The Top Athletes Looking for an Edge and the Scientists Trying to Stop Them
Behind the scenes there will be a high-tech, high-stakes competition between Olympic athletes who use banned substances and drug testers out to catch them
- By Christie Aschwanden
- Photographs by Dan Winters
- Smithsonian magazine, July-August 2012, Subscribe
DeeDee Trotter was on an airplane in 2006 when she overheard a passenger seated behind her discussing the steroids scandal. Federal investigators in the Balco case, named for a lab that produced supplements, would eventually implicate more than two dozen athletes for the use of performance-enhancing drugs, including Barry Bonds, baseball’s home run king, and Marion Jones, the track-and-field star, who would end up in jail, stripped of five Olympic medals.
“This guy was reading the newspaper and he said, ‘Oh, they’re all on drugs,’” recalls Trotter, a runner who won a gold medal in the 4 x 400 meter relay at the 2004 Olympics. She was furious. “I turned around and said, ‘Hey—excuse me, I’m sorry, but that’s not true. I’m a professional athlete and Olympic gold medalist, and I’m not on drugs. I’ve never even considered it.’ ” Currently vying to join the U.S. team and appear in her third Olympics, Trotter projects a sassy confidence. “It really upset me that it’s perceived that way—that if she runs fast, then she’s on drugs. I hated that and I gave him a little attitude.”
That airplane conversation prompted Trotter to create a foundation called Test Me, I’m Clean! “It gave us clean athletes a chance to defend ourselves,” says Trotter. “If you see someone wearing this wristband”—she holds up a rubbery white bracelet emblazoned with the group’s name—“it means that I am a clean athlete. I do this with hard work, honesty and honor. I don’t take any outside substances.”
As Trotter tells me this story, I catch myself wondering if it’s all just a bunch of pre-emptive PR. It pains me to react this way, but with doping scandals plaguing the past three Summer Olympics and nearly every disgraced athlete insisting, at least initially, that he or she is innocent, it’s hard to take such protestations at face value.
My most profound disillusionment came from a one-time friend, Tyler Hamilton, my teammate on the University of Colorado cycling team. When he won a gold medal in the time trial at the 2004 Olympics, I was thrilled to see someone I’d admired as honest and hardworking reach the top of a sport that had been plagued by doping scandals. But in the days that followed, a new test implicated Hamilton for blood doping. His supporters began hawking “I Believe Tyler” T-shirts, and he took donations from fans to fund his defense. The evidence against him seemed indisputable, but the Tyler I knew in college was not a cheat or liar. So I asked him straight-out if he was guilty. He looked me in the eye and told me he didn’t do it. Last year, after being subpoenaed by federal investigators, Hamilton finally confessed and returned his medal.
The downfall of Olympic heroes has cast a cloud of suspicion over sports. And the dopers’ victims aren’t just the rivals from whom they stole their golden podium moments but every clean athlete whose performance is greeted with skepticism.
Doping, or using a substance to enhance performance, is nothing new. Contrary to romantic notions about the purity of Olympic sports, ancient Greeks ingested special drinks and potions to give them an edge, and at the 1904 Games, athletes downed potent mixtures of cocaine, heroin and strych- nine. For most of Olympic history, using drugs wasn’t considered cheating. Then, in the 1960 Olympics, Danish cyclist Knut Jensen passed out during a race, cracked his skull and later died. The coroner blamed the death on amphetamines, and the case led to anti-doping rules. Drug testing began with the 1968 Games, with a goal to protect athlete health. In addition to short-term damage, certain drugs also appear to increase the risk of heart disease and possibly cancer.
The original intent of anti-doping rules was to prevent athletes from dropping dead of overdoses, but over the years the rules have come to focus just as intently on protecting the integrity of the Games. The complex task of upholding the standards falls to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and its American counterpart, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), established in 1999 and 2000, respectively. These agencies oversee drug testing and work with Olympic organizers to manage testing at the Games.
Previously, testing was carried out by the U.S. Olympic Committee and cases were judged by each sport’s governing body. But governing bodies promote their sports, solicit sponsorship money and help deliver the astounding performances that fans crave. No sport wanted a dirty reputation, and officials were reluctant to tarnish their stars. Though performance-enhancing drugs were prohibited, in some sports the ban was treated the same way many drivers view speed limits—go ahead and speed, just don’t get caught.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (10)
It is about time we have a better discussion on this! See also https://theconversation.edu.au/dopers-and-the-rest-a-case-for-splitting-professional-cycling-10177 for similar debate.
Posted by Doper Global on October 28,2012 | 09:16 PM
Thanks for the interesting article. You did not mention one of the most explosive new areas of sports medicine/doping: stem cells. Look for this to be a huge issue in coming years and in the next Olympics. For more on this see here where I discuss it in depth: http://tinyurl.com/chenmdc Paul Knoepfler Associate Professor UC Davis
Posted by Paul Knoepfler on October 19,2012 | 05:20 PM
The whole process is a mystery to me. I find it difficult and hypocritical to control these performance enhancing techniques without regarding all performance enhancing techniques. What is the line, why are some allowed and others not? For example, "carb-packing" before a game is performance enhancing. Athletes on the sideline breathing oxygen from a cylinder is performance enhancing. Vitamins, eating bananas for extra potassium, the list is endless. Why allow one and not another? I'm not saying I'm for it or against it, I'm saying what arbitrary line says one is OK and the other isn't. It isn't safety. Many perfectly legal forms of preparation can hurt an athlete when it allows them to exceed the limitations of their body artificially, like potassium for cramps. It appears there is an artificial and largely arbitrary line being drawn for no other reason than today's personal choice. Second question, this business about keeping samples for eight years; I can't bring this to bear on the rest of the uncivilized world, but in the USA we have a constitution that prevents something called "double jeopardy" to prevent exactly this sort of harassment. Guilty people in all sorts of crimes have been let go just because a police officer doesn't read someone their rights under the Miranda ruling, murderers who we know are guilty. How is it guys like Lance Armstrong can be tested, tested, tested and tested again, adjudicated and innocent and free of drugs and then one day someone finally detects something and the jury changes their mind (yes, I realize this is civil and may turn to tort and nor criminal law, but that doesn't change the principal). Once there is an adjudication, why are these people allowed to be continuously persecuted?
Posted by Praising Jesus on October 13,2012 | 09:08 AM
Hi Christie, I really enjoyed reading your beautifully-written and informative article "The Top Athletes Looking for an Edge and the Scientists Trying to Stop Them" at the Smithsonian's website. I have a question, though. You write "For most of Olympic history, using drugs wasn’t considered cheating... The original intent of anti-doping rules was to prevent athletes from dropping dead of overdoses, but over the years the rules have come to focus just as intently on protecting the integrity of the Games." Where is your concept of "integrity" coming from here? If there is a several thousand year history of athletes seeking performance enhancement why call this kind of behavior out as immoral or unethical. To be clear, I am not saying that doping is moral or ethical, I just want the argument against doping spelled out. As it stands, a commercially successful sproting committee has decided that they can run a business by running a war on performance enhancing drugs, so is doping unethical because it suits a particular business model? Or is there a deeper argument to be made? If I play devil's advocate here, why shouldn't performance enhancing athletic *practice* be called unethical? After all, those who train more pre-event reap an unfair advantage over those who train less, or not at all. So if that's absurd (and it is), why make the same argument for athletes? For example, why shouldn't performance enhancing drugs which do not threaten the health of the athlete be available for all? Can you recommend anyone who has written on the ethics of the doping question? Best!
Posted by Alexis on August 24,2012 | 04:58 PM
It is time to stop testing in sports. The amount of time and money spent on testing and the silly rescinding of records has become too much. It has gotten to the point where people get kicked out of the Olympics for taking allergy meds. If people want to take steroids or whatever, let them. If everyone is doping then the advantage goes away. If the side effects aren't worth it then don't compete. Maybe we need two tracks in sports, one for people who choose to be tightly monitored and one for those who freely admit to using drugs or doping.
Posted by Eric on August 24,2012 | 01:06 PM
This is ridiculous, drugging's been going on for WAY too long
Posted by Josh on August 7,2012 | 11:15 PM
Her gripe is agaist dirty atheletes and people who make assumption based on a group of people. Are all skinny people anorexic? She has a right to defend her honor. Go to her website www.testmeimclean.org and find out how she really feels and what her orinization is all about. DeeDee is a wonderful person and a great athlete.
Posted by Deb on July 13,2012 | 05:09 PM
It's interesting and unfortunate that the sports that use the most stringent testing protocols have the biggest perceived drug problems. The major professional sports leagues use much laxer testing and have a much higher financial rewards associated with success; there is far, far more cheating in professional football than in any Olympic sport, but far, far fewer articles about the problem.
Posted by Ben Talsma on July 13,2012 | 07:56 AM
It is probably easier to be a clean athlete in some sports - it is likely that not all of them have a big doping culture. Maybe that is the case in Trotter's sport. However in cycling, especially the Tour de France, you would not even be in the running to win without PEDs. The irony and, perhaps, injustice of it is that If Lance Armstrong is stripped of his Tour wins, the first place honour will most likely be given to another athlete who doped. In order to award a clean athlete on the Tour, I wonder how far back down the list you would have to go? Back to fifth place? Tenth place? Is is fair to make life so difficult for the athletes when the whole culture of the sport is corrupt, and the athletes' coaches, doctors and senior team mates are all pushing drugs?
Posted by Jennifer Dales on July 13,2012 | 07:30 AM
Trotter's gripe should be directed at the many, many athletes who DO use performance enhancing drugs, not the public that recognizes this sad fact.
Posted by Hominid on July 6,2012 | 09:17 AM