ABSTRACT
The official fight against doping is in trouble. There are a number of reasons for this. The first thing we can point to is the fact that there exists no obvious, clear-cut definition of what doping is. Those attempts that have been made to come up with a meaningful definition have come unstuck. As we saw in Chapter 1, WADA has chosen to take as a basis for its work an ad hoc definition that gives the anti-doping campaign the hallmarks of arbitrariness. A second reason is that the agency does not manage to provide a consistent justification for the necessity of the anti-doping campaign. We have seen the fight against doping presented as a defence of the spirit of sport. However, when the agency describes its characteristics, the ones it mentions are almost all compatible with doping. And those that are not appear to be contradicted by the practice of elite sport (see Chapter 2). Of all the characteristics that are highlighted, health is probably the one
with the widest appeal. But the health argument only holds as long as it is taken for granted that doping is unhealthy. When the doping methods prohibited include the use of intravenous drips containing sugar, salts, vitamins and minerals – all of which can have a positive contribution to health – the argument loses its power. The health argument is also powerless when faced with, for example, small, compensatory doses of testosterone in endurance events like the Tour de France. To support the campaign against forms of medication conducive to health,
the second argument with broad appeal is arguably arbitrary, namely that competition has to take place on an equal footing. As was pointed out earlier, however, it is less than convincing as a justification for the ban on doping, since legalisation of doping would bring more equality into the competitive situation than there is now, because the risk of being tested positive is considerably greater for athletes who do not have the means to go to the most skilful doping doctors for advice and treatment. In this context we come upon a third reason for the troubles that beset the anti-doping campaign. This is that the modern world has managed to produce performance-enhancing methods other than medicine that create that uneven playing field for athletes. These include, for example, the disputed hypobaric chambers that are banned in some countries, but permitted in others. The lack of consensus
about them illustrates the confusion rampant in the world of anti-doping.1
The modern world has, however, also created things that are accepted without a murmur, such as specially manufactured sportswear and equipment that not all athletes have access to.
