Athletics paying the price for fighting hardest in the war on drugs.
October 13th 2007 14:27
In a week that has seen the public image of athletics tarnished still further by careless athletes and a naïve media its worth trying to put some perspective on the issue of drug taking in sport.
Is athletics as dirty as it seems or is it a case of athletics being a victim of its own forthrightness in the war on doping?
Let’s compare.
In the 2002/2003 English football season a total of 1201 tests were conducted by the football association for 92 professional clubs and over 4000 professional footballers.
All tests were urine based – no blood tests were carried out.
In that time period (2003) the IAAF conducted 3393 tests consisting of urine and blood tests for around 1500 elite athletes.
The reason 2002/2003 season has been chosen is because there is NO information for later years available on the FA website.
In 2007 at the IAAF Osaka World Championships 976 athletes attended and 1132 tests were carried out as well as the testing of 82 athletes at training camps prior to their arrival in Japan.
Those 1132 tests were divided up into blood screenings for EPO profiling purposes, urine tests specifically designed for EPO detection, blood samples aimed at detecting blood transfusions and regular urine analysis.
It is interesting to note that sports scientists have long said that with regard to team sports that if the level of skill is similar between two opposing teams then whichever team is fitter tends to triumph.
And what drug is proven to give you a fitness related edge in terms of endurance - our good friend Erythropoietin, better known as EPO.
Remember that you cannot test for EPO through a regular urine test and no mention of EPO specific testing is on the FA website.
In fact there isn’t really a whole lot of information on the FA website at all regarding anti-doping – just a few scattered pages and stories.
On the IAAF website there is a whole section devoted to anti-doping with statistics, lists of suspensions and tested athletes.
No statistics for anti-doping are immediately visible on the Rugby Football Union website.
So athletics conducts far more tests than practically every other sport on the planet so it is logical that they will find a greater number of positive tests right?
Could it be that other sports just aren’t looking hard enough? Could it be that they are simply too scared to?
Judging by how badly track and field has been treated for it being at the forefront of doping control who could blame them?
Is athletics as dirty as it seems or is it a case of athletics being a victim of its own forthrightness in the war on doping?
Let’s compare.
In the 2002/2003 English football season a total of 1201 tests were conducted by the football association for 92 professional clubs and over 4000 professional footballers.
All tests were urine based – no blood tests were carried out.
In that time period (2003) the IAAF conducted 3393 tests consisting of urine and blood tests for around 1500 elite athletes.
The reason 2002/2003 season has been chosen is because there is NO information for later years available on the FA website.
In 2007 at the IAAF Osaka World Championships 976 athletes attended and 1132 tests were carried out as well as the testing of 82 athletes at training camps prior to their arrival in Japan.
Those 1132 tests were divided up into blood screenings for EPO profiling purposes, urine tests specifically designed for EPO detection, blood samples aimed at detecting blood transfusions and regular urine analysis.
It is interesting to note that sports scientists have long said that with regard to team sports that if the level of skill is similar between two opposing teams then whichever team is fitter tends to triumph.
And what drug is proven to give you a fitness related edge in terms of endurance - our good friend Erythropoietin, better known as EPO.
Remember that you cannot test for EPO through a regular urine test and no mention of EPO specific testing is on the FA website.
In fact there isn’t really a whole lot of information on the FA website at all regarding anti-doping – just a few scattered pages and stories.
On the IAAF website there is a whole section devoted to anti-doping with statistics, lists of suspensions and tested athletes.
No statistics for anti-doping are immediately visible on the Rugby Football Union website.
So athletics conducts far more tests than practically every other sport on the planet so it is logical that they will find a greater number of positive tests right?
Could it be that other sports just aren’t looking hard enough? Could it be that they are simply too scared to?
Judging by how badly track and field has been treated for it being at the forefront of doping control who could blame them?
| 64 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Mountain Fog
Infognito
And what of the testing done leading up to the 2000 Sydney Olympics? I seem to remember that the USA was a little tardy in handing in required test results in the year leading up to it...if that means anything.
Also, what about swimming? I also remember Thorpe saying at the time of the Olympics that there were people cheating in the swimming camps, he wouldn't say which country of course, however, he did say they were using a newer drug taken orally which escaped the testing regime. The testing could have covered a much broader range, due to Aussie (and others) scientists' novel work, but the IOC refused and limited the testing to a previously prescribed list.
What does that say about the IOC? It's all politics at the end of the day...and that's the trouble with it all.
It seems when kudos is concerned, especially in the Olympics, then anything goes for a lot of countries and individuals...pity...we will never rid it from sport, so, I think they should have two Olympics, the drugged up one, with no ceremony and the healthy non cheating one.
cheers
fog
Comment by LukeS
Athletics News
On re-reading the article again it is defensive - athletics DOES have an (in my opinion) extremely widespread drug problem which has to be addressed in some way but i wanted to highlight the fact that athletics does far more by way of anti-doping than the majority of mainstream sports.
I chose football (soccer) for my comparrison because it is still (if the media and testing is to be believed) relatively drug free - a follow up article involving cycling, weight lifting, swimming etc could well prove fruitful.
Thanks for your input!