In 1988, after Carl Lewis was awarded the gold medal in the 100M dash when Ben Johnson tested positive for steroids, (I believe it was) Lewis stated that he was not really that surprised because he just didn't think that it was humanly possible to run the 100m in 9.79 (Johnson's winning time).
In the past 3 years, 2 american’s have euqaled or surpassed that time.
In today’s Houston Chronicle there is a tiny article (which is a true disappointment considering the magnitude of the accusations) that reads as follows:
According to Terry Madden, the chief executive of the US anti-doping agency: "What we have unconverted appears to be intentional doping of the worst sort (...) this is a conspiracy involving chemists, coaches and certain athletes using what they developed to be undetectable designer steroids to defraud their fellow competitors and the American and world public"
The drug in question is known as THG and though no athletes were named, it appears that several prominent athletes are a party to this.
I also know for a FACT, that some elite swimmers know of the drug, and believe it is undetectable.
*** This is in no way intimating that any specific athlete has or is using the substance.
Parents
Former Member
To me, as a physician, the distinction between what is and isn't banned seems intuitive. I believe that drugs are to be used in the treatment or prevention of specific symptons and disease processes. All of the drugs in question have specific FDA approved indications for use. Athletes use the banned substances to gain an advantage, not for the treatment of a medical condition. The decision to allow nonnarcotic pain relievers is reasonable in my mind, as they are being used to treat real symptoms and injuries.
There are several issues here. One is that of fair play as determined by sports' governing bodies. Another is the legal issue, e.g. illegally obtaining a controlled substance (in the case of anabolic steroids). A third is public safety, where our institutions sometimes have to protect us from ourselves. And finally there is the issue of medical ethics (first, do no harm) where drugs are given to healthy athletes for the sole purpose of enhancing performance.
To me, as a physician, the distinction between what is and isn't banned seems intuitive. I believe that drugs are to be used in the treatment or prevention of specific symptons and disease processes. All of the drugs in question have specific FDA approved indications for use. Athletes use the banned substances to gain an advantage, not for the treatment of a medical condition. The decision to allow nonnarcotic pain relievers is reasonable in my mind, as they are being used to treat real symptoms and injuries.
There are several issues here. One is that of fair play as determined by sports' governing bodies. Another is the legal issue, e.g. illegally obtaining a controlled substance (in the case of anabolic steroids). A third is public safety, where our institutions sometimes have to protect us from ourselves. And finally there is the issue of medical ethics (first, do no harm) where drugs are given to healthy athletes for the sole purpose of enhancing performance.
