Prologue: Posting this today because I figure what better day than MLK Day and a President’s Inauguration Day to talk about personal freedom to dope… or its just a coincidence. You decide.
Obviously, Lance Armstrong’s confession that he used performance enhancing drugs to win the Tour de France has been at the top of the public interest stories the past few weeks (sadly more so than the terrorist hostage situation in Algeria involving some Americans). I guess I’m going to perpetuate that problem now. I originally wrote a draft of this post prior to watching the interview Armstrong gave with Oprah, partly because I wanted to see if my opinion of him would be changed. In some ways it was, but in others it was not. It was actually a fascinating interview. Oprah asked the correct questions, didn’t let him off the hook, and Armstrong seemed open and honest (of course I notoriously believe what people tell me, so take that with a grain of salt). It seemed that when he wanted to keep details close to the vest, he stated so, usually as a result of a confidence he had given to another person, usually a person on his very long “to make amends with” list. Only Armstrong knows if he means what he says. This post is not really so much about him and his fall from superhuman achievement as it is about the broader discussion of PED’s in sports.
As you likely may know from my previous posts, in particular one I wrote about the War on Drugs, I support legalizing pretty much all drugs (though I’m ok with some regulation and think they should be legal for adults only). I don’t want to rehash too much of that here. But to oversimplify my position, I think taking (most) drugs is stupid, but a person’s ownership of their body is about as fundamental a right as there is, so drug use should not be illegal.
That said, my issues with the use of PEDs (which especially in the world of endurance sports can include “blood doping” where an individual basically gets a transfusion of their own super oxygenated blood) are complicated for me, and to be honest, I’m still not sure exactly where I stand. Writing this post is an exercise in working it out for myself. I’ll categorize my concerns into three groups:
1. The government’s involvement in the use of PED’s in sports vs private entities’ right to ban them;
2. Where to draw the line and the impossibility of monitoring it;
3. Integrity of the sport’s history.
Issue #1: It drives me insane whenever the federal or any government gets involved in any of these scandals involving athletes doping. How much money and time was wasted by the investigations of Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens by the Federal Government during their doping scandals? Hint: Lots. Usually the charges end up falling back on the old catch-all charge of lying to federal law enforcement or something in that vein. Which is a circular argument, begging the question, if you have nothing else to charge a person with but that they lied about their involvement in a non-crime… what justice is served? It’s a lazy law enforcement tactic that must end (I know I’m going to get in trouble for this one….).
Of course, as of now, some drugs are illegal, and there are issues surrounding fraud that are legitimate (though that is also a crime that wouldn’t happen if drugs were legal and everything were out in the open). As much as I despise the deadly War on Drugs, if a person uses drugs that are classified as illegal, they should not be surprised if law enforcement comes a-knocking. It’s totally within the Fed’s rights to do so. However, in the case of sports, illegal drugs are not often at the forefront. Many so called drugs used are legal, or considered herbal supplements and vitamins. Essentially, they’ve usually been banned by the organization the athletes work for, or some agency like the USADA which governs US Olympic athletes, but they’re often available to any average adult.
What bothers me most about the government’s involvement is usually the political grandstanding, Senators and members of Congress calling athletes to testify under the auspices of protecting the reputation of such integral parts of Americana like baseball or football. If someone can give me a valid justification for this behavior, I want to hear about it. In my mind, politicians have no business whatsoever getting involved in the concerns of private entities like Major League Baseball or the National Football League. One exception may be in the case of Lance Armstrong since he was sponsored by the US Postal Service. He took millions of taxpayer dollars under fraudulent terms. The feds had a claim there (they dropped the case). But by in large, the doping behaviors of athletes should be between them, their employers, and their fans. Employers have every right to set the parameters of behavior expected from those who represent them, so if the NFL or MLB or USADA want to ban PED’s they have every right to do so, and exact any consequences such as banishment or loss of sponsorship. If fans want to shun athletes for doping, it is their prerogative. But it then boils down to a breach of contract concerns. My question is, and I by no means claim to have an answer, should they do so?
This question leads me to…
Issue #2: It seems that almost every day a new PED is created or discovered. Many of them are considered herbal supplements by the FDA. What always stops me when it comes to banning substances, especially those categorized in such a murky and often arbitrary way, is where do you draw the line? One could argue that caffeine could be included. Or for that matter, super foods like blueberries, broccoli, and pretty much any lean protein, or protein supplement. Armstrong admits now to using Testosterone (a natural hormone in humans) and Cortisone (something used by athletes in many sports to cope with chronic pain), EPO, and blood doping (both were Armstrong’s favorites).
Regardless of the method, the fact is, the body uses what we consume and put into our body as fuel. Some fuels help us more than others. Some can harm us in unintended ways, especially if we have allergies. Perhaps the line could be drawn at oral consumption versus injected substances? That seems reasonable. Ultimately, every improvement in nutrition and training, every new understanding of how our bodies metabolize and absorb nutrients, could be seen as magic to the athletes who came before. It seems the most sensible approach might be to just allow anything. Put it all on the table. That way every athlete can decide for himself whether the costs are too high for the ultimate achievement. Some of these substances are dangerous, you may counter. True. As long as those risks are known, a free person must accept them or reject them on his own. Come what may. At least the inherent hypocrisy of sports such as cycling would end once and for all. Where there’s a will, there’s a way. The stakes are obviously too high for athletes not to use PEDs. So let them have their cake.
Issue #3: However, that line of thinking brings me to my most conflicted side of the issue. I am a pretty big baseball fan. I can’t recite stats like the ultimate nerds can, but I love the game of baseball. It appeals to my methodical and my romantic sides. I love the anticipation of the action, the enjoyment of the outdoors in summer, and I love the long and storied traditions. I love that records from the dawn of professional baseball still stand. But when Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire and then finally Barry Bonds broke Roger Maris’ nearly 40 year old record within a matter of a few years of each other, it highlighted how PED’s can drastically impact a sport. Baseball used to be one of those sports where you could have rhetorical arguments about the greatest players of all time, and have solid evidence to put players like Babe Ruth in the same breath as a living player. The stats were there. You could put together the exact events of a game from 100 years ago all by reading a box score. A .300 batting average today means about the same as it did when Shoeless Joe Jackson played the game. But with PED’s, that ability is tainted. Of course, there have been other improvements in the game. Despite players still using wooden bats, they have countless advantages in equipment, nutrition, travel, money, training techniques over previous generations. There are all kinds of ways players today have gained an edge. How is that different from the use of PED’s? To be honest, I don’t have an answer. To me, from a logical perspective, taking an all or nothing approach and allowing PED’s makes the most sense, however, my romantic side aches for the way PED’s have tarnished the spirit of sport and fair play. Perhaps its illogical, but Roger Maris’ record means much more to me than Barry Bonds’ ever will.
So, at the end of the day, I still don’t know where I stand on the issue of PED’s. In the case of Armstrong, and any other athlete who broke their contracts and commitments, I think they need to pay the penalty of that broken trust. As much as I think PED’s maybe should be allowed, the fact is they were not, and the athletes knew it. I do think Armstrong has a point when he talks about his price being significantly higher than other athletes who did the exact same thing as him. He has been banned for life, whereas many others got a couple of years out of the sport, partly because they ratted on him. I think it’s easy for outsiders to gloss over the pressure endemic to the culture of doping in cycling. But if you apply it to your own life, you might be able to understand how it can happen. Maybe that’s all I’m trying to say. Perhaps we all need to judge a little less, and understand that these are human beings under real pressure to perform at an extraordinary level, and as fans we’re complicit in that pressure. I doubt our heroes will ever be perfect.
Perhaps that’s what makes them extraordinary to begin with.
