The New Republic

The best solutions are full disclosure and leagues. Every athlete has to indicate what drugs he or she is using. Then they are divided into leagues or handicapped (like race horses). So in football, there would either be a "steroid stars" league, or the team with steroid users would give away two touchdowns to the clean livers.

- skahn

June 29, 2012 at 10:43pm

Great idea, skahn. Handicapping would work well in sports. It would level the playing field. And cheaters would no longer be cheaters. They'd just be in a different class.

- magboy47.

June 29, 2012 at 11:11pm

This happens to be a subject I take a great interest in so respectfully: indulge me, you may find it worthwhile. I think a lot of the problem around sports and performance-enhancing drugs has to do with a dearth in public understanding that tends to dichotomize a subject where a real continuum of possibility exists. The public understanding seems to be: steroids-performance-enhancing=bad/controversial, other-stuff="?" The problem is: since it is a continuum, as the author here has stated, a line has to be drawn somewhere. Authorities do in fact draw that line-trouble is: the public doesn't really understand the location of the line because they do not well understand the complexities of the subject. If they did, real questions might be raised about the appropriateness of where the line is now. Regulations on performance enhancing drugs extend well beyond steroids and cover such things as ritalin and albuterol. For purposes here though, let's stick to steroids. What may immediately confuse a novice about performance enhancing drugs would be a thoughtful trip to either GNC or HiHealth. A customer browsing the products at these stores could reasonably wonder, "if half these products are even partially effective, what is the big deal about steroids? Won't these licit substances enhance performance too? What's the difference?" Thinking like that starts to get us towards the answer of where the line has been drawn. The process of hypertrophy (building muscle) is metabolically complicated - it is its complexity that makes it so difficult for so many of us to do. There turn out to be veritable oodles of ingredients and steps to successful muscle hypertrophy - it really is more complicated than "lift weights and consume protein." When one looks at all the causal steps on the way to hypertrophy and all the supplementation that is licit under current regulations, it appears that authorities have essentially blessed almost all forms of physiological supplementation right up to the point of androgen-receptor-binding. So, in other words: - increasing creatine saturation and absorption by muscle cells (thereby increasing ATP and energy availability during a workout) ... licit - increasing ambient protein synthesis by consuming l-arginine or l-ornithine ... licit - decreasing muscle catabolism by consuming HMB ... licit - blocking glucocorticoids (which promote catabolism) by consuming ashwagandha or GABA (latter has poor evidence supporting the claim but ...) ... licit - marginally promoting ambient natural testosterone production by consuming zinc or other supplements claiming to do so ... licit Hence, based on these and many other physiological processes contributing to hypertrophy, we basically can keep an entire supplement industry live and kicking. Meanwhile the evidence that these and other supplements really work their magic: SHAKY. Where the government and sports authorities draw the line in the physiological process is here: binding androgen receptors. THAT IS IT. That's the line. That is where we cross from licit to illicit. Up to that line, and even past it: supplement to your heart's delight and industry: pump out the goodies! But binding androgen receptors ... that is a no-no. Hence, steroids such as testosterone and similar anabolics like trenbolone and dianabol are banned. These steroids operate by binding to androgen receptors in muscle cells which then structurally change and move into cellular nuclei and essentially give orders to the cell to grab up all the aminos it can and manufacture more mass. It would be worthwhile if all of this was better understood by the public (or at least by lawmakers) because if it were then we could pose a few critical questions to the current regime that may serve to improve it and to promote health generally. For one: the current "line" may cause us to slightly mis-classify some substances, anavar and primobolan come to mind here. Anavar (a.k.a.: oxandralone) is classified as an anabolic steroid and is regulated just like testosterone even though it really only starts crossing the "line" at high doses, i.e.: 30-50 mg/day or more. At lower doses of 10-20 mg/day, anavar is essentially a drug that is guilty of doing ... almost everything listed above that a person can spend a fortune on at the GNC for supplements ... only unlike those supplements, anavar is incredibly, demonstrably, scientifically effective at all of those things. In fact, it is so effective at those things that it is routinely prescribed for burn victims and AIDS patients to prevent wasting effects of their conditions, and it works! It is remarkably helpful to the people who can get it. And, unlike other drugs classified as anabolic steroids, anavor does not convert to estradiol and cause the negative affects stereotypically associated with steroids (i.e.: gynomastia in men). In addition, it is well tolerated by the liver. Oh and too: there is good reason to believe anavar promotes lypolysis - so its easier to lose fat-weight when on it. For my part I have sometimes wondered if the supplement manufacturers have essentially given their biochemists marching orders to isolate the many individual benefits of anavar and find alternatives that might work, ***might***, even 15-40% as effectively, on those isolates. Point of it all: drugs like anavar are perhaps mis-classified by lumping them together with hard-core, androgen-receptor binding steroids. They can be abused and taken in high doses, but so too can any drug. Arguably, if the public understood that there was a safe drug which could effectively do almost everything that the panopoly of supplements at the GNC does ... only with fantastic and well proven effect that must strike fear in the hearts of the supplement manufacturers, the general public might demand that legislators update the laws to allow for personal use of such drugs under the supervision of a physician. A physician can, for example, test liver enzymes and other factors to assure no negative side-affects and discontinue use if they show up, meanwhile policing use to be sure it is under 20 mg/day and not in use for more than a few months at a time. The public benefit of such policy: we might have a vastly more muscular, vastly less obese American public. Imagine that. The cost: I don't think GNC would like it very much.

- dcwood10

June 30, 2012 at 9:44pm

I think that for sports such as cycling where the benefits of doping are so obvious there may need to be to consider some form of liberalization. The reason doping has cast a cloud over so many Tour de France winners is that erythropoietin quite obviously improves an athlete's chances of winning the tour and given the prevalence of doping to begin with, serious contenders for victory might with some justification come to believe that not to use erythropoietin gives them an unfair disadvantage. In such a climate, it's hard for me to see how there'll ever be a "clean" Tour de France. And the way it is at present where we disqualify anyone accused of doping doesn't make it clean; it simply gives the advantage to those dopers who are cunning enough or lucky enough not to get caught. As far as Lance Armstrong goes, I'm agnostic as to whether or not he doped. I'm somewhat skeptical though that Hamilton And Landis actually saw him inject any drugs. Armstrong strikes me as a supremely calculating person, and I think that if he was going to dope, he'd do his utmosts not to leave any tracks, and that includes witnesses.

- AaronW

July 1, 2012 at 12:34am

dcwood10 - appreciate your taking the time to share that with us. Interesting.

- Nari224

July 1, 2012 at 7:36pm

I read and appreciated the informed and knowledgeable comments. There is a basic, philosophical, moral question. What is the purpose and reward of athletic competition? I speak as a person who tried to participate in and enjoyed sports (though I had no talent and ability) as a child). Let us say John and Mary are talented and dedicated field&track competitors, perhaps good enough for the Olympics? Do the race (throw/leap/whatever) for the thrill of out performing their competitors? Aside from the medical issues, and aside from the financial gains in professional sports, what satisfaction does a competitor (say Lance Armstrong) for example get by winning by cheating?

- skahn

July 1, 2012 at 11:56pm

Ah...It must be le Tour time because the requisite article about doping in cycling has appeared with that basic question that has been asked of the sport since cycling became a "sport" and not merely a curiosity of country fairs. "Should we allow doping?" Heck that question applies to the first Olympics when a wrestler discovered oiling his body made it harder for an opponent to grapple him. The basic assumption for many anti-dopers is that only reason for an athlete to dope is because he/she simply wants to win. It might be a primary reason but for many the use of HGH or EPO is simply a means to an end. Oftentimes the middling athlete might use these enhancers simply to compete or as a means to aid recovery. But keep in mind that the likes of Armstrong, Cancellara, Merckx represent the top 1%of cycling and even without "doping" they would still be the top 1% of cycling. Imagine having to ride a bike at a race tempo of 22-25mph for 100+ miles over rolling terrain in the summer heat for three weeks straight with only 2 recovery days. That is 8+ hours of constant racing output. Your time to recover is the scant 6-7 hours of sleep before repeating. And while people might have the perception that a racer doped for a day, the effects of HGH or EPO take weeks. A rider can loose 15% of bone density during that period and come out looking like a concentration camp survivor due to body mass loss. Many cycling teams will race the 3 grand tours (the TdF, Gira d'Italia, or Vuelta Espana) and with not much down time between tours. While American football fans might joke that cycling isn't "manly physical" compared to football. The average playing output of 11 minutes total per game doesn't compare at all. 12 games a year and the 340lb linebacker has effectively performed 2 1/2 hours of actual game time. Sure there are lots of explosive hits that occur during that 11 seconds but most of his time is spent idling about and recovering. I used to enjoy pro-football but I find it has become something less about sport and fitness and more about broadcast dollars I'm rather agnostic on the doping issue. I think for certain sports where such drugs can aid the recovery of athletes so that they remain healthier during their period of professionalism, then a protocol for such drugs be put into place and closely monitored perhaps but still drawing the line with other PEDs that aren't recovery aids. As fans of sports, we often times have these unrealistic visions that professional athletes are so thoroughly gifted that they shouldn't, neigh, wouldn't desire to dope. Yet the athlete's desire to attain the top level, retain the top level and get paid as such is a real driver for doing anything and everything they can do to achieve it. But it drives home the point that they're still only human.

- singlspeed

July 2, 2012 at 2:19pm