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
(Page 2 of 4)
The creation of independent testing agencies changed all that, says USADA’s Travis Tygart. “We said, we’re not going to allow the culture to be different than what the rules are—that kind of moral relativism won’t be tolerated.” Tygart joined the agency in 2002 as director of legal affairs and became CEO in 2007. Although he’s officially a rule-enforcer, he says that his number one job is “to ensure the integrity of competition, and uphold the rights of clean athletes.”
WADA’s prohibited list currently includes more than 200 banned substances and methods:
Anabolic steroids: Made famous by bodybuilders who use them to bulk up, anabolic steroids can also enhance recovery and allow endurance athletes to train harder with less rest. They’re easily detectable in urine tests, so athletes use them in micro-doses on days they’re unlikely to be tested. The Balco (Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative) case involved a steroid called “the clear” designed to evade detection. After a track coach sent anti-doping officials a sample of the drug, scientists developed a specific test for it. The scandal implicated several dozen athletes.
Blood doping: Increasing the blood’s oxygen-carrying capacity can improve muscle performance and enhance endurance by as much as 15 percent. The original technique was for an athlete to withdraw blood and freeze it, then re-inject some just prior to competition. The strategy became easier in 1989 with the approval of erythropoietin (EPO) as a medical treatment for anemia based on a naturally occurring hormone that spurs red blood cell production. When experts learned to detect illicit EPO use by athletes, dopers changed their doses to evade the test. In 2004, researchers unveiled a test to detect a blood transfusion from a donor—which is how Tyler Hamilton was caught blood doping at the 2004 Tour of Spain and the 2004 Athens Olympics. Scientists are currently working on a test to identify transfusions of the athlete’s own blood from chemicals that leach into blood during storage.
Hormones: Because they’re produced naturally in the body, insulin, IGF-1 and human growth hormone are some of the most difficult substances to detect. Elite athletes have used them illicitly to increase muscle mass and speed recovery. Insulin has become popular in recent years, but taken in the wrong dose, it can kill. Sprinter and three-time Olympic medalist Alvin Harrison received a four-year suspension in 2004 after admitting to using six performance-enhancing drugs, including insulin and human growth hormone. (He kept his Olympic medals, which he won before the admitted doping.)
Asthma medications: Also known as beta-2 agonists, salmeterol and clenbuterol act as muscle-building agents if taken in large doses. The drugs are detectable in urine. Last summer, David Clinger received a lifetime ban from cycling for testing positive for clenbuterol during an out-of-competition test conducted near the end of his two-year ban for testosterone and the stimulant modafinil.
Hormone antagonists or modulators: Dopers who take steroids or hormones can trip up their bodies’ natural hormone balances, so they may take substances to counteract these reactions. A large dose of testosterone may stimulate a body to produce additional estrogen, with unwanted results in men such as enlarged breasts. USADA slapped Houston-based cyclist Mitch Comardo with a two-year suspension in 2009 after he tested positive for tamoxifen, a drug that blocks estrogen.
Experimental substances: To stay ahead of testers, cheaters regularly turn to drugs still in development, often obtaining them on the black market. WADA is partnering with the pharmaceutical industry to develop tests to detect experimental drugs. In November 2009, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) announced sanctions against five 2008 Olympians for using CERA, a third-generation EPO drug.
Olympic organizers plan to conduct 5,000 drug tests—an unprecedented number—during the London Games. Nearly half of the 14,000 athletes competing, including all medalists, will be taken aside after their event and brought to a private testing room. There, they’ll produce a urine or blood sample under an anti-doping official’s watch. The athlete will label, sign and seal the samples before they’re sent to a state-of-the-art, WADA-certified facility directed by scientists at King’s College London.
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
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