Focus:EnhancEmEnt

Viewpoint

Sport, enhancementand the inefficacy of anti-doping policy

Jean-Noël Missaa aUniversité Libre de Bruxelles, Fonds National belge de la Recherche Scientifique

After aperiod of relative tolerance towards doping in the logical consequence of the quest to maximise per- the 1980s and the early 1990s, the creation of the formance in sport. The athlete is asked to perform, to World Anti-Doping Agency in 1998 has strengthened surpass himself; but, at the same time, he is required the fight against the practice. WADA, the World Anti- not to usethe biotechnological resources that authorise Doping Agency,has developed awarlike ideology simi- performance enhancement. Nobody is going to break lar to the political war against illicit drugs. From an Florence Griffith-Joyner’s10.54-100 mrecord of 1988 ethical point of view there is no evidence that this is the or Marco Pantani’s37:35 record time of 1997 for the best attitude to take. There should be open discussion climb to Alpe d’Huez without using performance en- of the ethicaland philosophical foundations for an anti- hancing drugs or technology.Some records are impos- doping policy.Some philosophers think that the eradi- sible to break with a«natural body». cation of doping in sport is an unattainable goal. They support amore pragmatic approach allowing doping under medical supervision. The legitimacy of the war Thirdargument –Doping is partofthe on doping should become apublic issue. Let us exam- reality,the spirit and the history of sport ine the pros and cons of the two ethical and philosoph- «I firmly believed that Iwas the only athlete in the world not ical approaches. cheating.» We have identified five central arguments that are often (Dwain Chambers, Race against me, Morpeth, Libros overlooked in the debate on doping. International, 2009, p. 100)

Whetherwelike it or not, we have to admit that doping First argument –Competitivesportisnot is part of the reality,the spirit and the history of sport. egalitarian WADA claims that performance enhancing drugs are against the «spirit of sport». History shows that this is «La vie est un combat. Le Tour est un combat. Malheur aux not true. In cycling or in athletics, for example, taking faibles.» drugs has always been tacitly part of the rules of the (André Leducq, Une fleur au guidon,, Presses de la game.Some of the greatest cyclists –Coppi, Kübler,An- Cité, 1978, p. 16) quetil, Mallejac, Simpson, Fignon, Pantani –have ad- In WADA’s philosophy,fairness consists in respect for mitted using drugs. Everyone knows that most cyclists natural inequalities. Basically,the winning athletes are need to take drugs if they want to be competitive, and those who have the best genetic predispositions and this is also true of other sports. The last Tour de France thebest training and medical environment. In the «war rider on whom you could put money that he won the on doping»philosophy,a«level playing field» is afield yellow jersey without enhancers is Greg Lemond in where the athlete with the best natural capacities and 1988. the best environment to maximise them is going to win. Equality has nothing to do with competitive sport. Pro- Doping is part of the essence of competitive sport. The fessional sport only rewards biological and artificial in- nature of professional sport forces the athletes to sup- equalities. plement their training with abiomedical preparation. We may regret this fact and live in the nostalgia of a «pure sport» that has never existed. But it is afact that Second argument –Doping is alogical biomedical technology is at the heart of the perform- consequence of the natureofcompetitive ance-enhancing philosophy of elite sport. Should we sport: «maximising performance» not consider it highly paradoxical to want to prohibit «Everybody wants an edge, everybody wants to win. That’s behaviour that is at the core of competitive sport (en- the way it is. That is the sport.» hancing performance by artificial means)? The prag- (Ben Johnson, in: Reputations –The Ben Johnson Story, matic attitude supported by Kayser,Mauron, Miah and BBC documentary,2001) other philosophers seems more appropriate for profes- The prohibition of doping introducesastructural con- sional sport: «Elite athletes are also constituted by sci- tradiction into competitive sport. Doping is nothing but entific knowledge and this is avalued aspect of contem-

Bioethica Forum /2011/Volume 4/No. 1 14 Focus:EnhancEmEnt

porary sport. As such, translating doping enhancements after acompetition and any other time during the year. into earned advantages –having the best scientists on If an athlete fails to meet them on three separate occa- one’steam –would be more closely aligned with the sions in an 18-month period, he could incur aban. We values of competition than leaving it all to chance, un- should stop treating elite athletes as potential criminals equal access to illicit practices, and the cleverness of whohave to inform the authorities of their every move. undetected cheating» [1]. The world N°1 tennis player Rafael Nadal has attacked thedrug testing procedure, saying «he feels like acrim- inal». He is angry at the amount of information he must Fourth argument –Anti-doping philosophy produceconcerning his whereabouts. He is required to is asource of prudishness and hypocrisy state where he will be for at least an hour everyday, in sport seven days aweek. Athletes’ privacy should be pro- «They are cheating you, Dwain. You’re avery talented tected. In Belgium, 65 sportsmen have launched alegal athlete but you are not competing on alevel playing field. battle against WADA rules, claiming that they are intru- The system allows people to cheat.» sive in nature and that they break European privacy (VictorConte, in Dwain Chambers, Race against me,Libros, laws. 2009,p.61)

Since WADA’s creation there has been anew prudish- –Criminalising sportand demonising athletes ness about doping that is almost unbearable. Everyone «It is amazing, you know.Atriple murderer hasn’thad the knows that you need to take drugs to win in certain kind of criticism that he got.» sports, but at the same time everyone seems to be as- (Charlie Francis –Ben Johnson’scoach, in: Reputations – tonished and morally shocked when an athlete is con- The Ben Johnson Story,BBC documentary,2001) trolled positive. The athletes have to take drugs in or- der to win but, at the same time, they cannot be caught In theory,the WADA policy should promote fair compe- positive. They are confronted with two sets of rules: the tition. In reality,this is not the case. The history of the officialrules according to which it is asin to take drugs; last decade in sport has shown that the zero tolerance theunofficial rules telling you there is no way you can policy has failed. Because of their relative inefficacy, win the competition without doping. The athlete has to present doping controls disadvantage the honest ath- take drugs and, at the same time, he must pretend he letes who do not take drugs. Because of the relative in- is against doping. He must «cheat» and pretend he is efficacy of the controls, most athletes know that they not a«cheater». The discrepancy between the two sys- have to take drugs in order to win. The cleverest or the tems of rules represents aterrible burden for the ath- luckiest «cheaters» are rewarded. The others, unlucky lete. The «anti-doping war» creates avery strange situ- enough to be controlled positive, will have their career ation for elite athletes which increases the complexity and their life broken by atwo-year,four-year or even a of their already difficult job. Legalising drugs would at lifetime ban. We should not demonise great athletes least eliminate the hypocrisy surrounding doping in such as , Lance Armstrong or Barry sport. Bonds. We should leave them alone. The death of the Italian cyclist Marco Pantani could be interpreted as a consequence of the zero tolerance policy. Fifth argument –«Anti-doping» policy is ineffectiveand has negativeconsequences –Health risks caused by clandestine doping

Here is alist of these negative consequences: «For me everything that does not injure the health of the athlete is not doping.» –Ineffectiveness (Juan Antonio Samaranch, El Mundo,July 26, 1998)

«The war on doping can never be won. In doping, you can In theory WADA policy should protect health, but this only get partial victories.» is not necessarily the case. There is pressure for ath- (Juan Antonio Samaranch, New York Times, July 2, 2001) letes to find undetectable enhancers with no special at- Doping is afact. A«zero tolerance strategy» is bound tention to safety.Drugs are often produced on the black to fail. Cheaters will always find new drugs or new market and administered in aclandestine, uncon- technologies (gene doping, stem cell injection …) that trolled way.Only the wealthiest athletes can hire apri- are almost impossible to detect. The battle against vate physician to advise them. Most athletes receive drugs can never be won. drugs through their coaches or drug dealers without medical training. –Threat to privacy –Continual rewriting of sports history «I feel like acriminal» (Rafael Nadal) Who won the track and field women’s100 mfinal at The war on drugs in sport is athreat to privacy.«Test- the 2000 ? Marion Jones? Yes ers» can turn up whenever they like, before, during or and no. In 2007, the IOC formally stripped Marion

Bioethica Forum /2011/Volume 4/No. 1 15 Focus:EnhancEmEnt

Jones of her medals. Though the IAAF lists Ekaterini The inevitability of sport’sbiotechnological Thanou as the first place finisher in the women’s100 m evolution race, she was not awarded agold medal by the IOC. So It is difficult to tell what are the best ethics to accom- the women’s100 mOlympic race in Sydney is arace pany the harmonious development of sport. There is no without awinner.The same occurred in the case of the easy solution to this problem of doping. But the prag- 2006 Tour de France: in early August 2006, Landis was matic approach to allowing some forms of performance foundguilty of doping and disqualified. The second enhancement under medical supervision is certainly place rider,Oscar Pereiro, became the official race win- more consonant with the global philosophy of compet- ner.But you will never find acycling fan who is willing itive sport. Thus the anti-doping ideology could well to accept the fact that Pereiro won the Tour de France. lose ground in thenear future because it is at odds with The 2006 Tour de France is arace without awinner. thereality of competitive sport. The anti-doping ideol- Today,Landis accuses several former teammates in- ogy will probably share the fate of the «pro-amateur- cluding Lance Armstrong of using EPO and blood ism and anti-professional» ideology that died in the transfusions in the 2002 and the 2003 seasons. Arm- 1970s when it fell into complete contradiction with the strong couldbethe new victim of awitch-hunt. And the way competitive sport was developing. processwill continue after Armstrong. Youthink Con- tador was the winner of the 2010 Tour? WADA or ICU (International Cycling Union) could soon tell you that Correspondence you are wrong. They are constantly revisiting the books Prof.Jean-Noël Missa to be sure that the real «spirit of sport» is the true win- Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres ner of every competition. Aclose examination of the Université Libre de Bruxelles «doping offence» files concerning former cyclists or Avenue F. Roosevelt 50 (CP 175/01) B-1050 Bruxelles track and field Olympic athletes could transform the Tour de France and the Olympic Games winner lists e-mail: [email protected] into blank sheets. If this reevaluation of sporting his- tory continued, the WADA and IOC historians could one References day conclude that nobody has ever really won aTour 1. Kayser B, Mauron A, Miah A. Current anti-doping policy: acritical de France, or atrack and field Olympic final, while re- appraisal. BMC Med Ethics. 2007;8:2. specting the true «spirit of sport».

Bioethica Forum /2011/Volume 4/No. 1 16