Since the Athletics Integrity Unit was initiated in 2017, athletes within track and field have served 196 doping bans - the very athletes crowned diamond league, world and Olympic medallists. But is this excessive figure entirely a hindrance to the reputation of the sport?
In some cases, the severity of substance abuse within sport actually highlights those speaking out against it, drawing attention to the clean sport argument, while the doping athletes are dismissed as incongruous, devious cheats.
Certainly not many sporting bodies advocate anti-doping as rigorously as athletics; Seb Coe has endorsed the “fearless and ruthless” revelation of cheats and Paula Radcliffe has expressed her concern that the “credibility of hard working athletes” has become “tainted by the minority”. Indeed, many competing athletes voice these disquietudes today, devastated and outraged that their integrity and diligence can be outperformed by drug cheats.
Russia’s track and field team, whose test results had been overseen and manipulated by their sport ministry, were entirely banned from the 2016 Rio Olympics. A further example of justice served was seen in the years after the Beijing and London Olympics, where 50 competing athletes were denounced thanks to advances in technology and availability of prolonged test samples. While critics of the current anti doping system argue that WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) wouldn’t have exposed the Russian doping conspiracy without the evidence of whistleblower Yuliya Stepanova, the case drew attention to the efforts of athletics to maintain fairness and decency.
However, some analysts have offered the possibility that there is a lack of will to catch cheats; allegations of doping are significant burdens to face any sport, and in some cases this has been used as a valid excuse to turn a blind eye to blatant cheating.
In 2011, an anonymous survey conducted by the IAAF (International Association of Athletics Federations) questioned over 1200 athletes, 44% of whom admitted to doping, an astonishing figure and a stark contrast to the 1-2% of test samples typically revealed as positive. Clearly, despite the large number of doping bans in recent years, many athletes are able to slip through the net of the system, a situation that will require scrupulous attention.
Half of WADA’s (World Anti-Doping Agency) funding comes from the IOC (International Olympic Committee) who, according to the WADA’s previous deputy director, desire more control over their anti-doping schemes, thereby weakening the capacity of WADA to enforce rules, keen not to taint the sport’s image. The IOC maintains a tight grip on the bodies it had set up as independent, described as “elitist and suspicious” by sport lawyer Dr Antoine Duval, and due to its registration as a ‘non profit organisation’, enjoys lenience in its management.
Yet there has been progress - the IOC has invested $20 million into anti-doping research and the protection of clean athletes, and stated its desire for the independence of separate governing bodies.
It is vital for the governing of athletics to be impartial and lawful - once athletes start to lose faith in the system, doping may become more widespread, and any attempts to cover up or protect the image of the sport will be on display for the world to see. Reform needs to happen fast, as with each name added to the roll-call of dishonour, anger and resentment brews amongst the innocent who share their starting lines.
Athletics is headed in the right direction, and is far more meticulous in their patronage of clean sport than others, but there is still a way to go - the battle against anti-doping will be a marathon, and not a sprint.
Comentários