KEEP IT CLEAN - SPORT'S WAR AGAINST DRUGS

It was getting on for 7 o'clock on the evening of Monday, November
22.

Double Commonwealth silver medallist and Olympic swimmer Trent Bray
was relaxing in the spa pool, getting warm after a training session at
the Philips Aquatic Centre pool at Mt Albert Grammar School.

He had no reason to suspect he had been singled out for testing by the
New Zealand Sports Drug Agency - but it was hardly unexpected either.

Along with other top athletes, he had gone through it many times
before.

On that Monday, at 6.54 pm, along came Penny Edwards, a member of the
agency's drug-testing squad.

She had already arranged exclusive use of the disabled persons' toilet
at the centre for the job at hand - collecting a sample of Bray's urine.

Bray stayed in the spa pool while she went through the formalities.
There was a form to sign, and she offered him a booklet setting out
his rights and responsibilities.

She also offered him a selection of sealed drinks, and he drank one to
help him urinate.

He signed the form and, with male drug-control official Terry Jacobs,
headed for the toilet. When they got there, Bray went in with Mr
Jacobs, while Penny Edwards waited outside.

Bray urinated into a container while being watched - privacy is a
right he and other competitors have waived to take part in their sport.

He did not find out until January that he was the first New Zealand
athlete to test positive for nandrolone, a banned anabolic, androgenic
steroid.

Bray, though, did not incur the four-year ban due for a first offence.
He took the agency to court and won, although that finding is now
under appeal.

Auckland District Court Judge Roderick Joyce, QC, found that the
agency used incorrect containers for Bray's sample and he cited a long
delay getting the sample tested in Sydney.

It is not over yet for Bray. While the agency's appeal runs its
course, the swimmer, who strongly protests his innocence, is having to
defend his tarnished reputation.

He told a television interviewer that he wanted his name cleared
because he had done nothing wrong.

"I did not even know what it [nandrolone] was until this came up. As
soon as they said anabolic steroid, it just blew me away."

Around 1000 urine drug tests a year are carried out in New Zealand,
with the samples sent to a Sydney laboratory for checking.

>From America's Cup heroes to top netballers - a total of 43 sports -
they all undergo the tests, which, according to a paper by Privacy
Commissioner Bruce Slane, are "extremely intrusive into personal privacy."

"The taking of a urine sample involves close scrutiny of a bodily
function which individuals desire normally to be carried out in private."

Under drug-testing regulations, a competitor must pass his or her
sample into a container in front of an official.

Those being tested must also "adjust" their clothing if asked to by
the official to ensure an unrestricted view.

Cyclist Anthony Peden (Australian but a New Zealand citizen racing for
New Zealand) has already qualified for the Sydney Olympics.

Privacy is not an issue, he says. There has to be drug testing to
stamp out cheating.

"It's not pleasant, but it's something we have to do ... Without them
it would just be chaos out there. We need those guys."

The idea of getting a false positive from a test is an ever-present
fear - but one of the biggest worries is that food can easily be
spiked with banned substances.

At the Olympics, athletes eat together in food halls, often in a
buffet-like setup.

"That's the thing that scares you the most," says Peden, "because you
are susceptible and open to so much, to anyone else tampering with
food or drink.

"You definitely watch what you eat. I don't like drinking anything
that I can't open myself, and then I'm very watchful where I place my
drink."

Another complaint is the timing of the drug testers. Peden recalls the
time he was leaving the country and changing planes at Auckland
Airport only to hear his name called on the loudspeaker.

It turned out to be drug agency officials after a urine
sample.

Are all these measures really necessary? Oh yes, says the
agency.

People in the past have been known to go to extraordinary lengths to
switch urine, says the agency's drug-testing and education programme
manager, Jane Kernohan.

She speaks of catheters being used to store someone else's urine in
the lower bladder.

"And sometimes they've gone in with tubes ... attached to a bottle in
their body and just run some urine out of a tube and it will be
someone else's clean urine."

Jane Kernohan concedes that it is inconvenient for athletes to be
hauled off to the toilet after the elation of winning a competition,
the agony of losing one, or just while training.

But they are treated with respect by well-trained officials and the
athletes know the testing regime is the only thing that will deter
drug-takers.

"Ultimately, it's protecting them as well ... Athletes are for the
doping-control programme. In fact, I think the last survey was like 98
per cent of athletes were for it and wanted more drug tests done."

In Australia, "sports performance consultant" Grant Ellison recently
stirred up controversy and blackened competitors everywhere when he
claimed that 80 per cent of Australia's elite athletes take drugs.

Jane Kernohan says that's absolute rubbish.

She says it is an example of a recurring claim that has popped up
before other Olympics but is not backed by statistics.

While she will not talk about the testing procedures here because the
Bray case is under appeal, she says the New Zealand programme is
vigilant and "world-leading" - and so is the Australian programme -
and while drug-taking may be rife in other countries, cheats here are
few and far between.

"Internationally, where there are good testing regimes the results
would say about 2 per cent are taking drugs we can track."

Only one New Zealand athlete tested positive for drug-taking in the
year to last July 31, the latest statistics available, and only one
refused to provide a sample.

"The athletes say to us that they think there are more athletes taking
drugs than there have been before, but the testing doesn't really back
that up," Jane Kernohan says.

"There are no more positives than there have been, or anything like
that, but there is more testing."

But, she freely admits, that is just for drugs that can be tracked via
urine.

Drugs that cannot be tracked include human growth hormone and EPO, for
which blood-testing is being developed, but probably not in time for
the Sydney Olympics.

EPO is popular with cyclists because it goes into the blood and acts
as a massive stimulant.

But when they relax, the blood turns syrupy and they can die - 23
cyclists suspected of blood doping have died internationally,
according to Jane Kernohan.

All the banned drugs are dangerous, she says. The dose that athletes
need to get performance enhancement is way over recommended medicinal
doses.

She does not know if undetectable banned products are rife here, but
suspects that high blackmarket prices probably preclude widespread
availability.

Some drugs, like nandrolone, occur naturally in small amounts, but
Jane Kernohan says testing takes that into account. The tests err on
the side of caution to ensure there are no false positives.

Nandrolone has not marred just Bray's reputation. There is a virtual
explosion overseas of athletes testing positive for the banned steroid.

Former Olympic sprint champion Linford Christie and Jamaican veteran
Merlene Ottey have both fallen under the nandrolone shadow.

Last year, there were 343 cases of nandrolone across sports, and the
trend is being investigated by the International Amateur Athletic Federation.

Other athletes did not want to talk to the Herald about their own
drug-testing experiences, preferring not to be drawn into a sensitive
issue.

But Stephen Hollings, the performance director for Athletics New
Zealand, says he, and the athletes he deals with, have no problem with
the testing procedures.

"You've nothing to fear anyway if you are tested in this country if
you are clean. It's only people who are not clean who have got that
fear."

The main complaint he hears is that New Zealand is stringent with its
testing but many other countries are lax.

The main problem he encounters is that sometimes it can take a long,
long time for an athlete to become rehydrated enough to urinate.

All Black doctor John Mayhew agrees that our testing procedures are
top-class and says players accept that there are good reasons to test.

"None of them complain about the fact that someone watches them
urinate ... The rationale behind it is that someone could actually
have a sample of urine tucked up their trouser leg."

He also urges athletes to be alert.

"The advice I would give to athletes is be very careful what you take,
because what someone says they're giving you may be different from
what you're actually given."

History of drugs in sport

BC - Greek Olympic Games eventually dissolved because of political
interference and the use of drugs (preparations including extracts of
mushrooms and plant seeds).

1886 - First recorded drug death. Cyclist, Linton, has overdose of
trimethyl.

1904 - First near-death in modern Olympics. Marathon runner Thomas
Hicks used mixture of brandy and strychnine.

1904 on - Alcohol and strychnine most widely used drugs. Heroin,
cocaine and caffeine also used, until heroin and cocaine become
available only on prescription.

1930s - Amphetamines become choice over strychnine.

1950s - Soviets use male hormones for power and strength. Americans
develop steroids as response.

1952 - Winter Olympics. Several speed skaters ill on
amphetamines.

1960 - Olympics. Danish cyclist Kurt Jurgen dies from amphetamine
overdose.

1964 - Noticeable increase in muscular appearance of Olympic athletes.
Drug use suspected.

1967 - IOC take action after death of Tour de France cyclist Tommy
Simpson (illegal amphetamine-taking).

1968 - Drug testing begins at Olympic Games.

1988 - Seoul. Sprinter Ben Johnson tests positive for banned anabolic
steroid. Loses gold medal. Suspended two years.

1988 onward - Testing of athletes becomes progressively more
stringent.