Drugs, Defeatism, And The Culture Of Sport

The world of sport is filled with more assumptions than we care to consider. And we all know that when you build a house on the quicksand of faulty assumptions, the second and third stories topple over pretty easily.

So it goes with "performance-enhancing" drugs. The Lance Armstrong saga has reminded us yet again that the culture of sports continues to need to believe - deeply - that high level athletic performances require doping. Our sporting culture assumes that human performance is at a crossroads, that stellar world-record performances require something illicit.

But with that said, I would suggest that it is the belief systems in sports - not the drugs - that are the bane of our athletic existence.

The concept of "performance enhancing drugs" is built upon a number of rather significant, yet faulty, assumptions:

1. The human body has preset limiters to performance. The thought is that in order to go beyond those preset limits (typically blamed on genetics), you have to use performance-enhancing drugs. However, we know that the human body will adapt to the demands imposed upon it, a function of training adaptation and recovery - not drugs.

2. Current training regimens are optimal. This, combined with #1, creates a scenario in which the underlying belief is that training strategies are already as good as they can be. If so, the next step in thinking is that in order to enhance performance, you must use drugs. Current training techniques are far from optimal - plain and simple.

3. Performance-enhancing drugs actually improve performance. First and foremost, there is one significant rule of pharmacology to remember: for every positive effect of a drug, there will be a laundry list of adverse effects. So it's not like there is one golden pill that has all the magical positive effects and no side effects.

As we all know, EPO has become the poster child for performance-enhancing drugs in endurance sports. But consider this ... a little thing called "research" ...

"The results of this literature search show there is no scientific basis to conclude rHuEPO (recombinant human EPO) has performance enhancing properties in elite cyclists. The reported studies have many shortcomings regarding translation of the results to professional cycling endurance performance. Additionally, the possibly harmful side-effects have not been adequately researched for this population but appear to be worrying at least." (1)

Oh, and those extra red blood cells make the blood thicker and harder to pump. A benefit to the endurance athlete?

How about human growth hormone (HGH)?

"... although no scientific study has shown that it is an effective performance-enhancing drug" (2)

"Human growth hormone may also be used for an anabolic effect, but data on this effect are lacking." (3)

And then we have steroids. For all the perceived positive effects, they also serve to shut down your immune system - a primary factor in training recovery and adaptation. That’s a problem.

We are now at the point in our sport culture in which athletes are using deer antler spray - yes, deer antler spray - for "performance enhancement". Really? Perhaps some pixie dust next? Sugar pills? Snake oil?

The cultural problem extends to the athletes that truly believe that the only way they can compete at the highest level, "on a level playing field", is to use drugs. Of course, you also have the athletes that proclaim to be clean, complaining that they are the victims because they can't compete with the "dirty" athletes. Victims, victims everywhere.

There is a simple answer to doping and its defeatist mentality: change your beliefs. The human body is an amazing machine that will adapt to optimal training demands if given an environment in which it can do so. That being the case, why not modify and optimize training and recovery first?

Case in point: the running community. As I have mentioned countless times, if the key to winning an Olympic gold medal in the marathon was simply logging more and more training miles (as many coaches would have you believe), then the US should own the Olympic marathon. Seriously though - there are more runners in this country logging 100+ miles per week than any nation in the world. The last men's Olympic marathon gold medal? 1972. Last women's Olympic marathon gold medal? 1984. If your beliefs won't allow you to blame the training, then what's next to blame? The good old standbys: drugs and genetics. Never fails.

Doping is not required to excel. Doping does not make a difference that optimal training couldn't make on its own.

But that would require a cultural shift in training. And frankly, in this day and age, it is far easier for most to just chalk it up to the defeatism of drugs or genetics than it is to wage a battle against the culture of training methods. Sadly, with a rationale like that, nobody wins.

References:

1. Heuberger JA et al (2012). Erythropoietin doping in cycling: lack of evidence for efficacy and a negative risk-benefit. Br J Clin Pharmacol, December [Epub ahead of print]

2. Tokish JM et al (2004). Ergogenic aids: a review of basic science, performance, side effects, and status in sports. Am J Sports Med, 32(6): 1543-53.

3. Wagner JC (1991). Enhancement of athletic performance with drugs. An overview. Sports Med 12(4): 250-65.

Photo credits: jayneandd