A New Sporting Reality

'The ACC has identified significant integrity concerns within professional sports in

Australia related to the use of prohibited substances by athletes' 1

‘The darkest day in Australian sports’ one paper read and if you watched the news last night you would have thought that every Australian professional sports person was using Performance and Image Enhancing Drugs (PIEDs). This isn’t what this story is about and it’s not a new narrative. It’s a story that has evolved from the East Germans and Russians of the 80’s through to baseball’s steroids obsession in the 90’s, cycling’s EPO shame during the noughties before settling on the theme of this decade; PIEDs.

Were any of us really surprised at the Australian Crime Commission’s (ACC) findings? Surely we can’t be that naïve in Australia to think that our sporting stars are so much different to the rest of the world. In an industry that is built on you or your team having the edge on your rivals, would you not go to any lengths to ensure you have that edge? If the gap between semi pro and pro athletes is so small, then why not take the chance to push yourself up to that level? In a world where there are only a finite number of positions in elite teams, and where the monetary rewards are enormous, can we blame these athletes and coaches for the decisions they make?

I can’t say that I wouldn’t do this if I was in their position. Without being there you can’t comment on it. I know that growing up playing tennis, golf, cricket or soccer I looked for any advantage I could find over my opponents. Whether it be training more, buying a better racket or trying to psych them out, I would try anything (if you don’t know me I am a little competitive). If I made it to the top would I continue to look for these advantages? Sure I would! But I would hope that my morals and upbringing would assist me to know what is right and what is wrong.

'it is not only athletes who are involved in doping,

but athletic support staff, organised criminal groups and complicit doctors.'1

In Australia we are somewhat sheltered to sporting news that doesn’t involve Australians. Sure we all saw and heard about Lance Armstrong, heck I even wrote above him last week, but there are many, many other stories that the general sporting public in Australia has disregarded or ignored for so long.

Only 4 days ago Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement agency, released a damning report on corruption in football on all levels including players, officials and team staff, and their link to criminal networks.

Then in the US, right before the biggest sporting event of the year, the Super Bowl, discussions on PIEDs surrounding Ray Lewis flared up and reports that using certain substances was common practice in some teams, including of all things Deer Antler Spray. It even prompted one of America’s most respected sports writers, Bill Simmons to dedicate his weekly column to the topic just two days out from the Super Bowl. I encourage all to read it.

So with the world game dealing with widespread corruption and the most profitable sport in the US under a drug and safety cloud, would it not be time for us to re-evaluate the drug regulations pertaining to/our opinions regarding drug use in our own sporting codes?

'The PIEDs market in Australia is large and diverse, with a wide range of substances being

used by a broad cross-section of the community.'1

I am the first to admit that I had my head in the sand surrounding drugs for a long time as shown by my thoughts on Lance. Once you have experienced that letdown the seed of doubt is placed in your mind forever. You become a cynic. You lose the ‘innocent before proven guilty’ belief. It makes you question everything you watch, which for sports fans takes away from the very reason we enjoy sport. We enjoy watching because of the thrill we get at witnessing competition and seeing a victor.

What this does is make us question Adrian Peterson’s return from an ACL reconstruction in under 12 months to produce one of the single greatest NFL seasons by a running back. It puts that thought into your mind about what may have been the real driving force that lead to Andy Murray becoming one of the big 4. Do we question how our State of Origin stars can play a game on Wednesday night and be fighting fit to play two days after? Does it change our thinking on Manny Pacquiao suddenly losing to the same guy he had beaten three times before?  

There is no proof to any of the above, but it doesn’t mean that in this day and age with anonymous Twitter feeds, Facebook comments and 24 hour news that people won’t speculate.

'The difference is that the Australian threat is current, crosses sporting codes and is evolving.'1

The problem with all of this lies in an example closer to home and an example using one of the most high profile sportsmen in the world.

Example 1: Nick Malceski ‘blew out’ his ACL at the start of the 2008 AFL season, only to return half way through the season after having a synthetic ligament put in its place.

Example 2: Kobe Bryant of the Los Angeles Lakers used the off season to make special trips to Germany to have platelet-rich plasma therapy, which, as the name suggests involves having platelet rich plasma injected into the body to stimulate healing of bones and tissue.

Both of the above examples involve medical procedures, using artificially created substances to help a player recover and perform at a higher level sooner. The difference society sees in these examples is that we are simply using these artificial means to allow a player return to their previous level. How far removed is this from the substances used in the ACC report? The players aren’t injecting human growth hormones (HGH), they are taking substances that allow the body to produce more HGH naturally. It is only through the decisions of society and drug enforcement agencies that some substances are perceived to legal, while others are banned. In addition, it is the responsibility of an athlete or club to seek any legal advantage it can get over opponents. In most cases this is technological or nutritional. What if you were to use a drug that is currently legal, or untested, before it has been moved to the banned substance list by WADA, USADA or any other drug agency, to improve your performance? Aren’t you doing what is in the best interest of you, the team & the club?

You can see where the lines become grey and the waters murky. At what point are our athletes meant to stop and think about this? At what point does a club step in even if it is to the detriment of their team’s performance? This brings about the last big point surrounding drugs in sports; one that has pleasantly avoided Australian sports until now. Is it not in the best interest of the league to avoid drug controversies at all costs?

With any business reputational damage is costly as it generally leads to monetary loss. The AFL has often been criticised, maybe fairly so now, for its stance on recreational drugs. But the lack of testing and accountability in our major codes means that the cases of reported offences are as low as they have ever been. Low numbers of drug cases are good for the game, good for advertising revenue and good for the codes portraying their sport to the millions of parents out there choosing which sport Sam or Lucy are going to play. These aren’t just sports, they are businesses, and they are run to make money and to promote their sport above all else.

In the end this is all about accountability. It is about the moral ground we stand on regarding drugs. It is about society’s willingness to attack this head on. More than that though it is about how we view sport, and about how sport is about the game, the competition and the thrill of the ride and not about the records, the money and the bottom line.

1. Organised Crime and Drugs in sport. Australian Crime Commission. February 2013 http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/files/organised-crime-and-drugs-in-sports-feb2013.pdf