Performance Enhancing Drugs in the Olympics
John Koval
ENGL 202
Spring 2001

Since the original Olympic Games in ancient Greece, athletes have struggled to find a way to gain the competitive edge. Early rituals included consuming wine and brandy before and event, eating potent mushrooms, and even concocting magic potions thought to give the athlete improved performance ability (Phillips, 2000, p.53). A constant battle has been fought as the International Olympic Committee struggles to keep drug testing up-to-date and effective. We have come to associate drug use with a few famous names of fallen heroes, such as Ben Johnson and the most recent, C.J. Hunter, but few people realize just how widespread drug use is in Olympic sports and how small a percentage of offenders ever get caught. This presents the International Olympic Committee with one of its greatest challenges: trying to keep its drug testing procedures at a par with the technology of today’s pharmacists. Should the International Olympic Committee just face the facts and realize that athletes will continue to try and use performance-enhancing drugs, and hence turn their backs and act as though nothing is happening? I feel as though they should become more stern toward athletes that are caught, and let the world know that they are going to do whatever they can to catch those who use these drugs.

Certain sports quickly come to mind when we think of performance-enhancing drug use. We think of bodybuilders and weightlifters when drug use is mentioned. But not many would list track and field as a sport in which performance enhancing drug use is prominent. "What seems clear, however, is that the use of performance enhancing drugs is a problem mainly for the athletes of track, field and swimming. There are several reasons why track and field, and swimming are most open to cheating with drugs. Swimmers and athletes of track and field are inherently more reliant on their physique than any ball-player" (Economist, 1998, p.10). The athletes of track and field are competing as individuals, compared to an entire team. Their flaws and faults are more obvious and prevalent than if they were part of a team and had other athletes around them to help them. Yes, track and field can be considered a team-oriented sport, since everyone is part of a team. But the competition itself is based upon the individual, and that is why many athletes feel the pressure to use any method possible to help them gain a competitive edge. But my thought is that no matter what the competition is, or whom you are competing against, there is no need to use chemicals to increase your athletic performance. I also feel as though many of the athletes in track and field use performance- enhancing drugs because they feel pressured into it.

There is an ever-increasing amount of athletes in track and field who use performance-enhancing drugs, so many athletes feel compelled to taking them. They probably feel as though if they are working and training as hard as they can, and there are other athletes out there who are also working just as intensely, plus taking chemicals to give them added strength and endurance, then those athletes will have the competitive edge. It reminds me of Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest. Those who are the most fit, or in other words, those who are stronger, faster, or quicker will survive, or in athletics, win the competition. For the athletes in track and field, coming in second is not an option. Those athletes that place first are those that are able to get all the endorsements and money. Those who come in second are usually forgotten. For example, can you name the athlete who came in second for the men’s 100-meter run in this year’s past Olympics? Those who follow track and field or the Olympics know that Maurice Greene won the event, but not many can name who came in second. Just for your information, it was Ato Boldon from Trinidad. So how many commercials or endorsements do you see containing the world’s second fastest man? Maurice Greene gets endorsement deals from large companies such as Nike and Gatorade, and Ato Boldon gets to go home empty handed. My mistake, he gets to bring home a silver medal. That silver medal may bring some pride, but it won’t bring in nearly as much money to put food on his table or clothes on his back had it been gold. But besides being pressured into taking these performance-enhancing drugs, what other reasons are given for these athletes who take them? One reason that I believe these athletes might come up with is because they are not looking at their future and the side effects of these drugs.

The athletes of track and field are a relatively young group. You do not normally see anyone over the age of 30 competing. The greatest of athletes are usually in their low to mid-twenties. The reason you do not see athletes older than this is mainly because track and field, along with any sport in which it is based upon individual performance, is short-lived. These athletes train constantly and push their bodies to the limits. They can only do this for so long before they feel the effects of it. Just like non-athletes, these are people who are young, carefree, and do not worry what will happen 20 years in the future. So they will take these drugs to help them in competition because they do not worry about the major side effects, which will show up many years later. All they worry about is that next competition and what they will have to do to win. But just how widespread or how serious is this issue of the use of performance-enhancing drugs?

"Despite laws and bans, the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse estimates that 1 million Americans still seek shortcuts to larger muscles or greater endurance with anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs" (Kowalski, 1999, p.13). This statistical statement shows that there in an ever-increasing amount of athletes who are trying to gain that competitive edge. I feel as though no matter what anyone else is doing, you should not feel pressured into taking these chemicals. Yes, it may mean the difference between a first and second place, but you may always have that question in the back of your head; whether you won that event, or whether the drug did. Beforehand, when the term performance-enhancement was said, it meant that an individual was dedicated, and disciplined in their training to become the best. But now, it has switched to chemically altering the human body (Christian Science Monitor, 2000, p.8). To show just how chemically altered these athletes are, here is a quote that I have found that is very stunning. "The average adult male naturally produces 2.5 to 11 milligrams of testosterone daily. The average steroid abuser often takes more than 100mg a day, through stacking or combining several different brands of steroids" (Mishra, 1995). Doing the math that is more than ten times the amount of testosterone the body produces normally! So these athletes are really chemically altering their bodies for the glory, and not to mention the money benefits, to be on top of that podium with a gold medal around their neck, no matter what the circumstances may be. But many say that the statistical data does not represent the better athletes who are in the Olympics, it mainly represents those who are at the bottom, trying to become better. That is far from the truth.

I have read many articles which contain statistical data and numbers showing the use of performance-enhancing drugs and how it is a serious problem in the Olympics. But the one that really surprised me was one that I had read in Newsweek. "The pressure only increased after reports that a cleaning staff had found syringes in the rooms of athletes from 20 nations" (Gordon, 2000, p.56). This statement was based upon the most recent Olympics in Sydney, Australia. This obviously shows that many athletes for all around the world are still taking drugs even though they are considered one of the best. Again, it all goes back to that pressure they feel to do whatever it takes to get that gold medal, which as I have already mentioned is ridiculous. The one article I had read said that more than 35 athletes had been expelled from the Games after testing positive. This did not include the 27 Chinese athletes who had also failed the pre-competition drug tests. In contrast, only two athletes were expelled from the 96’ Olympic Games in Atlanta (Phillips, 2000, p.52). This helps prove that the use of performance- enhancing drug use is still evident in athletes who are considered to be among the best in the world. Many people are starting to get fed up with these numbers and want something done about it, even if they seem drastic.

"If there were some sort of reasonable – or even unreasonable solution, it would be considered. But there are so many cultures, so many agendas. Some nations simply don’t care. That prompts the idea that maybe there should a Clean Olympics and a Dirty Olympics. Contestants would pick their venue" (Looney, 2000, p.12). Obviously this statement is one that is rather drastic and ridiculous. The Olympic Games will never be split into two sections, one for those who use performance-enhancing drugs, and one for those who are natural athletes, or in other words, those who do not use chemicals to improve their athletic ability. It is simply a ridiculous idea, one that was made to show just how serious this situation has become. So what can be done to help alleviate this problem in the Olympics? Well, I would say to look towards the International Olympic Committee and have them do research and develop tests to help identify all the chemicals that are used by the athletes. Obviously athletes will continue to try and gain a competitive edge by using performance-enhancing drugs, but they won’t be able to take advantage of that if they are caught and cannot compete because they test positive for chemicals. I believe that the solution to this problem is to focus on catching the athlete, rather than trying to prevent the problem. As I have shown in this sport, track and field, the pressure is too great to become the top athlete, and they will do anything to become the best, because second place doesn’t matter. I believe that if the International Olympic Committee becomes determined to prohibit the use of chemicals, then their only solution would be to develop better tests, and stay informed as to the new chemicals that are always being developed to help athletes perform better. If they do this, then I believe athletes will realize that they will not be able to use these performance-enhancing drugs for competition, and will stop using them, or better yet, never even start.

"Once every four years, American sports fans pay attention to sports broken down to their most elemental – the fastest swimmer, the strongest lifter, the highest jumper. But even that tiny window of opportunity, the Olympics, is said to be at risk because of performance-enhancing drugs" (Alesia, 2000). The bottom line is this: that no matter what the excuse, reason, or pressure: the use of performance-enhancing drugs is morally wrong. With continued funding and research, the International Olympic Committee may someday develop testing procedures more advanced than the technology available to the athletes. This would hopefully eliminate the use of performance-enhancing drugs and return the Olympics to the level of playing it was originally intended to be, on the field rather than in the pharmacy. To all those who are in athletics and want to gain that competitive edge, I just have one thing to say, think positive, and test negative.

Alesia, M. (2000). Performance enhancing? In some events, even

drugs can’t trump skill. CBS Sportsline. Retrieved

March 15, 2001 on the World Wide Web:

Begley, S., & Gordon, D. (2000). Under the shadow of drugs.

Newsweek, 136(15), 56.

Kowalski, K.M. (1999). Steer clear of steroid abuse. Current

Health 2, 25(7), 13-16.

Looney, D.S. (2000). No easy answers ahead on Olympics doping.

Christian Science Monitor, 92(221), 12.

Mishra, R. (1995). Steroids and sports are a losing combination.

US Food and Drug Administration. Retrieved March 14, 2001

From the World Wide Web:

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/CONSUMER/CON00107.html

Phillips, A. (2000). The Olympic drug cloud. Maclean’s, 113(41),

52-54.

Superhuman heroes. (1998). Economist, 347(8071), 10-13.

Toward dope-free games. (2000). Christian Science Monitor,

92(202), 8.