Hysteria and hypocrisy in the doping debate

For, as cycling appeared more and more to be a sport that had been infected with systematic doping for many years, doubt arose as to whether Riis magnificent victory had been achieved in accordance with accepted virtues of sportsmanship and fair play. In spite of the fact, that Team Deutsche Telekom of which Riis was a team member were not directly involved; that the team completed the tour without being compromised by the raid of the French police, or that Riis maintained his innocence, and that in all his career he had never been guilty of doping, he was nonetheless in the media accused of doping on doubtful circumstantial evidence. It was as though a scapegoat was needed to atone for the sins of the sport, so that the image of a pure and undefiled sport could be restored.

Two - perhaps even interconnected - themes were at the heart of the debate in 1998: The one was the immorality of sport, the other was the corruption of sport due to the pressure of market forces. Apparently many of the gentlemen of the press believed that by undertaking the double role of priest and crusader they could assist sport in returning to the straight and narrow path of virtue. A crusade was launched.

The first to be subjected to the glare of this inquisition were the two cynical leaders, UCI's Hein Verbrüggen and IOC's Samaranch.  

When Samaranch took the liberty of expressing the view that we ought to consider legalisation of the use of drugs so long as they were not a health risk, he almost had his legs cut off. This was simply proof that the man - a former fascist - was uninhibited in his cynicism. No one showed any intention of giving the proposal serious consideration, in spite of the fact that the doping list has increased to such an extent that, if a considerable proportion of the general public were tested for doping at any time, the result would be positive.

Subsequently, sports directors and sponsors were criticised for the pressure they were exerting on their riders to perform better. The sports doctors were also accused for their lucrative assistance in drug misuse, and without whom the use of drugs would take place on a much lower level, which of course would make doping control much simpler. Finally the riders themselves were under accusation. But in the journalistic universe they were regarded almost as innocent victims of groups of obscure persons who were united in their efforts to exploit noble sport for their own selfish purposes, and who were willing to sacrifice the health of the athletes.  

When we consider what is demanded of training, deprivation, and steely determination in order to succeed in elite sport, it is difficult to believe that, when it is a question of doping, athletes are no longer active participants but are simply spineless victims unable to make mature decisions as responsible individuals.

Nevertheless, it even transpired that the riders who admitted using drugs were exonerated, and were presented as good examples that heralded the salvation of sport even though they continued to take part in cycle racing at the highest level. No one seemed distressed by the fact that the riders apparently did not lack the extra energy that the drugs had given them the years before.

The reaction, or rather lack of reaction, when, already the year after the scandal, the Swiss rider Alex Zülle finished 2 overall in the Tour de France after the phenomenal Lance Armstrong was, in this respect, astonishing. Zülle had admitted to having used EPO since 1993. He now won second place in the Tour in the highest average speed ever. 

It was this Tour that was announced as "The Clean Tour". This was remarkable. But there were no police raids and no important doping disclosures. Therefore could the amiable Zülles surprising second place without contradiction be interpreted as the beginning of a new era of virtue in the Tour de France. The reasoning must have been that, if Zülle had not used drugs and could win second place, then there was no reason to believe that the riders in the following positions had used any illegal measures.  

It would have been more difficult if Zülle had been hopelessly left behind. Fortunately for the illusion of purity in cycle sport, this did not happen. And the astonishing speed in which "The Clean Tour" took place, was readily explained as a consequence of more considerate planning, and the fact that, for the first time ever, there had been tail-winds throughout the whole Tour.

Journalistic persistency in not only to reveal Riis' doping sins, but also to induce him to publicly confess, causes astonishment. Astonishment which becomes even stronger because of the fact that they, who like Zülle publicly confessed, received immediate absolution and - if we are to judge from the cautious journalistic coverage of "The Clean Tour" 1999 - apparently achieved a certain immunity from a suspicion of doping. At least so long as none of them are caught red-handed in a doping test. 

It is not immediately clear what purpose is served by the continued witch-hunt against former doping offenders. Riis' active sports career ended in1999. However, quite recently in connection with the hardened reprobate Richard Virenque's final admission of guilt during the court case at Lille, Riis was urged in Danish media to make a clean breast of things.

But if he did so what would be gained? Already because of his spectacular Tour win in 1996, Riis has almost demonstrated his guilt. And afterwards he has been both doomed and damned in the peoples' court established by the media. He has thus in an opinion poll seen himself stigmatised as one of the most untrustworthy persons in the country.  

If the purpose of the witch-hunt was to instil fear and fright, then it should be more than enough that he was made an object of derision in the prize-awarded television programmes "The Price of Silence" that two famous Danish journalists produced. Viewers received enough information here to draw their own conclusions. What more is there to be gained?  

If he was doped then he has not committed a criminal act under civil law. If he were to confess publicly today he would receive neither a fine nor as prison sentence and no unjustly treated third party would receive compensation. On the face of it, it would seem that the only purpose any admission would serve would be to satisfy the vanity of prosecuting journalists. And of course the illusion that sport can be purified and thus retrieve its lost innocence if this moral crusade were only allowed to running its course.

This illusion is obviously important to sports organisations that are dependent on public funds, which are available because of the health advantages and character forming qualities of sport. The doping problem is not only gall and wormwood for those who are fond of drinking to the health of sport, as a means of achieving a sound soul in a sound body it has also become poison. It is for the self-same reason that, at this very moment, appeals are being made to former doping sinners to confess their sin. Since the 1960s health has become more and more important. It has become more apparent that scientific progress in one field can possibly involve regression in other fields and this, in turn, has resulted in diminished confidence in medical science. Accordingly, increasing importance has been attached to prevention, and health has become one of the most important common values of modern society.

Health is no longer something that can be taken for granted, and used at will in the search for a meaningful life. Today health has become a quality that must be safeguarded at all costs. This is reflected in the number of private fitness offers. This is often expressed in public campaigns against sunbathing, fatty food and alcohol. It is also seen in different smoking restrictions. And this is probably why revelations of doping have caused such a violent reaction. Since health has become almost a religion, doping misusers are not only regarded as swindler but also as sinners. This is why Riis and other doping suspects are urged to confess and repent their misdeeds. If only they would come forward and admit that they had fallen into the devilish enticement of doping, they would be forgiven - just as Zlle was - and as new converts they could go out and preach the glad tidings about the contribution of \"clean\" sport in the promotion of health. At a time when health has become the greatest blessing and the pursuit of health approaching fanaticism, the five time Tour winner Jacques Anquetils viewpoint - that a responsible person has the right to use his body as he pleases - evokes no positive response. It has become illegitimate and if person dares to draw attention to it then that person is in danger of being proclaimed a heretic. But the illusion that doping problems in sport can be overcome is no less dangerous than Anquetils viewpoint, particularly for those sportsmen that doping prevention is supposed to protect. The illusion is dangerous because it supports a mistaken perception of sportsmen as a caste of immoral delinquents each time a new case reveals a doping problem. But perhaps especially because it contributes to a repression of the problem when for some time the doping problem has been dormant, which provides the best growth conditions for doping.

In 1967 Anquetil, in connection with the death of Tom Simpson on Mont Ventoux, created a stir with his striking comment that all the riders in the Tour were doped. This immediately caused some outrage and since then increasing doping control has been carried out. It has subsequently transpired that this has primarily served as a repression mechanism, as an assurance that all is well and the problem of doping is at a minimum. A hypothesis that was first seriously disproved by the Festina case. But it also became clear that doping control had both stimulated and provided tranquility for the development of new methods of doping. Methods that were so effective that on the riders own initiative blood testing was introduced into cycle sport and a haematocrit value of max. 50%, which meant de facto the introduction of an indirect EPO-test. (Incidentally there is reason to pay attention to this initiative, because it testifies to the riders ability to take care of their own affairs when they feel that the situation is getting out of hand, which is contrary to the perception of them as spineless doping victims.)

If, at some time, it became possible to develop a dependable direct EPO-test, there is every reason to believe that, based on the evidence of their own initiative, the riders would welcome such a test. And there would be every reason for celebration, because this would mean that one doping problem had been solved. But if we celebrate it as proof that it is possible to solve the problem of doping itself, then we are beginning to repeat the situation in the late 1960s, when we introduced, and had confidence in systematic doping control. It might easily turn out that, again at a later date, we could be faced with a new and perhaps even more serious doping problem. To all appearances the problem of doping is insoluble. Especially when publicly supported sports organisations shrink from admitting this, it is, as mentioned before, that their legitimisation basis is threatened. If politicians cant tolerate doping as a part of the reality of sport, and the admission that doping is an integral component of the reality of modern sport, then there is only one solution to the problem, and that is to ban sport. In the interests of health, sports competitions ought to be banned. This proposal is, on the one hand, a direct threat to sports organisations. This is obvious. And it is therefore that, for a long time, they have carried out frontal attacks on all that have aired the view: that doping can not be abolished. On the other hand, taking the unceasing popularity of sport into consideration, the proposal is, however, so absurd, that it has clearly contributed to the fact that the debate has recently taken a new turning and has become more varied. Perhaps in depression, because of the impossibility of the struggle, perhaps a pragmatic realisation of the unbreakable bond of sport to profane practicality, it is as though the view that "we might just as well raise the ban on doping" is gaining ground. A typical form of this proposal is, "We can divide sport into two classes, an ecological class for the Clean, and an open class where anything goes." This proposal is basically hazardous. It would correspond to arguing that in irritation about the many fouls in football we might as well allow them. But to attach the proposal to an idea that a doping-free class could be established with a special appeal to spectators and competitors who would not accept damage to the body as part of the requirements of sport, indicates that serious study concerning the cause of doping has not been made. If we would like to reach beyond sterile outrage and condemnation of doping users and to attain a realistic policy for doping, then it is necessary to discover what it is that creates the use of doping.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding it would be appropriate to distinguish between the use of doping and enforced doping.

Enforced doping, where children and young people are systematically subjected to doping treatment that they have no influence on, or knowledge of, is of course quite unjustifiable. The question here is, however, voluntary use of doping, which is a fundamentally different matter altogether. Use of doping is usually designated as drug abuse. This concept is, however, inappropriate for comprehension purposes, because the concept abuse itself contains a moral judgement and a demonstration that there is something here that must be opposed at all costs and without reservation. The concept is also connected with an impression that abusers need help. They are unfortunate beings who are unable to take care of themselves, in the same way, as other abusers of drugs and alcohol need therapy to bring their lives back on track. When the phenomenon is described as abuse a note of guardianship unpleasantly close to a conception of athletes as juveniles is introduced. The typical defence of athletes has been as mentioned that they were coerced into abuse. This means that even if they take the EPO-cure voluntarily, it is still something that they can not decide for themselves. By not differentiating it is possible to write about doping as though it was enforced doping. The concept of abuse also gives a hint that we are ready to accept a certain measure of guardianship towards athletes, and this is basically dangerous, because it constitutes a substantial restriction of an athletes freedom. Surprise doping controls, which are measures in the international prevention of doping, have as a consequence that all elite athletes are treated as "the usual suspects." In spite of the fact that this system is described as protecting athletes it is quite defamatory. And, when we consider the critical attitude that exists, when it concerns the introduction of tests for misuse in other branches of the business sector, it is incredible that no one has yet felt the need to protest that athletes should be subjected to permanent surveillance. The only conceivable explanation is that it has apparently become a habit to regard athletes as a caste of tendentious criminal cheats.

But, if we leave this apparent impression and instead assume that athletes in general are just as trustworthy as most people, but with the difference that athletes, in addition to a unique talent also have a strong ambition to express it, then we discover that it is sport itself that is the problem. And why is this so?

It is because sport is excessive. It is concerned with the most outstanding, the brilliant performance. It is therefore a mistake to equate the attraction force of sport to the ideal of equality. Or that it should be dependent on the notion of fair play. The doping problem is a consequence of sporting ambition that is revealed as a fierce "will to win" that, incidentally, is decisive for the attraction force of sport. If the weaker competitor did not strive just as hard as the superior opponent, the competition would be uninteresting. If both parties are not interested in winning then a basic element of the attraction would be missing.

Already Pierre de Coubertin knew that: "Sport must have the freedom of excess", ambition drives the weaker to train more to approach the level where he is able to threaten his previously superior rival. It is this ambition that leads to excess. Excess is simply a consequence of sport. A person does not become an elite athlete if he is not inspired by ambition, and he is not likely to win in competition with the very best if he is not able to surpass himself - if he is not prepared to excess. Sport is, among other things, pain, suffering and sacrifice. It is these ingredients (in addition to talent of course) that are a precondition for the excitement that we as spectators experience. The fact that they are able to suffer the pain and bear the sacrifice makes them heroes and idols. We see their superb achievements as a transcending of the human being. We acclaim them, in other words for the surpassing character of their achievements, for the sublime that they have accomplished. Here we are presented with the dynamism of sport. It is this that induces athletes to persevere with their training, to force their weight down and to employ any methods to gain a competitive advantage. To change this, necessitates the end of achievement sport.

It is indisputable that doping rules, just as football laws are necessary, but the belief that it is possible to combat doping within sport is naive. An effective prevention of doping must begin in an altogether different area, and sporting organisations can not do this alone. It requires political intervention. For effective doping prevention must be directed against the medical industry, for example mandatory addition of biological markers to drugs that can not be detected in doping tests, or by systematic control of the distribution of drugs. Only by such initiatives can there be any hope of an effective limitation of the doping problem in the future.