don's report archive

by Donald B. Ardell, Ph. D.

Wellness in the Headlines
(Don's Report to the World)

The essay that appeared here at the Wellness Center a few days ago elicited a large volume of comments, about evenly divided between the pro and the con. In fact, it seems this essay about Floyd Landis, the Tour de France, and doping in pro sports elicited more feedback than any other single essay ever to appear here. This surprised me because the topic was sport, not any one or more of the big three hot-button topics -- politics, sex and religion. What's going on?

Here are some of my favorites, all reproduced by permission. 

• Aaron Peter of St. Petersburg, FL: I share your enthusiasm for the spectacle that our finest athletes demonstrate. This applies whether or not they are using performance-enhancing drugs. The list of banned substances continues to grow and testing is becoming more intrusive, with the risks of career-ruining testing mistakes. Olympic and other athletes must now be wary about taking simple cold medicines prior to competition. Perhaps the extreme focus on testing for banned substances has the effect of discouraging athletes from taking needed prescription medications to speed recovery from injuries as well as fatigue. Does that make sense?

There is a saying, "protect me from what I want." At some point, spectacle descends to poor entertainment. I do not believe that the long litany of suspensions at the Tour will contribute to the delicate balance between athleticism and entertainment. Keep up the good work, Don. 

• Gerry Dantone of Long Island, NY had a different reaction: Personally I prefer watching a sporting event that is NOT a contest of who has the best pharmacist. This really is pretty simple; the rules are there to make the game the game it is. Outlawing certain substances will NOT hurt the game of baseball; it's a great game without them. But if they are allowed, ballplayers will now have to decide whether to sacrifice a liver or kidney in the future, perhaps, for the sake of excelling in the here and now for no particular benefit otherwise to humanity; they'd do it only to compete with people who are reckless and would take anything if they suspected it might help them. This "arms race" will lead to a "mutually assured destruction" of the players while not improving life one iota in any other way and most likely harming many.

No one is even suggesting that players use other devices to help them play though the logic is clear that if substances are ok, "why not mechanical devices?" This is just too simple.

• Robert Miles of Tampa, FL: Thanks for your thoughts on doping in professional sports. Sorry, I respectfully don't agree with you on this one. If I am in a contest watched and acclaimed by the world and doping is permitted I may be tempted, against what is best for me from a wellness perspective, to use everything at my disposal to win. Every major sporting contest would need an asterisk (achieved with the use of unnatural substances).

Athletic contests should, in my opinion, be decided on merit and merit alone. Taking a laissez-faire approach to athletically performance enhancing drugs is like putting me into a 100-yard dash (not likely) with others who get to start on the 10-yard line.

While I agree with most of your libertarian philosophies where the least interference in our daily lives is best, I compare doping in professional sports to gambling. Letting Pete Rose (who once said he would "walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball') bet on the outcome, while an active manager of a professional baseball team, cuts to the core of the integrity of the sport. Too much of an incentive to cheat drives a stake in the heart of meritocracy that makes athletic contests so great.

If you ask the average teenager whom they admire or who are their heroes, most including me at that age would mention sports stars, musicians and celebrities. To openly permit the use of performance enhancing drugs would undoubtedly sway many young people to take the easy way out and swallow a pill to "be like Mike." 

• A Tampa friend of Mr. Miles, Amie J. Devero saw things differently: I totally agree (with Don). I have had the same point of view all along, and find it unfathomable that an athlete would willingly forego anything that enhances performance; so they shouldn't be compelled to do so. Also - the distinctions between legal and illicit substances and practices are totally arbitrary. After all, carnitine is legal, testosterone is not; EPO is illegal, but altitude tents are not--all arbitrary.

With respect to the argument that there should be an "even playing field," the only inherent fairness in athletic competition falls within the course that is run or swum or the height of the obstacle jumped. The training methods, wealth to put toward training, equipment available, time spent training, nutritional insights and tolerances, and all of the permissible supplements fall within huge ranges and make each athlete's preparation grossly different.

For example, Lance Armstrong had access to not only his own talent and ability, but state-of-the-art laboratories and physicians to analyze his metabolic and nutritional needs, the best engineers to modify and customize his equipment, the most expensive coaching in the world, moment by moment analysis of his performance, unlimited time to train and so forth. Whether or not he used EPO or anything else, he truly did, according to this "even field" argument, start 10 feet in front of the starting line when compared to most of the other Tour de France competitors.

Furthermore, with each successive event, competitors become more practiced racers-a skill that transcends their actual athletic ability. Should veteran athletes be banned from open competition? They also have access (when they are successful enough) to psychological assistance and cutting edge legal supplementation (or pre-illicit supplementation...;-)), such as new "natural substances" like carnitine, B12, caffeine, creatine, etc. (By the way, testosterone is natural, as is arsenic.)

If we were really to even the field we would have to make sure that everyone had the same access to all the same coaching, training, time, diet, experience -- and then we would have to divide competitors not just by age, but by racing or playing experience, etc. We would also need to differentiate by geography as depending on where one lives one is better or worse prepared for the conditions of competition (e.g., Florida athletes often dominate in summer endurance sports in the US because of their heat tolerance-or better yet, Kenyan runners). 

Anyway -- when you look at all the fundamental inequities in sport (just like in life, or politics or whatever), the notion of an "even playing field" becomes far more elusive; and doping becomes a tiny piece of an irreconcilable quest -- perhaps a misguided one-to make sport a truly egalitarian activity.

• Finally, my son Jon in San Rafael had the last word: The shock of discovering that "Mr. Clean" image Landis may have cheated to achieve the impossible victory has not sufficiently worn off to allow for even a consideration of this idea. In today's world there is so much pressure to succeed and be #1 in sports that many athletes are already arguably looking at their health 2nd and their careers first. Add to that a new competition to be on the best drug regime and suddenly the most qualified athlete will be the one with the best medical support. It conjures the most repugnant and disgusting of images.

The answer to the myriad of problems associated with testing the participants and holding them to the highest and to equal standards should be easy to solve with available forensic technology. It's most likely a simple matter of ending the practice of self-regulation in professional sport. If there were to be a free-for-all I say, let it be amongst the amateurs. A person that would take unhealthy drugs to win a race for ego reasons should be allowed to win, if you ask me.

The issue of who decides what is banned is a more sticky issue that need be decided on a medical and not political basis. I agree with you that it would be so much nicer if we didn't have to go there but we just do. I'm guessing you will get a lot of similar feedback on this one.

My attitude about all this? Other things being the same, and if I had what are called my "druthers," I'd be pleased if everyone agreed with me on everything, all the time. However, since that is not likely, the next best objective might be that most will find the essays of interest all the time, and agreeable more often than not. That's not likely, either. How about this: That most essays help visitors remember to look on the bright side of life, as much as possible.

Be well.

(Note: This essay will be filed in the archives in the PHYSICAL DOMAIN under the skill area of adaptations and challenges. Additional articles related to this theme may be found there.)

(Ed. Note: Views expressed in this and other columns are those of the author and not necessarily those of the SeekWellness Editorial Board.)

 Send e-mail to Don Ardell