So for the 2nd year running the
Tour de France is going to be won by a clean cyclist with no taint of a doping
history. Of course as a Brit, I am really proud of these guys and Team Sky’s
achievements. Not forgetting the mastermind that is Dave Brailsford who managed
the whole process from start to finish (on a side note I also think that David
Millar’s success on this tour sends a good message that redemption post doping is
possible).
I was pondering what to write other than
praise for these guys and I thought I could reflect on the words of Dave
Brailsford. I remember reading somewhere that he disliked doping because it
made people lazy as they could cut corners in preparation. This chimes with
some of the ideas I explored in my book. I argued in many cases doping could
increase the number of people able to get close to the best times, but it
doesn’t necessarily improve those times. You cannot automatically assume to run
or cycle the fastest time requires doping.
There are some notable exceptions to this
rule. Anabolic steroids enhancing the performance of female athletes in power
events is likely to be one of them. And far be it from me to go against
Brailsford, but I think if done effectively blood doping would probably have
some influence in the Tour de France. The most obvious area is topping up the
red blood cells that get lost during the race. Elite athletes turn over their
red blood cells much quicker than us mere more mortals. If they exercise
continuously the number of red cells will diminish, as will the body’s ability
to carry oxygen effectively. On a rest day topping up with a pint of blood
would likely enhance performance. And we know from diaries obtained from some
dopers that that is exactly what they do.
So maybe we should make it legal for ALL
cyclists to have a one pint top up on the rest day. No more, no less. Maybe
this would level the playing field; even fewer people would attempt to dope as
it would give much less additional benefit. Thinking about what this idea look
like in practice goes to the heart of why doping is banned. How would you feel
if all the Tour de France athletes lined up at a medical centre to have a blood
transfusion on their rest day? Would you feel this demeaned sport and set a bad
example? Or would you just think, given the extreme requirements for training
and competition anyway, this was nothing really to worry about?
I have to say that I personally feel
uncomfortable with athletes refueling at blood transfusion stations on a rest
day in the same way that racing cars refuel with petrol/gas during a pit stop.
It just feels wrong somehow. I can’t make a particularly reasoned argument as
to why I have this feeling. But maybe this is fine. The rules of sport are
arbitrary; we are allowed to make them as a consequence of an emotional
feeling. Most people don’t feel uneasy about some using the drug caffeine to
enhance performance. So it is not banned. The same does not hold for anabolic
steroids. Hence they are banned.
I guess the unease comes from a bias: we have an image of the body in its integrity, and whatever affects this integrity is bad. Being hit by a spear is bad, because it changes (for worse) our body. So everything that "enters" in our bodies could be bad.
ReplyDeletePutting a needle into a body is equally bad, it changes a pure image of the body. Drinking a coffee or a tea (ok, a huge quantity of them, in order to reach the amount of caffeine needed without taking it in pills...) does not. But ask people if they would feel uneasy if an athlete takes caffeine drip-feeded.
Obviously, being a bias, there couldn't be any argument in favor of it.
Dear Alex,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your interesting post. I take your point and mostly agree with it. Of course you CAN make a sound argument to ban blood doping. For example it is a medical procedure that requires a doctor to administer. But there is no clinical need for it and there is a finite risk in any transfusion (even autologous). So is the doctor ethically justified in administering the blood? Secondly encouraging this activity, even in a controlled environment will make it even more likely that other athletes might try it in a less safe, uncontrolled manner.
The point I was making that I still feel uneasy even if these arguments were not valid. I think this would be true for many people. I don't see problem with this. We can make what rules we like for sport to suit the sort of spectacle we want to see.