TAKE THE STARS OFF THEIR PEDESTAL AND END THE DOUBTS AND LYING

Alex Massie Suggests That Making A Clean Breast Of The Problem Would
Counter Misuse And Hypocrisy

ONE subject on which politicians and journalists can be relied upon to see
eye to eye is the evil of drugs. Advertising campaigns advising young
people to "Just Say No" and a succession of sanctimonious sermons on the
moral degeneracy of narcotic experimentation are the muzak of society. The
moral high ground is always a comforting place to be. That these tired
platitudes and mangy homilies have precious little effect on behaviour is
immaterial.

Unless drug use - or abuse - is eradicated from society then it is
unreasonable to suppose that sport can be 'clean'. And the link between
sport and society is crucial, for the drugs in sport debate - and our
reaction to those sportsmen and women who are caught cheating - is but a
reflection of the society in which we live. In a world that places ever
greater emphasis on winners and treating everyone else as also-rans, and,
in an increasingly-fragmented society where the key is on individual rather
than collective achievement, is it any wonder that sportsmen and women
should seek out every available means of ganing that vital edge over their
opponents?

And is it not hypocrisy to condemn them when they do so?

When Ben Johnson was stripped of his Olympic sprint gold medal after
testing positive for anabolic steroids in Seoul, the reaction was
disbelief, at first, then one of anger. Disbelief that the winner of the
Games' blue riband should be exposed as a dope fiend, then anger that he
should have done this to us. How dare he strip us of our innocence, our
comforting belief that sport somehow represented the purest sort of human
endeavour that sports stars were not just physically more perfect
specinens, but morally superior to the common herd.

There is irony, indeed, in seeing Juan Antonio Samaranch, head of the
corrupt-to-the-core IOC, declaring: "Doping is cheating. Doping is death.
Death physiologically... death physically... But also death spiritually and
intellectually by agreeing to cheat and conceal one's capabilities, by
recognising one's incapacity or unwillingness to accept oneself, or to
transcend one's limits. And finally death morall, byy excluding oneself de
facto from the rules of conduct required by all human society."

But why do we demand that sporting heroes should be better human beings
than the rest of us?

The IOC's anti-doping campaign is founded on three basic principles: "the
protection of the health of athletes, respect for medical and sports
ethics, and ensuring an equal chance for everyone."

The first betrays an attitude that contrives to be paternalistic and
childish - why shouldn't sentient adults be able to make an informed choice
about what they put into their bodies? The second assumes that sport was
once a pure nirvana, though the evidence suggests otherwise; the first case
of doping in the Olympics was the American marathon runner Thomas Hicts -in
1904. As for an equal chance, even in the 19th century the heroic figure of
W G Grace would seek to gain an advantage regardless of the laws and spirit
of cricket.

Fair play was always only an ideal, and increasingly it is an out-dated
one, and the notion that anti-doping helps to create a level playIng field
is laughable. Science influences how athletes train and diet, science
dictates the design of bicycles, rowing boats, golf clubs, football boots
and any number of other items of sporting equipment, giving an advantage to
those with access to the latest technology.

In other cases, such as African domination of long-distance running, the
field is tilted by accident of birth; in others still, by the availability
of fine weather and training faclities. In which light it might seem
reasonable to suggest that controlled drug-taking can help to create a
level playing field.

In any case, given that allegations of drug-taking surround every sport
from shooting to weightlifting via football, cycling and swimming, it is
clear that the so-called war on drugs is, at least, being lost, and more
probably has been lost. Every development in testing for illegal drugs has
been outstripped by pharmacological advances and the availability of drugs
that are all but undetectable.

The distinction between what is legal and what is not is a rather nebulous
concept. As the medical journal, the Lancet, pointed out last year: "What
makes an aid to an athlete artificial enough that it should be banned?
Where is the line between a nutritional supplement and a drug - ginseng
versus ephedra, say?"

Thus, the time may have come to call a halt and accept that, hoever hard it
may be to swallow, drugs will not go away. At present, sport is riddled
with rumours and accusations, and no one knows who to believe. A more
realistic appraisal of drugs would, paradoxically, allow for a healthier
spirit to purvail.

Our refusal to accept that sportsmen and women are not demi-gods or
physical and moral perfection says more about our capacity for
self-delusion and wishful thinking than it does about their notional
wrongdoing. Taking sports stars off their pedestal and bringing drugs into
the open would put an end to doubt, lying and hypocrisy.

Ultimately if you can't win a war, is it worth fighting?