Doping: Experts predict where the future lies

Russia's suspension from the IAAF gives rise to the question of where the doping scourge in sport will end?

Two pertinent figures in the field gave the Herald on Sunday contrasting assessments on the prospects of a solution.

David Howman, Director-General, World Anti-Doping Agency.

How can you best combat microdosing (a form of doping which can exit someone's system overnight and evade the Whereabouts programme)?

It's tricky but not impossible to deal with. You've got to have good evidence on a possible user to justify testing them in the middle of the night. You don't want to be doing it often; it's a heck of a personal privacy breach.

One element seldom highlighted is the cocktail effect. A small dose of this and that can also be hard to detect.

We're reliant on testing and the conditions set by our stakeholders. That's the hard part. We're in charge of monitoring, but it's full of human frailty.

How much does sport's commercialisation drive doping?

High performing athletes can spend more staying ahead of the game. Look at WADA's annual budget, which is now around US$30 million. That's along the lines of what top footballers earn.

If sport's prepared to spend that much on one player, and the same amount on an organisation like us, which is supposed to support the integrity of every sport, something's not right.

On the other hand, I'm a big proponent of free enterprise and for sport to be entertainment and a job but we need to ensure top athletes are surrounded by decent entourages so they're not led astray.

Sport still allows people to escape from a life where they've struggled, but it also attracts greed and crime."

Is there any way to trim fat?

When I started our budget was US$20 million, so it's only gone up $10 million in 12 years. We rely on doing a lot of research and that's the area which has suffered. As soon as you are not keeping in front of cheating chemists there is a downside. We have pretty consistent staffing levels of around 60 but, in terms of a bureaucratic sporting body, we're pretty tiny.

Should drug cheats be imprisoned?

That's a sovereign issue for every country to decide. Athletes should probably not be imprisoned for doping, unless they're trafficking or distributing. Some busts made in the last few years have been put through the US grand jury system where, if you tell a lie, you're up for perjury. That becomes a bigger threat than just sitting out of a sport for a couple of years.

The only way you can stop doping is if with a life ban for a first offence but that's never going to wash in any court of human or civil rights. You've got to balance emotion with the legalities."

Bengt Kayser, Professor of exercise physiology, University of Geneva.

Can doping be eradicated?

Never. Rather than drive doping underground, the use of drugs should be permitted under medical supervision.

That way you'd avoid the current Tour de France situation where the skepticism keeps coming. Look at the direct and indirect accusations levelled at this year's winner Chris Froome. It comes from a climate where extraordinary performances are, by definition, suspicious.

The legalisation of drug use in sport might even have advantages. The boundary between the therapeutic and performance-enhancing use of drugs is blurred at present. Anti-doping rules often lead to complicated and costly administrative and medical follow-ups to ascertain whether drugs taken by athletes are legitimate therapeutic agents or illicit.

Legalisation could encourage the more sensible, informed use of drugs in amateur sport, leading to a decline in the health problems associated. Medically-supervised doping could offer a clearer view of what is and isn't dangerous."

How much does testing threaten liberty, if you bring in the likes of dawn raids?

I think the only way society can deal this is through pragmatism. Balance the costs with maintaining an individual's freedom. Zero tolerance for psychotropic drugs (those which affect a person's mental state) comes with a high price on society just as opening everything up is not possible because a sizable number of people try to escape the hardship of life through consumption.

You could redesign what is considered 'doping' through medical supervision. People pushing limits has always been part of sport so my proposal is to accept performance enhancement through pharmacological use, but remain within certain safety margins for health reasons.

Compare that to Denmark which recently introduced anti-doping laws into fitness clubs through approval stickers at the entrance. Clubs pay money to have random testers ask clients to pee in a pot or provide a blood sample. If the tests are positive, you're kicked out. Personally I wouldn't like to be tested as an ordinary citizen, unless I'm sick.

Is commercialism to blame for driving the doping culture?

Money plays a huge role. Take Kenya. It's a poor country with few opportunities for young children. The pressure to succeed can mean they go beyond what is permitted. The recent German television documentary [which ignited this debate] argued doping below the elite level can be quite a problem there, because if those athletes are discovered they can escape poverty and earn money which, while not massive by Western standards, is a lot for their villages. Therefore they're prepared to take risks.