Using better science to deal with doping

Doping scandals have plagued sporting events like the Olympics for years and show no signs of going away. Finding cheaters isn't easy, but the difficulty of the task doesn't justify the bad science and scare tactics routinely used by anti-doping authorities.

There are four reasons commonly cited to discourage doping: It compromises athletes' health, creates an uneven playing field, damages the integrity of sport and sets a poor example for youth. Many scientists and bioethicists believe current international anti-doping policies aren't helping in any area.

Though there is some evidence that substances like steroids are harmful to youth, most of the horror stories regarding banned substances are little more than fairy tales. A 300-pound linebacker or a screaming line drive can inflict more harm on an athlete than the contents of any syringe.

One of the most outspoken critics of anti-doping authorities is Dr. Bengt Kayser, director of sports medicine at the University of Geneva. He claims that the ban on performance-enhancing drugs hurts elite athletes, who will use them anyway, because they are less likely to seek appropriate medical supervision.

In a 2005 article in the medical journal The Lancet, he claimed legalization would "encourage more sensible, informed use of drugs in amateur sport, leading to an overall decline in the rate of health problems associated with doping."

Authors of a recent statement in the British Medical Journal were even harsher in their rebuke of anti-doping agencies, claiming they exaggerate the dangers of drugs like steroids and are driven more by a "misguided moralistic motivation to protect sports" than by a desire to protect athletes.

The argument that doping should be legalized in sports is hard to swallow. If that were the case, we might as well hand out medals to chemists at the Olympics. However, it does stand to reason that making an activity illegal doesn't necessary stop it and, quite possibly, makes it more dangerous.

Of even more concern to scientists than the fear-mongering is the lack of scientific rigour displayed in anti-doping laboratories. Tests to detect doping are calibrated by monitoring the effects of a banned substance on a few volunteers. Any well-designed study for a disease treatment would have a large sample size with some participants on the drug and others on placebos, and neither subjects nor scientists would know who is in which group.

Not only are anti-doping agencies using tests of dubious merit, they exhibit an alarming lack of transparency. The editorial board of the journal Nature recently took these agencies to task, claiming that "by not publishing and opening to broader scientific scrutiny the methods by which testing labs engage in study . . . the anti-doping authorities have fostered a sporting culture of suspicion, secrecy and fear."

Nobody wants the results of sporting events to be determined by who has the best drugs. Anti-doping authorities are on a valid mission, but they are not exempt from the basic standards of good science.

Source: Using better science to deal with doping. The Ottawa Citizen (19 August 2008) [FullText]