Drugs in Sport: Tests Can’t Break the Connection

Helen Bosterud, the Norwegian Minister of Justice, was speaking before the delegates at the First Permanent World Conference On Anti-Doping In Sport.

Explaining why she, the government official responsible for law enforcement and overseeing the Norwegian criminal code, would attend a conference in Canada on drugs in sport, Bosterud told this story:

“We are told that Albert Einstein as a child was somewhat slow-minded. At least he didn’t say a single word during his first three years. Obviously, his parents were afraid that little Albert would never be able to speak.

“Then, one day, at the dinner table, little Albert suddenly said, ‘The soup is too hot.’

“ ‘Albert,’ ” his astonished mother said, “ ‘Why is it that you haven’t spoken a single word until now?’

“To which Albert replied, ‘Until now, everything was OK.’ ”

The story is illustrative on many levels, but perhaps not in the way Bosterud intended when she spoke at the June 26-29 conference at Ottawa, Canada. She meant that, until now, it was not necessary to gather the world’s sports authorities to discuss the use of illegal and banned drugs in Olympic sports. She meant that there wasn’t much of a problem of drugs in sport until the last year or two.

Everything was OK until now.

Such has been the underground nature of the problem and the head-in-the-sand attitude of officials. As long as athletes have been winning medals for sporting nations, it seemed no scandal or injury would derail the gravy train.

The fact is, everything in the sports world was not OK until now. After 20 years of Olympic drug testing, several scandals, arrests at international borders and numerous health risks, the much-discussed war against drugs in sport is, as ever, being won by the athletes.

It is the athletes who are better informed about the state-of-the-sport designer drugs, it is the athletes who utilize sophisticated drugs--masking agents--to render urine tests ineffective. It is the athletes who have harnessed the vast but dormant sports medicine complex worldwide to aid them in their quest for strength, speed and security from tests.

Public consciousness about drugs in sport has come a long way from Caracas, Venezuela, in the summer of 1983. From a laboratory that few feared came the news that 15 athletes had tested positive for banned substances, including two from the United States.

More shocking here was the exodus of 13 members of the U.S. track and field team, all of whom suddenly found they had a late-night plane to catch.

Dr. Eduardo De Rose, head of the Pan American Sports Organization Medical Commission and a member of the International Olympic Committee Medical Commission, headed the lab at Caracas and said the scandal at the Pan Am Games was a turning point.

“I think Caracas was the most important Pan American Games because of that (drug scandal),” he said. “All the anti-drug programs you see now have been developed after that. It opened everyone’s eyes. The athletes thought it would be a game of records, not control. They thought there would be no testing. So, in this way, the (Pan-Am) Games helped to get the drug problem before our eyes.”

Once the problem was before the eyes of the world, what did the world do? That depends. Many countries, such as the United States, established drug testing programs. This program, administered by the U.S. Olympic Committee, tested athletes for educational purposes, so the athletes could become more familiar with the testing procedures. They might also learn if they were taking any medication that might be banned.

The program was also used in 1984 by track and field athletes to learn to time their drug-taking so as to be test as if they were drug-free for the Olympics.

In Great Britain, stories circulated that sports officials helped athletes circumvent the tests and even arranged for some athletes to avoid testing all together at some major international competitions there.

Other countries, such as Norway, adopted a strict anti-doping stance and began random, unannounced tests of their athletes wherever they were in the world.

In almost every country there was a raised consciousness about drug use in sport. In almost every country there was much speech-making. But, almost everywhere, there was little concrete evidence that any headway was being made on the war against drugs.

In 1984 at the Los Angeles Olympics, 11 athletes tested positive for banned substances, 10 of them for anabolic steroids, the highest number ever.

Worldwide testing is producing an average of 2% positives. Based on those figures, there are at least two possible conclusions: The war is over, the officials have won, athletes are no longer taking drugs. Or, the war is escalating, more athletes are taking a wider variety of drugs and they know just how to befuddle the tests.

Most experts say the latter is the case. Prince Alexandre de Merode, a vice president of the IOC and the chairman of the IOC Medical Commission, was forceful in his comments at the Ottawa conference. “The doping problem is far from being solved,” he said. “Actually, several scandals have erupted this past year. Not very much was done on the part of some officials. We speak, we speak, but we have to start.”

The conference was considered a start.

What has happened since 1984?

--Blood doping has emerged as an increasing dilemma for sports officials. More athletes are using the banned procedure--in which blood is enriched with additional red blood cells, which carry oxygen in the blood, and reinjected into an athlete.

The United States has led the way again. In January, 1985, it was revealed that nearly a third of the 24-member U.S. cycling team had used blood doping before the 1984 Olympics. Included in that number were five medal winners.

The rationale of the coach, Eddy Borysewicz, was, “When everyone else does (this), and you don’t, you’re a loser.”

Soon after the scandal broke, the U.S. Cycling Federation became the first national sports federation to ban blood doping. Borysewicz was suspended for 30 days without pay, and the president of federation resigned.

The IOC banned blood doping in 1986. Yet there is still no test to indicate its use.

Early this year, U.S. Nordic skier Kerry Lynch revealed that he competed in the 1987 World Championships while using the blood-doping procedures. He won a silver medal, the first Nordic combined world championship medal ever won by a U.S. athlete.

Lynch was aided by officials from the U.S ski team. In fact, $1,750 of the Nordic program’s funds were used to fly a physician to Europe to handle Lynch’s blood transfusions.

Lynch received a one-year suspension from the International Ski Federation, and he forfeited his world championship medal.

Jim Page, who as the director of the U.S. Ski Assn.’s Nordic program helped Lynch blood dope, was subsequently given a job on the U.S. Olympic Committee staff.

The U.S. was severely criticized for this at the Calgary Olympics, with De Merode, chairman of the IOC Medical Commission, saying, “People involved in doping should not be allowed to keep working for national Olympic committees or sports federations.”

--Human growth hormone, which is secreted by the pituitary gland, is used by athletes to maintain strength between cycles of steroid use. It was discovered in 1984 to be used by a small number of athletes, and reportedly its use has increased. One disturbing side effect of this hormone is the growth of soft bones in the jaw, forehead and wrists. Disturbing for sports officials is the absence of any test for the drug now and little hope for one in the future. More disturbing still is the recent development of a synthetic growth hormone, which will significantly increase the drug’s availability.

--Joining the list of drugs for which there is no test for is erythropoietin, or EPO. This drug is so new that it is not yet on the banned list. EPO is an experimental drug used in the treatment of patients with kidney failure or anemia. It stimulates the production of red blood cells and is a possible alternative to blood doping. One doctor who is familiar with the drug said it would be more effective than blood doping and would leave the system in about two days.

Since EPO is still in the experimental stage, it is difficult to obtain. Sports officials say they are not yet concerned about its possible use by athletes.

--Just as drug-taking has escalated, so has drug testing. More athletes are tested at more competitions than ever before. Testing, both in and out of competition, is increasing at an enormous rate. According to figures released by the 21 IOC accredited laboratories, 37,882 athletes were tested last year in national competitions, international events and during out-of-competition unannounced tests.

Predictably, athletes are becoming more sophisticated regarding testing. Athletes are turning to masking drugs to disguise the other banned drugs that may appear in their urine. One such drug that surfaced at both the The Athletics Congress championships and the Pan American Games in Indianapolis last summer was probenicid. At least seven athletes were said to have used the drug, which is prescribed as a gout medicine.

Used as a masking drug, probenicid slows the secretion of the banned drugs into the urine, thus giving athletes more of a cushion of time before going off drugs before major competitions.

Probenicid has been placed on the IOC banned list, but officials have little doubt the athletes will move on to another drug.

--In the war against drugs, sports officials often cite the health risks involved in the abuse of some performance-enhancing drugs.

American sprinter Carl Lewis has claimed on British television that “people are dying from steroid use” but was unable to be more specific.

Never has a clearly documented case of steroid abuse been shown to lead to death. Until the death last year of West German heptathlete Birgit Dressel.

So well-circulated have been the stories of steroid death that television network owner Ted Turner has latched onto it. When Turner announced early this month that he was launching a new cable-TV network, he also announced the production of several made-for-TV movies. One is to be called, “The Finish Line,” a drama about a track athlete who dies from steroids.

--While previous anti-drug campaigns have focused on identification and punishment of the athlete, current thinking is also to take action against those who facilitate the drug use: sellers, distributors, doctors, coaches and trainers.

Last week, it was revealed that a doctor who administers drug testing for the U.S. Olympic Committee had once been suspended by a medical licensing board for using and selling anabolic steroids and human growth hormone.

Dr. William Taylor was disciplined three years ago in Florida, fined and placed on probation for three years.

Taylor said he obtained the drugs to show the existence of a black market while writing his book, “Anabolic Steroids and the Athlete,” which was published in June, 1982.

Taylor is a volunteer crew chief in the USOC testing program, and he handles the collection and shipment of urine samples from athletes. Dr. Robert Voy, the director of sports medicine for the USOC, said he knew of Taylor’s suspension when he was selected in 1986 to be part of the USOC program.

“As long as he is not using drugs and is still a proponent of the anti-doping position, he is perfectly capable of drug testing and probably better qualified for what we want to accomplish,” Voy said.

The failure of the United States to sanction Taylor is the sort of perceived leniency that enrages the rest of the world. Already this country has an international reputation of being slow to implement wide-scale testing, less-than-zealous about monitoring the tests and apparently reluctant to report positives.

“The U.S. has been a stumbling block,” said Dr. Arnold Beckett, a British member of the IOC Medical Commission.

The chairman of the commission, De Merode, admitted, “We were all shocked in 1984 in Los Angeles” at the reluctance to include testosterone and caffeine tests in the Olympics. “We in Europe do not understand the legal system, which makes officials (in the U.S.) cautious,” he said.

Carl Lewis, an outspoken critic of drug use, became embroiled in controversy early this year over comments he made to British media. Lewis told the British Broadcasting Corp., in reference to the 1987 TAC championships in San Jose, that, “Last summer, we had a number of athletes caught who got off.” The meet served as the qualifying meet for the World Championships.

Dr. Voy of the USOC, who was responsible for the testing at San Jose, told the Times of London that he was “very surprised” that the TAC had not announced any positive tests.

The implication in these remarks is that officials failed to report positive tests. But the United States is not alone in facing such charges. Lewis also gave credence to the widely held belief that promoters of some major track meets in Europe provide some athletes immunity from testing.

“Last summer . . . I became really aware of it,” Lewis said. “I was tested at only one Grand Prix meeting. One of the officials there said that the IAAF (the International Amateur Athletic Federation) doesn’t even get to see some of the tests. They’re thrown away before they even get to the laboratory.”

Increasing allegations of official cheating by some are doing damage to the integrity of all the testing procedures. Many athletes are at the point where they don’t know who to trust.

--Some officials are moving to stem the flow of drugs. Since 1985, federal investigations have resulted in indictments, convictions and seizure of $7 million in illegal steroids. A major drug bust in San Diego last year broke up a steroid ring that was estimated to have been a $100-million-a-year business.

Federal officials are more alert to the varied sources of the drugs. Anabolic steroids are sold by mail order, sold in gyms or brought in across international borders. Many of the anabolic steroids that come from Mexico are not only illegally produced, but often unsterile and sometimes phony.

In mid-1986, the Food and Drug Administration alerted legitimate steroid manufacturers in this country that they were responsible for improving domestic distribution channels. This may have forced black market suppliers to seek foreign sources of steroids.

Late last year, the FDA issued an Import Alert that lists some of the foreign steroids that have been found on the domestic market. The list is meant to assist Customs and FDA inspectors interdict the drugs coming into this country.

Perhaps the most spectacular arrest has been the case of former British Olympian David Jenkins, who was arrested in San Diego last year and found to be the head of a multimillion dollar national steroid smuggling and distribution ring.

Jenkins, who won a silver medal as a member of Britain’s 1,600-meter relay team in 1972, has pleaded guilty to single counts of conspiracy to defraud the government, holding counterfeit drugs for sale, introducing mislabeled steroids into commerce and receiving anabolic steroids. Thirty-two related charges were dropped as part of a plea bargain agreement.

Sentencing is scheduled for Oct. 11 when Jenkins faces a maximum sentence of 16 years in prison and a $1-million fine.

Pat Jacobs, the University of Miami assistant strength coach, was one of 34 defendants in the case and was found guilty of steroid trafficking.

For all the harmony and good will that came out of the Anti-Doping Conference, there were some cautionary notes to emerge as well. It is clear that sports officials must work together to solve the problem, not undermine the system by helping athletes cheat. It is clear that countries must seek to control the distribution of banned drugs by making interdiction--stopping the distribution of drugs--a priority.

International federations must standardize both testing and penalties to eliminate unfairness that exists from sport to sport. More testing, in and out of season, must be undertaken.