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 3 of 4)
This year’s tests will screen for more than 240 illegal substances, from growth hormones to asthma medications to experimental drugs not yet on the market. It sounds impressive, but competition-day testing is not especially effective. Many performance-enhancing drugs aren’t used during competition but during training. Athletes can easily load up on anabolic steroids to increase their muscle mass and allow themselves to work harder during training, then stop before an event to test clean, says Daniel Eichner, executive director of the WADA-accredited Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory in Salt Lake City. Similarly, EPO continues to enhance performance long after the drug can be detected in the body.
For this reason, out-of-competition testing has become a cornerstone of WADA’s approach. Athletes must keep anti-doping agencies apprised of their whereabouts via a confidential system they can access from the Internet and smartphones. Testers, in turn, target athletes during the times they’re most likely to dope, such as pre-season training periods and the weeks leading up to competition. “Our testing is now very strategic,” Tygart says. “We have two goals—maximum deterrence and maximum detection.”
Through candid discussions with reformed dopers, officials keep tabs on the unexpected ways that illicit drug users enhance performance. For instance, they’ve learned that power jocks like weight lifters and sprinters wanting to bulk up aren’t the only ones using steroids. Endurance athletes such as marathon runners and distance swimmers use them, at low doses, to train harder with less rest. Revelations like these have changed USADA’s approach.
“Traditionally, anti-doping was reactionary,” Eichner says. “They would wait for a drug to be brought on the market, and then they would think, well, maybe athletes are using it, so we better prohibit it and then work out a test.” WADA has spent more than $54 million to date on anti-doping research to predict and prepare for new drugs that might enhance performance.
The agency can also catch past cheaters. WADA rules permit samples to be stored for up to eight years so they can be subjected to new tests that are developed well after an event. The IOC will soon retest samples from the 2004 Games. This kind of retrospective testing cost Rashid Ramzi his 1,500-meter run gold medal from the 2008 Olympics after he came up positive for CERA months after the Games had ended. Had Ramzi known that the test was imminent, he might have abstained. Because CERA was covered under WADA’s detailed list of prohibited substances and methods, the agency could unveil its new test without fanfare, a strategy meant to keep dopers on the defensive.
WADA’s most ambitious project yet is what the agency calls a biological passport—a type of physiological profile used to spot subtle signs of doping. Traditional tests are like police radar—easily avoided if you know when to be on the lookout, Eichner says. The passport, by contrast, doesn’t detect doping products themselves, but the physiological changes they provoke. “Instead of trying to catch you speeding,” Eichner says, “we measure how long it takes to get from Point A to Point B, and then calculate how fast you were going.” Researchers have three types of passports in the works: for blood boosting, steroids and hormones.
The blood passport, which was developed first, analyzes blood samples over the course of a season to flag discrepancies that indicate doping. For instance, the passport tracks levels of newly formed red blood cells, called reticulocytes. Taking a drug like EPO that promotes red blood cell production creates a rapid increase in reticulocyte numbers, while blood transfusions cause reticulocytes to drop, as the body shuts down its own blood cell production. Hemoglobin, a molecule that carries oxygen in the blood, also rises and falls in response to various blood-doping regimens, so testers can keep tabs on its levels to look for signs of doping.
Passports make doping more difficult, but they won’t entirely eliminate it, Eichner says. “The passport catches a lot of people, but it’s clear that some athletes have adapted to the program and have found ways to avoid triggering any flags.” History has shown that every new test spurs a workaround.
“We’re fighting the dark side,” WADA director general David Howman told reporters at a meeting of the Partnership for Clean Competition in New York City last December. “Marion Jones competed for seven years without one positive test result. For seven years, she said, ‘I’m clean, I’ve been tested more than any other athlete in the world,’” Howman says, adding: “Just because you’re tested, doesn’t mean you’re clean, we know that.”
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