“Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing.” This famous quote by legendary professional football coach, Vince Lombardi, embodies the attitude of most elite athletes, as well as their fans. Today, it is so much a part of the culture in sports that athletes feel like anything below first place is a failure. Winning determines success, and athletes and teams thrive on getting the “W”. In fact, athletes have begun to rely on Performance-Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) to achieve their personal and professional goals in sport. It has dramatically changed sport across the globe as many athletes have crossed the line and lost their integrity by essentially resorting to cheating to be the best at their game. With performance-enhancing drugs becoming so prevalent, and more and more expected and accepted, what can we do to ensure and preserve the true meaning and purity of sports? 

Sport fans, today, know it is commonplace to see an asterisk next to many elite athletes’ names. The asterisk does not denote them as a record holder, or a title winner. Instead, it marks them as a PED user. It is the scarlet letter of sports and ultimately questions their integrity. The irony is that these athletes used performance-enhancing drugs to separate themselves from the rest of the pack and to be known as the best, and instead, it is the very thing holding them back from induction into the Hall of Fame, or from maintaining a record title, and ultimately derailing their legacy.  Skepticism in sport has risen, so for every astounding athletic feat, it leaves the question “Was that legit?” PED usage has forever marred performances that were once simply viewed as athletic spectacles, into a question mark of whether the athlete’s performance was his natural ability, or the result of something generated from a lab. 

So when did performance enhancing drugs really begin to impact the world of sport? Man has always been surrounded by temptation. As far back as Adam and Eve, when they were tempted by the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, there has been temptation. Sport has been no different. Performance-enhancing drugs, as a means to gain an edge of some sort, have been used in many different forms of sport all the way back to the Ancient Greeks. Chief Science Officer at the US Anti-Doping Agency, Larry Bowers, documented the origin and history of  PEDs stating, “the origin of the word ‘doping’ is attributed to the Dutch word ‘doop’, which is a viscous opium juice, the drug choice of the ancient Greeks.”(Larry D. Bowers) 

Roman Gladiators used hallucinogens and stimulants to ward off fatigue and injury, and the early 1900s saw modern day Olympians using combinations of caffeine, heroin, brandy and cocaine. By 1958,, the first anabolic steroid was produced for humans, and the 1960s saw the first Olympic and Tour-de-France deaths due to doping. Subsequently, mandatory drug testing was instituted at the Olympic games in 1968, and in the 1970s banned substance lists were created. The 1980s and 90s saw Congress and government agencies step in to regulate steroid use, while athletes were stripped of gold medals, championship titles and records broken. Today, there are constant stories of athletes, and their falls from greatness, as their illegal use of substances are exposed. Over time, we have seen PED usage find its way into the heart of sport. Dr. Mark Sisson, chairman of ITU Anti-Doping Commission, reacts to how commonplace substance abuse in athletics has become. “That’s the unfortunate story of sports. In order to remain competitive, you have to do what everyone else is doing.” (Mark Sisson)

There are many reasons as to why athletes would choose to begin using PEDs. The upside can be the difference between making a roster, breaking a record, or landing a million dollar contract. It can increase agility, strength and speed. Athletes, themselves, can reap the benefits of outperforming others, fans get to be dazzled by outrageous athletic performances, while team owners watch ticket and apparel sales soar from an elite athlete. The advantages of doping are tangible, and to many they are worth the risks. 

Accordingly, a famous survey was done in the 1980s, the Goldman Dilemma, asking Olympic athletes if they would take a drug that would guarantee them a gold medal, but would kill them within 5 years. (Gretchen Reynolds) The results were staggering, as almost 50% of athletes said they would take the drug. When they asked non-athletes, only 2 of 250 said they would do it. The Golden Dilemma’s results were stunning and give great insight to what athletes are willing to risk for fame and glory. James Connor, PhD., one of the authors of the study. concluded, “elite athletes are different from the general population, especially on desire to win.”

 Clearly, it has been established that athletes are willing to risk a lot in order to improve their level of ability, including their health. The health risks from using PEDs can range from mild side effects, such as dehydration to more severe side effects, like liver and heart disease.  In the short-term, PEDs such as steroids can increase muscle mass and strength. “Besides making muscles bigger, anabolic steroids may help athletes recover from a hard workout quickly by reducing the muscle damage that occurs during the session.” (Mayo Clinic Staff)  This allows athletes to train more often and harder, which, in the short-term, is an incredible advantage. But the long-term effects can be disastrous. PEDs can cause impotence, acne, balding, stunt growth in adolescents, blood clots, infertility, high blood pressure, psychiatric disorders, liver abnormalities, tumors, and the list goes on and on. In fact, we still do not know all of the possible side effects, both short and long-term, that even exist because new substances are being produced and athletes are willing to try them. But what we do know for certain, is that using PEDs does not come without any risk. Therefore, knowing what damage PEDs can cause, they should be banned from sport altogether in order to protect our athletes. The health risks associated with PEDs are far too great, and our society needs to be committed to keeping our sports drug-free.

In addition to the serious health-related risks, there is, of course, the risk of getting caught using PEDs. As we can imply from the huge increase in the number of athletes using PEDs, the risks must not outweigh the rewards of doping.  The consequences of being caught are perhaps just not tough enough. Maybe the mild slap on the wrist of missing a few games, or being monetarily fined,  is not enough to deter athletes from using. More and more athletes are taking chances by using PEDs, so maybe the stakes just are not high enough? 

From football and baseball, to cycling, running and weightlifting, no matter the sport, PED users are out there. But the penalties of being caught differ among the different sports. In Major League Baseball, a first offense could be a ban of 20 games,  while a marathon runner can be banned from competition for two years. Different agencies and organizations govern their sports in their own way and at their own discretion.  It is time to unify the world of sport and lay out a consistent plan with steep repercussions for doping offenders. Random drug tests need to be implemented on a very regular basis and the punishments, even for first time offenders, should be severe. If a zero-tolerance policy was enforced, how many athletes might then reconsider using PEDs knowing that once caught, they could be banned completely from the sport they love so much?  It would be, by no means, an easy fix. It would take money, time, coordination among all avenues of sport, and persistence. But it is imperative that we take the lead on this before we see that black smudge of that asterisk seep even further into the list of athletes we regard as “heroes”.

In the attempt to create a system with uniform and reliable methods of testing, one important factor to consider is that athletes go to great lengths to disguise their PED usage. 

George Karl, a longtime basketball coach in the NBA wrote a book, “Furious George”, where he accused many players of illegal substance abuse. He wrote, “Unfortunately, drug testing always seems to be a couple steps behind drug hiding.” (George Karl, Curt Sampson). Karl went on to note that Lance Armstrong, the disgraced cyclist who was stripped of gold medals and ultimately banned for life from the sport, never failed a drug test. This striking fact highlights the ability of athletes, like Armstrong , and the methods they would incorporate to avoid detection. 

Some common practices used to disguise doping include plasma and saline injections, blood transfusions, phony prescriptions, microdosing, urine dilution, and altitude tents. PED abusers often go to painstaking efforts to stay ahead of drug testing. In order to clean up the doping scene in sport, more advanced and accurate tests are required, and need to become common practice among sports and their athletes. Blood tests detect certain testosterone ratios which can signal signs of PEDs. But athletes are very familiar with manipulating their own blood to throw this test off to detect nothing. Further layers of testing both blood and urine samples could help detect more substances and at lower levels. These tests are costly and more complex, but in order to keep drug detection ahead of drug deception, it has to become necessary. With all of the money that professional athletics generates, the funding is out there, and needs to be put to better use to free sport of PEDs.

What is necessary in ensuring a world of professional sport without PEDs is an independent agency that would be responsible in overseeing all sports on an international level. On the ametuer sport level, an independent agency already does exist. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was created in 1999 to keep amateur sports drug free. It has attempted to keep Olympic and amateur athletes “clean”, but has a long way to go in being fully effective. Still in its infancy stages, one can see that this is the direction needed to govern professional sports as well. Unfortunately, the waters get muddied when dealing with money, team profitability, contracts and fame that come along with professional sports. But, overall, taking the governing of PEDs out of the hands of those involved in their sport, and placing it with an independent body, will be necessary in order to ensure accountability and integrity of sports. 

Today, each professional sport governs itself. For instance, Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Football League (NFL) and the National Basketball Association (NBA) all have different sets of rules and policies as to what substances are banned, and how and when athletes are to be tested. Relying on insiders in a sport to dictate and govern is simply ineffective. Michele Verroken, director of Drug-Free Sport, agrees that independent agencies are needed to clean up the PED problem in athletics.  “Independence is the only way to give confidence to everybody that there is no interference, no screening and no cover-ups. The dangers of self-policing are that some people will not want to damage the reputation of a sport in which they are involved.” (Michelle Verroken)  

A perfect example of this is the MLB steroid scandal of the 90s and early 2000s. Major League Baseball saw a huge rise in the number of athletes using steroids. Record breaking numbers of home runs were hit as well as the distance the balls traveled over the fences. The sport drew a larger fan base and more attention than ever, while owners enjoyed the financial benefits that came along with these star-studded performances.  It was a time when trainers, owners, fans and league commissioners all knew that steroids were widely being used by players, but they turned a blind eye to it in order to keep the sport thriving and maintain the high level of excitement fans came to expect. In fact, steroids were banned from the MLB in 1991, but they did not begin league-wide PED testing until 2003. This makes the argument for an independent organization to take over the mission of cleaning up sports. If left up to those who govern their own sport, there can never truly be accountability and openness.

Furthermore, not only should an independent agency be the one to do the testing, it should also dictate the testing protocols on how often and when to test athletes, as well as penalties for cheating. Currently, most sports only test during or near competitions. They do not randomly test, making it that much easier for athletes to cover up any doping. Testing out-of-competition needs to be enforced, and should be done consistently across all sports and governed by this independent agency. Standard testing has to be implemented and it needs to be done often, not just before major competitions or just during in-season training. 

In addition, penalties for PED users must also be uniform across sports and should be swift and harsh. In 2004, Major League Baseball’s drug policy was weak and ineffective. First-time offenders received a 10-day suspension, 30 days for second time, 60 days for third time and finally a year for fourth-time offenders. Clearly, this was ineffective as the weak punishments were not a deterrent, and the MLB saw the height of PED usage at that time. The case for strong and quick punishment and zero tolerance is the answer, and could be dictated by this governing independent body. In order for sport to see big decreases in the use of performance enhancing drugs, repercussions for cheating have to be severe. 

Conversely, there are many that feel that sport cannot and will not ever be free of PEDs. The British Journal of Sports Medicine’s research by Foddy, Clayton and Savulescu argues that simply legalizing PEDs would make sport fairer across the board. They infer that nature is not always fair and that some athletes have physical attributes that prove to be more beneficial for their sport. Therefore, legalizing PEDs could offset some of the advantages some athletes are born with. “Some gymnasts are more flexible, and some basketball players are seven feet tall. By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, we level the playing field. We remove the effects of genetic inequality. Far from being unfair, allowing performance enhancement promotes equality.”  (Foddy, B., M. Clayton and J. Savulescu) Although a strong argument to some, the idea that legalizing PEDS would square things up among athletes takes away the very core of what sport accomplishes. It separates the best from the rest of the pack through God-given natural talent, dedication and honest, hard work in achieving one’s maximum potential. 

A second argument against eradicating PEDs from sport is that the cost of them is less than alternative options in attempting to gain maximum output from an athlete. For example, an elevated blood count can help an athlete’s aerobic performance. You can achieve this through altitude training, using a hypoxic air machine, or by taking EPO, an illegal substance. Sending an athlete to train at high altitudes can be very expensive, and a hypoxic air machine costs about $7,000. Arguably, these options are not possible for poorer athletes. So it is the illegal substance that could level the playing field. Therefore, allowing drugs in sport can reduce economic discrimination. 

Arguments against eliminating doping in sport can be compelling, but when we look at the role sport plays in society today, it is clear that integrity and purity needs to be upheld at all times. Laura Egendorf, author and researcher of young adult issues, claims, “Few people are more admired in today’s society than successful athletes. Adolescents view them as role models, adults clamor for their autographs and companies seek them out to endorse products.” (Laura Egendorf) Athletes are often put on a pedestal, therefore, they ought to be held accountable for their actions. If we allow athletes to get away with cheating at their sport, we have lowered our standards for society as a whole. 

Sport is a reflection of society, and if we accept cheating in sport, maybe we’ll cheat in class, or on our taxes, or  in our personal lives. An independent, governing body can be established to ensure that we keep our sports clean and hold our athletic heroes to these high standards. The price to fund this type of agency will be costly, but society pays a higher price by standing on the sidelines and watching some athletes violate the spirit of competition and the purity of sport. So while it may not be an easy task in eliminating performance-enhancing drugs from athletics, we owe it to the fans, to the upcoming, younger athletes, and to our society, as a whole, to reject the win-at-all cost culture and accept only fair and honest competition.
