Should the Olympics Change the Way It Handles Doping? Here Are Some Possibilities

The primary goals of the fight against doping in sports are health protection and fair competition in defense of clean athletes.

The fight against doping is becoming increasingly complex to keep up with the increasing sophistication of cheaters’ doping practices.
At every major sporting event, there is a broader range of legal issues, ranging from corporate and commercial to regulatory and disciplinary matters. The organizers, rights holders, governing bodies, teams, and athletes are all involved in these issues. The Olympics and Paralympics are no exception. Doping is one of the major issues surrounding the sports world.

We have seen the bodies in charge of preventing doping at work, but their efforts have not yielded positive results. If you compete at the national or international level, you are subject to doping control and may be tested at any time and from any location. National Anti-Doping Organizations (NADOs), International Federations (IFs), and Major Event Organizations can test you (MEOs). When you are chosen for doping control, you are given certain rights and responsibilities. The use of prohibited substances by athletes has been a source of contention for the Olympics for more than 50 years.

To begin, rebuild the anti-doping effort from the ground up and reconsider the banned list with compassion for the health crisis in mind. Replace the World Anti-Doping Agency with an entirely independent body made up of unbiased bioethicists, scientists, trainers, and, of course, athletes — people who aren’t caught up in the IOC’s power-prestige struggles. Declare a reasonable period of amnesty for an open investigation. Consider the philosophical question of what a recovery agent is in comparison to other well-known performance enhancers. Create a concise, new list — as well as comprehensible literature — emphasizing the obvious fact that most “performance enhancement” is “illusory.”

“Please, compete in the spirit of fair play, mutual understanding, and respect. And above all, please compete cleanly by refusing to dope”

There is a need to communicate with the youth. My research has led me to believe that there is a need to concentrate on young people. Preadolescent doping occurs regardless of athletic performance level. One might think that children cannot fully comprehend the consequences of their actions, but I’m sorry to report that even under-10-year-olds report doping. Young people have reported doping and a preference for other substances such as alcohol or drugs. In general, young people appear to be vulnerable to social norms such as performance expectations. Why are the concerned bodies concentrating their efforts solely on the thriving athletes? Don’t they consider preventing doping at the grassroots level, which includes young people? The focus on only the most successful athletes suggests that there is a need to combat doping at the grassroots level as well. Because the doping behavior has not manifested itself over a longer period of time, there is a possibility of a primary preventive, positive orientation in this case.

Education settings can help to reduce doping.

Firm measures should be implemented and evaluated prior to the onset of behavior as primary prevention. Anti-doping organizations should devise a program that can be effectively implemented in schools, with a focus on both athletes and young people. Physical education classes, for example, provide an advantageous opportunity because they appeal to young target groups regardless of athletic performance. This point refers to various countries around the world where anti-doping programs have not been adopted by many educational institutions. In Germany, for example, anti-doping education is not required as part of the general physical education curriculum. It is only available to students who have chosen physical education as an examination subject and wish to gain university admission. This will not solve anything. It must be addressed from the ground up by making anti-doping programs mandatory in schools.

Transparency in legal proceedings is a critical tool for defeating doping. Let us look at what happened in Russia. The case’s timeline is troubling, involving 17-year-old figure skater phenom Kamila Valieva, the first woman to land a quad in Olympic competition. Valieva submitted her sample on December 25th, 2021, following a competition in St. Petersburg, Russia, according to two drug testing agencies that work with the International Olympic Committee. The sample was apparently immediately sent to a laboratory in Sweden for analysis. On Feb. 7, Valieva led the Russians to an apparent victory in the team figure skating competition, with the United States finishing second. Valieva was briefly suspended by Russia’s national drug-testing agency, RUSADA, and told she would not be able to compete in the Olympics any longer. She has continued to train in Beijing in preparation for the Single women’s figure skating competition, but she has not publicly discussed her situation.

Officials from the International Olympic Committee have declined to comment on the specifics of the case, but they are clearly dissatisfied with Russia’s decision to allow Valieva to return to the ice. There was no openness in the case. Banning an athlete from one or two competitions will not solve the problem. The issue must be addressed to the tooth by being arraigned in court, and if an athlete is suspected of doping, he or she must be banned immediately. 

I can adjourn here by suggesting, For heaven’s sake, CEASE DOPING! We need healthy competition.