To cheat or not to cheat

The witch-hunt of Dwain Chambers (a world-class sprinter banned from athletics in 2004 for a doping offence) has got me thinking about the issue of cheating in sport. If you consider the definition of cheating, most would accept that the idea of acquiring an “unfair advantage” would be an important component. Quite what is and what is not an “unfair advantage” though is not as easy as it may seem. In fact, the rules of most sport on this issue are actually rather arbitrary.

Consider the following as an example. A sprinter uses human growth hormone (HGH) to speed up recovery from an injury in order to better his performance in a race. Is this cheating? The rules would probably say yes. Now imagine another sprinter gets injured in the first race and he injects himself with pharmaceutical grade painkillers for the second race to better his performance and participate in a race. Is this cheating? The rules would probably say no. My question is, why not? We have two sprinters who have each put a substance into their bodies to improve performance yet one could result in a lifetime ban from the sport and the other would probably result in praise for the heroic effort. Personally, I do not see the distinction. There appears to be no coherent explanation for why one action is banned and the other is not.

Here is another example for you to think about. Protein supplements are used by all professional (and many amateur) sportsmen and sportswomen. It is taken in order to improve muscle growth and to promote regeneration. Testosterone is a naturally occurring compound (in both men and women) and is important for muscle growth and to promote regeneration. Now consider the fact that taking a protein supplement is a perfectly acceptable means of gaining an advantage, yet taking a testosterone supplement is considered to be an unfair means of gaining an advantage. It would be considered cheating. But what is the distinction between the two? There may well be one but I haven’t found it. Nor, I suspect, have the relevant professional sporting bodies that formulate the rules of participation.

The situation becomes even more complex when you consider the following example. An ageing sprinter suffers an injury and is finding it difficult to recover. He gets depressed and seeks the help of a doctor. The doctor prescribes a small amount of HGH for him to facilitate recovery. The sprinter gets better and competes in a race. He is drug tested, tests positive for HGH and is banned for life. The sprinter has done nothing illegal, the doctor has done nothing illegal – in fact, it could be said the doctor was acting in the best interests of the patient – yet the sprinter loses his livelihood. Where’s the logic? Perhaps Ibuprofen was used instead of HGH to aid recovery. This would not result in a ban. Why not?

The whole situation becomes even more complex when you consider what sportsmen and sportswomen around the world are now doing in order to gain an advantage. Electrical stimulation, oxygenation (where pure oxygen is injected or breathed in), hyperbaric chambers and all sorts of other methods, devices and practises of gaining an advantage are being used. Where exactly do we draw the line?

With Chambers, there’s another issue. What bothers me is that he was accepted back into the fold of the Great Britain team in 2006 (after serving his two year ban) for the European Championships in Gothenburg. He helped us to win a gold medal in the 4×100m relay race. He has not been convicted of cheating since yet has become the “leper” of the entire sport. It all seems a bid odd to me. For the athletics ruling bodies to say they are turning their back on him for being a cheat is patently false and disingenuous (evidence: their decision to accept him back in 2006). If we were going to turn our back on him for being a cheat we should have done it before accepting him back in 2006, not now – it is too late.

The horse has bolted (and will probably win).