It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.” – Benjamin Franklin
In light of the recent Lance Armstrong drama surrounding his performance enhancement during his competitive cycling days, I was inspired to write a little something about the topic. I understand this all makes for good television and fuels the media circus to spin for days on end, however I have to ask myself “Why?” I know I might be jaded on this topic because I have seen performance enhancement in the arena of sports evolve dramatically over the years from equipment improvements, sharpened and focused athletic training programs namely in strength and conditioning, better informed nutritional plans and approaches, and yes, more knowledge and subsequent improved application of many legal substances that when applied in many areas of sport are deemed “banned” and when they help a normal citizen fighting certain medical conditions they are acceptable. So what is the solution? In my opinion, it is to not draw a line at all and let talent, genetics, and training dictate the competitive spirit and peak athletic performance of each sport.
If I could give you a pill that would make you an Olympic champion — and also kill you in a year — would you take it?” Dr. Gabe Mirkin
This question was posed to competitive runners in 1967. And the results? Over half of the runners responded yes. Fast forward over 40 years to athletes in competitive sports today, and I would venture that an even larger percentage of them would answer yes. Why? Because these athletes in 1967 were striving to be the best non-paid Olympians. Athletes today have the potential of endorsement deals worth tens even hundreds of millions of dollars, they have the potential to be famous and highly esteemed in their respective arenas, and they can be a legacy for generations of their family tree allowing them to be raised from poverty to wealth. All of this adds up to the fact the stakes are much higher in sports competition today.
Why does the mindset of an elite competitive athlete matter in this discussion? Well, it is a mindset so far separated from the general public that we should know that an elite level athlete will compete with whatever it takes and a win at all costs attitude. If being the best at their sport requires taking steroids and growth hormone will they do it? Of course so. It might be similar to asking a mother of a small child if she will do anything to save their child if that child is in danger. Of course she will. So why do we waste endless hours, resources, and money to fund the bad cop sport scientists to govern and test the banned substances in sport? Beats the hell out of me? I suppose the public likes the good cop/bad cop and hero/villain dichotomy.
I would like to conclude with several examples found in sport that clearly show evolution of the sport. Now whether a purist might decide these particular evolutions are good or bad for the sport is irrelevant, my point here is competitive athletes will continually pursue peak performance in their respective arenas at all costs. So let’s start with the currently hot topic of cycling and the Tour de France shall we?
Here are some photos of the Tour de France in the earlier part of the 20th Century. What’s that? Is that a fellow teammate helping the lead rider with a performance enhancing drug during the ride? Yes it is. At the time, cigarette smoking was thought to improve respiration so riders would often smoke during the stages of the Tour. Is this any different than doping after a ride? Not in my opinion. They both are after the same goal: improving oxygen efficiency during a ride. The doping techniques are just a superior and much more well-informed approach to the ever present problem of recovery during endurance sports like cycling. And I like how the riders in the second picture are recovering – stopping into the local pub for a pint 
Another item to note, I am sure those bikes back then were not nearly as light as the modern day cycles used in the Tour. Should we try to get Lance to saddle up on one of those ponies? No. And do we try to compare Lance Armstrong to those riders? No. And it should not matter.
I know, I know, it is easy to pick on the sport of bodybuilding. But herein lies a great example of the evolution of training in a sport which includes performance enhancing drugs. Notice I like to call “training” anything under the pursuit of peak performance. Are steroids, growth hormone, and a slew of other pharmaceuticals part of the concoction to make a top performer in competitive bodybuilding today? Yes. That all goes into the “training” program of that particular sport. Would that same training program and combination of performance enhancing drugs help out a professional golfer? No. Can you really compare the bodybuilders of pre-steroid era with modern bodybuilders? No. And any sport historian knows this and accepts it. The rules of bodybuilding allow for the use of such drugs that are banned in many other sports arenas. Fans of competitive body building know historical comparisons come down to personal preference as the sport is more subjective than objective anyway.
It was not that long ago, that Barry Bonds was the poster boy for performance enhancing drugs in baseball. Major League Baseball officials and purists of the sport won in their battle against performance enhancing drugs. But did the fans win? Not in my opinion. The baseball fan base is in large part lower than in the home run derby days of Mark McGuire, Sammy Sosa, and Barry Bonds. Why? Because that made baseball exciting and these athletes were achieving things never before possible. How? Improvements in training programs. Again, did those training programs include performance enhancing drugs? Yes, but does it matter? Again, if you are sport historian or baseball purist and want to compare Babe Ruth to Barry Bonds, it comes down to subjective opinion because objective comparisons like statistics have to be thrown out the window for many reasons. And to me that should be accepted. After all, aren’t accolades like the Hall of Fame really subjective and political anyway? Pete Rose not in the Hall of Fame? C’mon folks.
Tennis and golf are probably the two best examples of sport performance improving through the advancement of equipment designs. Should we make Rafael Nadal use the wooden racket of the Bill Tilden era? No. (ahem baseball) Do we know and accept the fact that Tiger Woods can out drive Jack Nicklaus in his prime? Yes. Why is that? Well, it is better equipment AND training. Look at Rafael Nadal and Tiger Woods, both are superior physical specimens when compared to their yesteryear counterparts in their respective sports. Why? Simple. Improved training.
In summary, athletic performance has for the most part improved over the years. Why? Variety of reasons like equipment designs for efficiency, accuracy and safety, better nutritional choices for athletic performance and recovery, and a host of focused training techniques. So where do we draw the line in training for a competitive sport? In my opinion, we stop drawing the lines and let the athletes compete based upon their genetics, skill, talent, and training programs. What if these training programs include performance enhancing drugs? Who cares? These drugs just compliment the athlete’s training program not completely dictate success or failure within their given sport. We must remember, these genetic specimens of elite level competitive athletics are different than the general population. If Joe Blow off the street with normal talent levels in any sport picked up the same training programs he would NOT become the next athletic star in any sport. Peak performance and elite competition are driven by SO MUCH more than the implementation of performance enhancing drugs.
So play ball! Start your engines! Kickoff! Quiet please.
Who cares?
I care — and plenty others that have chosen to compete clean.
As a parent, please help me understand why you have no problem with your kids doing blood transfusions to “level the playing field.”
Still not care?
I could write 20 other reasons, but I don’t need to.
An athlete should not be obligated to dope to be competitive.
You or no one else can get around this one ‘minor’ objection.
I would not advocate either of my kids to compete in such a way as long as they are under my care/supervision. Once they are grown adults, I hope they make informed decisions in every area of life including the effects of drug abuse/misuse like in the case of performance enhancing drugs. I am just suggesting we do not waste resources and energy in policing the highest level of professional sports as I think there are *many* better uses of our time, energy, and money. I know you are a clean competitive cyclist and I applaud that. Possibly cycling and other sports could go to an “open” division and a “natural” division much like the bodybuilding model.
Patrick said …
“Who cares?
I care — and plenty others that have chosen to compete clean.
As a parent, please help me understand why you have no problem with your kids doing blood transfusions to “level the playing field.”
Still not care?
I could write 20 other reasons, but I don’t need to.
An athlete should not be obligated to dope to be competitive.
You or no one else can get around this one ‘minor’ objection.”
###
Who cares? Those people who complete clean, shouldn’t. Start a separate, natural league.
If people cheat the rules there … well then, nothing has changed, except for that you have now mitigated “cheating” for those who wish to compete without it, and driven those who do want to dope to the MAX into their own league.
Let them weed themselves out in their own playground, rather than everyone buying into the delusion that absolute elite athletes aren’t “doping”.
Furthermore, who cares that their kids are willingly using performance enhancing drugs in sports? It’s the (adult) child’s choice. If they injure themselves, including permanent damage, it’s their own damn fault, and they should have listened to their parent(s).
People need to learn from their mistakes, not be forcibly coddled by mommy and daddy threatening them, reporting them, etc. This is just a ridiculous point.
Patrick, you’re an Arthur Jones fan. What do you think he would do if his adult, or even semi-adult son wanted to use PED to compete better in a sport?
He would say “youre a fucking idiot, and you shouldn’t do it”, and then he would stand by and watch his son do it.
This is responsible parenting 101 : let your child take responsibility for their own actions.
Mark:
I agree in general with your argument regarding performance enhancing measures in sports. I would have reservations about such measures when they are known to have harmful side effects, such as may result from heavy steroid use. The very “win at any cost” mentality that drives elite athletes could lead to them being trapped into practices which are ultimately physcially destructive – much like an irresistibly addictive drug that eventually kills the user.
I am not suggesting the pursuit of this type of performance equates to health. Actually, it is quite contrary to health and many health biomarkers are adversely affected. Any substance can be abused and misused which is often the case of sports enhancement. Hope all is well with you and Vicky
I’m not sure any if all-this differs from, for example, the Japanese “sarrarimen” (salarymen) who *kill* themselves making a living. If to compete and succeed (“win”) in whatever “sport” — including housing and feeding a family — requires extraordinary performance of a type to suit that ‘sport’ (in Japan, late, late nights drinking with customers and the boss, super-high stress, no sleep, and so on), then it’s a human thing to do. To decide obsessive focus on work is somehow different from obsessive focus on sport (which, of course, IS the sportsman’s work) seems… illogical and inappropriate.
Good points, Mark.
I find most troublesome is the demonization of steroids, largely by irresponsible journalists and always grandstanding politicians. In popular opinion, steroids are said to make you sick with cancer, heart disease, and other maladies. The truth be told, our journalists and politicians have concocted a web of lies and an ongoing culture of deceipt. In my opinion, the journalists and politicians are guilty of real crimes against humanity for perpetrating lies which end up restricting and denying appropriate medical treatment.
I left competative lifting in 1966 due to the overnight inroads of dianobol in the iron game. All the information that far back was anti-steroid. I’ve been anti-steroid until roughly six months ago. My conversion experience came about from reading Nelson Vergel & Michael Mooney’s Built to Survive! It’s a book about HIV. Turns out there’s a significant population of HIV+ persons now 25 and more years so diagnosed. But you wouldn’t recognize them – looking incredibly fit, they had no choice but to adopt a way of life to keep them from wasting away and dying. The book reports on what we Physical Culturists already largely know: nutrient dense, whole foods, appropriate supplements, bodybuilding – and what we don’t know, appropriate stacks or compounding of testosterone and nor-testosterone to promote healthy protein turn over, to promote allostasis, to promote cellular health. Immune systems suppressed due to the HIV virus thrive on diet, muscle building exercise, and appropriate use of testosterone and norandrolone (both bio-identical, both substances our bodies make until certain conditions compromise that ability).
Once I learned about HIV, I realized HIV is an extreme case of muscle wasting sarcopenia and caused by viral invasion. Slightly, and only slightly close is the pandemic of upwards of 35 diseases afflicting Western civilization. Post-modern evolutionary medicine, the parent discipline of the Paleo movement, recognized our diseases stem from choices and conditioning from our culture – they’re not in the nature of physical reality, instead originate in social, political, and cultural constructions of ‘real’ and ‘normal.’ That means those diseases are caused and maintained unto killing you in a veil of illusion. After all, they aren’t caused by viruses, by infectious agents, and aren’t communicated from person to person. And like HIV, they eat you alive – destroying your vibrant spirit for life. HIV and chronic degenerative diseases constitute the major causes of death in the West, and are in common wasting diseases. Noteworthy is once patients hit a point of no return or next to no return, a new medicine involving super nutrition, super supplements, bodybuilding 4-5 days weekly, and epigenetic steroid therapy will save lives, renew spirits, and produce wellness in the community and among families.
It significant that we never hear of a distinction between testosterone and nortestosterone. The former is a mix of androgen and anabolic properties. Athletes get demonized for taking steroids while the same steroids are glorified in TV adds for “T” deficiency. HRT – hormone replacement therapy – clinics are popping up all over the place. We castigated athletes for dosing on steroids while a population of unfit, metabolically eroding middle aged people can get the same steroids in gels and creams, or even vials along with syringes for injecting themselves. Perhaps sports doping is a more extreme case of HRT as HET (hormone enhancement therapy). At least athletes take a more natural balance of testosterone and nortestosterone; HRT creates an out of balanced situation using only testosterone.
Remember Mark McGwyer? He used something known at 19-nor, a hormonal metabolite a step or two removed from being made into 19-nor by your body. Yep, he wasn’t taking a synthetic drug or something unnatural. He was simply providing better quality substance for his body to do its natural job. Think of the difference between crude oil and gasoline. You can’t burn crude oil in your car – it has to undergo refining to become the fuel you need. The word steroid means hormones made from cholestrol. Cholestrol’s kind of like crude oil in relation to the end products including testosterone and estradiol. So 19-nor worked well as a refined fuel source. Sales and distribution of 19-nor became illegal at the beginning of 2005 due to legislation passed by Congress – a Congress more intent on grabbing headlines with witch hunts and victimless crimes that exhibiting willingness nor fitness to solving immense national problems.
I’ve never been pro-drug use in sports, especially since it was those drugs that drove me out of competition in 1966. On the other hand, persecuting the past seems idiotic when considered in large perspective. Singling out a Barry Bonds, a Mark McGwyer, and others makes little sense and certainly violates any decent standard of fairness. Steroids were in by 1960, so fairness means investigating every world class athlete going back 53 years. Not so hard to figure: when roids came in, record breaking took off by leaps and bounds. But would such an investigation be worth the cost? How would investigation of the many who’ve since died be conducted – by psychics with ouiji boards, conforming to the standard of credible accuracy exhibited by Congress?
PEDs are here to stay. I personally would rather have associations of ‘drug free’ versus ‘open competition’. With few exceptions, performance will speak for itself regarding PEDs or natural state.
Ken,
Thank you for sharing your insight. I truly appreciate your contributions to physical culture and the perspective you offer through your years of experience in the game.
Yes, the journalists, media outlets, congressmen, et al. need to wake up to reality that PEDs are here to stay. True, this impacts competitive sports but historically anyone with half a wit knows that everything post-steroid era should be taken into perspective.
I will have to check out the book Built to Survive. I can remember an HIV patient reaping many positive benefits from taking testosterone was interviewed in the documentary Bigger, Stronger, Faster. Although many other parts of the movie garnered more attention, I logged that in my mind as something I hoped would catch on in the HIV positive community. Really, it only makes sense but then again the “steroid” moniker has become so tarnished that positive benefits and effects are often overlooked and brushed under the rug.
I hope all is well with you.
Thanks,
Mark
For anyone interested in reading Built to Survive!, here’s the link to the page where you can find a click on link for downloading the 2011 edition as a free pdf.
http://survivinghiv.blogspot.com/2012/08/free-book-from-power-built-to-survive.html
Definitely a no no…as it would surely affect the child’s brain functions.