FLOYD LANDIS’s astonishing performance over the torturous mountain stages of this year’s Tour de France, which he went on to win, will look a little less impressive if the drugs test he failed during the race is backed up by tests on a second sample. So too do the achievements of the sprinter Justin Gatlin, Olympic champion and joint holder of the world 100-metre record, who disclosed last weekend that he had failed a drugs test in April (see “Does drug testing tell the whole story?”).
These revelations have prompted much wailing over the state of sport, but they should surprise no one. Attempts to enhance performance with drugs are as old as sport itself. Still, many will share the sentiments of Peter Ueberroth, head of the US Olympic committee, who said that doping “tears at the fabric of what makes sport unique and important to our society”.
What, then, should be done? Anti-doping officials might have to change the way they test athletes. One proposal is to shift from random tests to long-term monitoring, which would allow officials to follow up any unusual changes. This would require a central database to record all the information. At the moment, anti-doping labs are not even asked to keep past results.
Advertisement
There is another way out: give up the fight and allow performance-enhancing drugs. This is the easy option and it should be resisted, not because it would sabotage the spirit of sport but because of the dangers that many of these drugs pose to those who take them. It would force those athletes who are clean to risk their health. Staying a step ahead of the cheats will be increasingly difficult, but it is a battle worth fighting.
