perseverance and courage. It make us want to work that bit harder, take on new challenges and gives us the belief to overcome obstacles.

By taking performance enhancing drugs to make those challenges easier to overcome, you are ignoring what makes sport so appealing in the first place. As a result, regular testing is paramount so that all sports maintain their integrity and continue to bring life to its followers.

Johnny O'Connor plays professional rugby with Connacht. He has previously played for London Wasps and has made 12 appearances for Ireland. He is also a certified strength and conditioning coach. Johnny regularly posts articles from top strength and conditioning coaches around the world on his Twitter page. Click here to follow Johnny on Twitter.