Faster, higher, stronger…on Performance Enhancing Drugs

Cycling fans will remember the tragic death of Tommy Simpson in 1967 on the Mount Ventoux. He died because of a combination of heat exhaustion, alcohol and doping. I would like to see what will happen with sponsorships. Does Nike, Adidas and other want to commit themselves to people who take doping, as it might harm their image of sports enhancing products? Maybe it will take the money out of sports for a bit, creating new, more honest competition.


As a kid I played many different sports, then turned to semi -professional career in table tennis and some athletes truly inspired me. Unfortunately some of them fell from grace because they were using forbidden Performance Enhancing Drugs to prepare for competition. Although both our sports are not so easily affected by drugs because of their nature, I hate to see the cheating - to see some people harming the basic definition of sports: pure honest competition between persons bound by rules in which the strongest triumphs. And it is all done for money. Nonetheless there is a lot of hypocrisy going around this.

We all know why it is wrong to use these drugs - it is unfair,  bad for your health, creates an unequal playing field and might even not help which is probably the most pathetic situation. However, just looking at high performance sports itself: it is not healthy at all! Athletes blow up their muscles, their knees and ankles are destroyed, and many more lasting issues depending on the sport. So what does it matter that some athletes chose to take something extra. And is it really that worse than smoking a cigarette, drinking alcohol, eating excessively or lots of fat?

Another point is that the list of illegal products used by most sports associations is flawed. It has been created by the WADA, the international anti-doping organization. Most associations have adopted this list one-on-one. However, not ever drug has the same influence on the outcome of the sport. It all depends on the conditions of the sport and the characteristics of the drug. Imagine: a chess player on cocaine, a swimmer on GHB, a F1 driver on speed. A table tennis player has no benefit from using EPO, which only makes sense for endurance sports (e.g. cycling, marathons). Nonetheless, these are forbidden and therefore also mean that when an athlete takes these drugs in his private time and traces can be found, he/she will be disqualified. Meaning: even when they are not performance enhancing they are forbidden, and that sounds odd when we talk about sports enhancing drugs.

An athlete wants to win; he/she lives to win, to succeed. You challenge yourself and your opponent, work hard to be better, faster and more powerful. For that one final moment of glory. In order to achieve this athletes train excessively, push themselves, change diets, experiment with different equipment or training schedules, different coaches. They already nourish themselves with materials to recover faster, faster hydration and the like. These are not forbidden, but still create an unequal playing field. The athlete with the biggest sponsors can buy the best equipment and hire the best coaches. PEDs are just another step in trying to win, for glory and the sponsorships of course.

In other situations, we praise this extra information: in our capitalist system, a journalist uncovering a plot (Watergate was based on illegal information) and we spend money on all kind of research in order to understand more. So it seems just hypocrite. Also, it is unstoppable, so regulate it. Haven’t we learned lessons from the prohibition in the USA? There is too much money to be made. Therefore I plead for a regulated system, in which athletes can get support to take these drugs, just as alcohol and medicines are regulated. As it is forbidden, athletes have to rely on imperfect information which is even more dangerous. Cycling fans will remember the tragic death of Tommy Simpson in 1967on the Mount Ventoux. He died because of a combination of heat exhaustion, alcohol and doping. I would like to see what will happen with sponsorships. Does Nike, Adidas and other want to commit themselves to people who take doping, as it might harm their image of sports enhancing products? Maybe it will take the money out of sports for a bit, creating new, more honest competition. Also, the public prefers more honesty and might stop watching. Hence, even less money to be spend on sports and sportsman might decide to be clean.

In biathlon there is an interesting rule: when you miss during shoot-outs you have to ski a little further. So you can chose to shoot fast and ski extra, or shoot slow and take your time. Wouldn’t this be applicable to cycling: certain amounts of doping means you have to take an extra hill? Or a football team’s goal only counts half. Of course this is a joke.

On a serious note, we have fine technology to our disposal to make it safe for athletes to compete and push themselves while prepare them at the best possible way. Didn’t we all enjoy the seven year Tour de France victory of Armstrong while we all could smell it wasn’t fully clean? The public wants to know and see these athletes break records, the associations want to know and see their men/women victorious, and sponsors want to know and make money, therefore let’s regulate and provide supervision for these athletes. Make it safe for them to use these tools under medical advice so they can be healthier and their bodies have less to endure. It’s for the benefit of all of us.

Maybe it’s a very European thing, but I think, and hope, it will bring back competition, glory, failure and success in sports, over money and entertainment.