Doping news and insights

"Steroids are an illusion" and how to avoid detection in cycling

Tomorrow I will begin the first major series of 2010 - Exercise and Weight loss, which is mainly in response to Time Magazine's article last year, which explained "Why Exercise won't make you thin".

Exercise and weight loss is a topic that we absolutely had to cover, because for all the focus we've had on high performance, elite athletes and science in sport, the aspect of exercise, weight loss and the science behind it is probably bigger.  I would be very surprised if anyone who has ever trained has not done so with a view to losing weight at some stage.  Whether they're elite athletes who need to lose weight to get down to optimal racing weight for performance, or whether they are exercising on doctor's 'orders' to lose weight to become healthy, weight loss is a concern for everyone, and so it's a huge topic, and I'm sure this series will not be the only one we ever do on this subject..

So Time magazine helped inspire the series that I'll begin tomorrow, but I don't want to limit myself to that only.  So we'll look at some practical applications, some of the science of weight loss, and we'll get some expert opinion that will hopefully help you, regardless of your motive!  That's to look forward to tomorrow!

Doping - the illusion of steroids

For today, just as a 'filler' post, I want to link to two articles that really provide a great deal of food for thought on doping.

The first, written by David Epstein of Sports Illustrated, features an interview with an expert on doping in the USA, Professor Charles Yesalis.  The interview was in response to Mark McGwire (he of steroid induced home-run hitting in baseball) saying that in his new position as hitting coach for the Cardinals, he would tell young players that steroids "are an illusion" if they wanted to know the impact of the drugs on their play.

The article is short, featuring a few questions to Prof Yesalis, in which he spells out his criticism of that position.  It is a position that says that the denial of the effectiveness of drugs undermines the credibility of the scientific and medical fields, and I agree.  We've seen this a great deal in cycling too, where people are saying that the doping practices in the sport don't have a significant impact on performance.  It's part condoning the practice of doping, part denial that the problem exists, but the end result is that those opposed to doping lose credibility with the athletes. If you have more time, you may also be interested in this article, also by Epstein, from 2008, looking at steroids in much more detail.

Cycling - how to defeat anti-doping control

Then the second article is this fascinating piece from a really great cycling site, Cozy Beehive, which has a guest post from a former pro cyclist, Joe Papp.  Papp looks at some of the methods (not all) used by pro-cyclists to evade detection.

This is a commonly asked question - "if they are doping, then how do they get away with it?" and the link provides some of the answers.  Remember also the much more basic method used by Dwain Chambers, where he would fill up his mobile phone's message service so that testers who called him could not leave a message, and then when he knew he would test negative, he deleted those messages and allowed the testers to contact him.  That was the "duck and dive" method (his words), a little less sophisticated than what Papp describes in his article, but apparently quite effective - Chambers was only caught thanks to the THG tip-off, and had been using everything for a long time without detection.

There are other methods too.  Micro-dosing, urine substitution, enzyme treatments - all described briefly in the article.  Scroll down to the comments section to read more interesting discussion.  There is this one, which I'll paste here:

Prentice Steffen, ex-doctor at US Postal said the following to L'Equipe in an interview on October 6, 2005. I quote Steffen :

"Before going to the start of the Tour, the riders of certain teams, during their training camps, took EPO (which disappears from the urine within three days, even 12 hours when small doses are used) and took their hematocrits up to around 60. Then a doctor withdraws their blood, saving it in special containers, to lower their blood parameters into the accepted range (50) so that they pass without difficulty the medical controls before the Tour. Then, as the teams well know, during the race the vampires (2) can arrive any day but always between 7 and 8 in the morning. After that time, there is no more testing and the riders were able to re-inject their own blood. They were racing the stage with an enormous advantage- their hematrocrit in the 55 to 58 range during the race- then in the evening at the hotel, someone again withdraws their blood so that they sleep without risk (3) and, especially, they escape the possible tests the next morning.

L'EQUIPE:

This practice was used every evening during the three weeks of the Tour?

STEFFEN:

No, just for important stages in the mountains or maybe for a time trial. It's so simple to do and there's no risk of being caught unless the police intervene. The blood was shuttled by motorcycle in a refrigerated compartment... "

Transparency and urgency

Whether this should be described in public is debatable.  I think the more transparent things are the better.  Cycling's biggest failure, in my opinion, has been its concerted effort at burying the problem, either pretending it doesn't exist or downplaying its impact, as we said above. 

The only way the problem of doping will ever be controlled is to expose everything, the good and the bad.  Everyone should be invited to contribute to this 'cleansing' - I believe that a big part of the reason that cycling today is becoming cleaner (which I believe - see our interview with Yorck Schumacher for his views) is because the media and sponsors drew a line and started to attack doping.  When the media decided that they would cover only doping and not the racing action, cycling had to respond. 

Being transparent is the solution, and I find it positive when people talk, breaking the code of silence that exists in the sport.  Unfortunately, not everyone agrees, and its for this reason that pro-cycling is where it is.  A cyclist who exposes even a tiny part of the truth can expect to be bullied into retreat within the peloton, their credibility and integrity attacked with alarming aggression, ala Simeone and Bassons (and others, I am sure).

Let's hope everyone is listening.  I'm sure they are, and I have no doubt that the net will close on all these methods as much as it can.

Join us tomorrow for the start of the the Weight loss investigated series.  And thank you to Norman and Ron for providing links to those stories!

Ross

Doping, management and inquisitions

A-Rod hits the bottom, Sevens Rugby hits the USA and Carl Lewis hits out at track and field

It's been a pretty controversial last 48 hours for US sport, with the revelations that Alex Rodriguez, the owner of baseball's richest ever contract ($275 million over 10 years with the Yankees) has admitted to using steroids during a period from 2001 to 2003. It means that one of baseball's great heros is now tainted with the same brush that has affected McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, Clemens and dozens of others, with the prospect of another 104 names to be released in the next few days.

All in all, baseball's credibility is fast disappearing, as can be seen by the headlines in the papers in response to A-Rod's confession: "A-roid", "Cheat", "Deception" are some of the common words. The strange thing about this is that Rodriguez is breaking the mould somewhat by confessing (having initially denied it, accordingto the script these guys read from). Some commentators have suggested that by confessiong, Rodriguez will escape the same kind of fallout that has affected McGwire and Bonds (who is facing jail-time). Honesty will see him rise above this, they say.

I don't believe him. I have watched the interview with Peter Gammons of ESPN, and it seems to me that he is playing what has now become the classic game of admitting to part, but not all of the allegations, once you've been caught red-handed. It's a case of say something to pacify the wolves at your door, but say only enough to keep them quiet. Marion Jones turned this deception into an art form when she admitted to doping but thinking in was flaxseed oil. A-Rod seems, to me at least, to be taking a similar approach. "To be quite honest I don't know exactly what substance I was guilty of using" were his words in response to the question about which substances he had used.

It seems to me, based on numerous cases in the last few years, that elite athletes are capable of lying without the slightest sign of deception. Rodriguez himself outright denied steroid use in 2007 in a 60 Minutes interview with Katie Couric. "I've never felt overmatched on the baseball field. I've always been a very strong, dominant position. And I felt that if I did my work since I was, you know, a rookie back in Seattle, I didn't have a problem competing at any level. So, no." His justification was at least original, convincing himself that he was worthy of his place among baseball's stars without steroids.

However, hindsight betrays his deception, and renders that apparently sincere answer a complete farce. The problem, then, for any newly-confessed doper, is that having weaved complex lies before, they now expect to be believed for their honesty? Perhaps I'm less trusting than most, but it feels as though we've heard "Wolf" too often and so Rodriguez's latest interview "confession" doesn't work for me.

Interestingly, his performances during his doping years (assuming we believe that he suddenly stopped doping, despite having some of the best success of his career, and moving to the Yankees where the pressure would be even greater than it was in Texas) were quite a bit better than in the other ten years of his career. According to ESPN, he hit 52 Home-runs a season while using steroids compared to 39.2 without, and 131.7 RBI per season compared to 119 when not using steroids. More detailed statistics would be insightful, perhaps they'll materialize in coming days.

All in all, I feel there's more to come, particularly for baseball. Perhaps A-Rod, by virtue of the "wholesome" interview he gave, will be passed over, and certainly, he has avoided the fate of Barry Bonds. But he's the latest in a long line of "symptoms" for baseball, though the underlying cause remains untreated (and is perhaps untreatable).

Sevens Rugby: A game and a website worth checking

On a more positive note (uplifting, that is, not doping positive), if you're a fan of Sevens rugby, then you'll appreciate the qualities of the game. Even if you're not a fan of rugby, Sevens brings a dimension to the sport that attracts the "non-purists", which is its most valuable (and potentially profitable) quality. The game has taken off in the smaller nations, because it gives them an opportunity to match the traditional powerhouses far more than would be the case in the 15-man version of the game.

Just this past weekend in Wellington, the USA beat Fiji, Wales beat New Zealand, Argentina beat England and Kenya beat South Africa. Such upsets are relatively common, and highlight the growth and relative competitive balance in the game. That competitive balance does not exist in the 15-man game, where the outcome of all but about six possible matches is known before the kickoff.

What will be interesting in the future is whether the game grows faster than the 15-man game, particularly in the lucrative Gulf region. You'll recall a post we did a month ago looking at how the Gulf region (Abu Dhabi, Qatar, Dubai) have pumped enormous money into bringing sport to the region. The world's richest golf tournaments, marathons, tennis exhibitions, Formula 1 races are but a few of the sports they have attracted. And Sevens rugby, faster, more competitive, and more exciting, looms as a possible "product" for the region. If it were possible, I'd be buying shares in Sevens rugby.

Onto a more personal involvement with Sevens, I've been fortunate enough to have been involved with the SA Sevens Team (currently number 1 in the world rankings, long may it continue) thanks to the vision of Paul Treu, the coach. I'll be going to the World Cup in Dubai in the first week of March, and the Hong Kong Tournament at the end of March.

Paul Treu, the youngest coach on the circuit, is also one of the smartest, and most savvy. He recently started up his own website, to which I contribute from time to time. My latest article can be read here - a commentary on sporting success and failure. For Sevens fans, the site is well worth following.

This week sees the Sevens Series visit the USA, and so if you're in the San Diego area, this is your chance to check out my post first-hand. The action happens at PETCO Park, starting Saturday. It's the last tournament before the World Cup in Dubai, and following on from Wellington, should be a great battle. So if you're in the San Diego area, make a plan to join the 50,000 other expected fans there (and drop us your feedback if you do!).

Track and field in the USA under fire

The Beijing Olympic Games were a low point for US track and field. They came up against an extra-ordinary athlete in Usain Bolt, and short of producing three world records, they were never going to win gold medals anyway. On the women's side, it was more of the same as Jamaica took three of the four sprint medals, Great Britain the other, and the USA claimed only the gold of LaShawn Merritt in the 400m.

To cap it off, both teams dropped the relay baton in the 4 x 100m. In response, the USATF Chief Executive Doug Logan called for the analysis and a nine-person task team led by Carl Lewis got to work. Their report was released yesterday, and among other criticisms, cites excessive travel by athletes, poor planning, a lack of professionalism among athletes, "chaos" in the national organization's relay program and a "culture of mistrust" among athletes and coaches as reasons for the disappointing performances.

So widespread are the reported problems that to enact the recommendations will require bylaw changes. They include the creation of a general manager for the organization's high-performance division; the development and support of high-performance training centers across the nation; shorter Olympic trials; specific criteria for athletes to compete as professionals; a comprehensive plan for winning 30 medals at the 2012 Summer Games; the creation of an organized athletes union; and more stringent standards for reinstatement after doping bans.

Is the criticism justified? As I said upfront, Bolt was never going to be beaten unless the USA managed to produce three world records in the short sprints. The relay failure certainly warrants mention, and the report calls for the termination of an expensive relay development programme. I don't know the ins and outs of this programme, but it seems to me that relay success requires finding four or five very fast sprinters (a separate system), combined with a week's worth of decent practice. No programme required...?

On the note of the trials, there is some physiological justification. As an outsider, the proximity of the US trials, combined with the very 'black and white' criteria for the selection of the team means that the season peak is stretched, possibly beyond what is achievable. This was the same as the swimming debate for the USA, since many of their best swimmers seemed tired by the time they got to Beijing.

The same may have happened to the athletes. To force an athlete to peak for the trials (which they have to do in order to qualify, especially in the sprints) and then to hold that for the Olympics a few months later is a physiological challenge, perhaps an impossible one.

A comparison with South Africa

In terms of the management structures that were so heavily criticized, my interpretation is based on my own experiences here in South Africa. It is interesting that the report's recommendations are very much in line with what was suggested in a report developed for SA sport in 2007. It too called for professionalization, high performance centres, and funding for sports science. Sadly, government have stumbled through implementation and ended up making a bad situation worse, so it's always interesting to read other nation's responses to similar situations.

The problem with strategic recommendations made by these reports is always implementation. Often, the organization charged with executing the strategy will attempt to do so within their current structures. The nature of such reports, however, is transformational, in that they often call for radical overhauls of the existing system and structures. So you have a Catch 22 situation, where the incumbents are asked to overhaul a system they're tightly embedded in, and they inevitably fail. It needs a transformational implementation, which is why execution lets them down. It will be interesting to see if the USA make these changes. South African didn't -the same people tried to execute the new strategy without the required change in support, and so given that they'd steered the sport into the abyss to begin with, they were always going to fail. It was a case of rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

On the note of South Africa...

If the USA felt that they had a poor Olympic Games, consider that South Africa won only one medal in TOTAL. Yet to date, the only sports code that has commissioned an enquiry into what went wrong is swimming. The government blustered and huffed and puffed and did nothing else, other than butcher the proposal they were given thanks to the personal egos and incentives of people within the system who prefer to wallow in mediocrity than to fix the situation. Then, on the other end of the extreme, certain academics and scientists undermined the hope of improvement through their refusal to collaborate with one another out of personal vendettas and, once again, insecurity.

We were inches away from negotiating a collaborative agreement for a sports federation that would have seen the athletes benefit. That was thanks to the vision and security of those in charge of the two respective institutions, who actually dared to collaborate and listen to others. Then a huge ego intervened and expertise was gagged, blacklisted and sidelined. So while the USA has problems with its systems, and hopefully can redeem the situation, if it's any consolation, South Africa will not pose a threat to any of your medal chances in 2012. We are a nation full of world-leaders in their own Universities, people who love to be the king or queen of their own sandpit while the athletes around them suffer thanks to their own inabilities.

Last word goes to Logan, the CEO of US Track and Field:

"Change never comes out of a climate of comfort. This report has and will produce a significant amount of discomfort. . . . At the end of the day, this is the only way this institution will be able to . . . realize its potential."

Ross

Roger Clemens admits to injections

Pitching legend claims it was lidocaine and B-12

This Sunday, the American news proram "60 Minutes" will air its 28 December interview with Roger "The Rocket" Clemens. Since being named in the Mitchell Report in early December Clemens has posted a Youtube video professing his innocence, as is the norm for stars who suddenly find themselves in the glare of the anti-doping spotlight.

But in a recent admission that also sounds all too similar to Barry Bonds' claim that Greg Anderson injected him with flaxseed oil, Clemens has now admitted that trainer Brian McNamee did indeed inject him---but with lidocaine and vitamin B-12, and not with steroids or growth hormone.

The use of vitamin B-12 would likely serve only a placebo effect as deficiencies of this vitamin are rare. However, the placebo effect is a real effect, and if Clemens really thought it would make him better, then technically it is not an illegal supplement.

However the use of lidocaine puzzles us. It is a local anesthetic available via prescription only in its injectable form, but many might know it better in its topical application form in creams such as Lanacane and other products. We use it in Exercise Physiology when administering muscle biopsies as it numbs the local area where we make the incision to take the small piece of muscle. Therefore McNamee would have had to inject the lidocaine into very specific sites and tissues such as joints, and it seems a strange choice for performance enhancement.

The same old excuse - "I might have used drugs, but it wasn't me"

As with most doping cases, it is up to us as fans to choose a side. Who do we believe? The athlete, Clemens in this case, plays the likely and predictable role, vehemently professing innocence and denying he ever took anything. But Clemens' attorney should have given him better advice, because this type of response only throws The Rocket in with all the other athletes who also at first denied, denied, denied, only to have it shown with other evidence that they were doping all along. The club is large and its most recent members are Justin Gatlin, banned for 4 years, and Marion Jones, who admitted to taking drugs prior to the 2000 Sydney Olympics although never testing positive.

McNamee: Why lie about Clemens and not Pettitte?

Most witnesses in these cases are less than credible, but Clemens' former trainer Brian McNamee poses an interesting situation. McNamee claims also to have injected Yankees' pitcher Andy Pettitte with growth hormone, and Pettitte confirmed this claim in the report and readily admitted that he took the hormone, thus bolstering McNamee's credibility.

And that makes it interesting---what does McNamee gain by telling the truth about Pettitte but then lying about Clemens? Does he hate Clemens so much that he would risk further punishment by making up the story about Clemens? Indeed, McNamee has recounted extremely detailed info about his time with Clemens, recalling specific instances and direct quotes, and that makes it hard to ignore entirely.


We suspect that Clemens is playing the predictable strategy, which would be to continue to deny everything until any tangible and hard evidence surfaces. As it stands right now, neither Major League Baseball nor the Mitchell Report can prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, and as such Clemens can potentially walk away without any repercussions other than the bad press he has received. When charged with such allegations of drug use, the athlete has exactly one opportunity to come clean and tell the truth once and for all. Clemens missed his chance, and now as fans we can only watch and speculate as the saga drags out or until some hard evidence refutes Clemens' (and others') claims.

The Mitchell Report at a glance

Fishing for guppies and landing a whopper

Former Senate majority leader George Mitchell's report on drug use in baseball was released on Friday afternoon, and sent the pundits and talking heads venting over the airwaves this past weekend. It is a behemoth of a report at 409 pages, and for all of those with some spare time this holiday season, you can download it here, while those with admittedly less time can view the executive summary here.

In the beginning many thought this was a fishing expedition of epic proportions, and was destined to return empty handed, or with only a few small time offenders. However in the end they landed a legend of baseball, the seven-time Cy Young winner Roger Clemens. Many other names were included in the report, and a history of drug use in baseball over the past 15 years is an important addition.

Also, on Sunday night Alex Rodriguez appeared in an interview on 60 Minutes, denying any drug use and also stating that he never once saw any illicit activity, although mentioning that there was always talk about it here and there.

Besides the players who were named in the report, the biggest loser is probably the Players Association. Mitchell states plainly that the association was "uncooperative" in many ways:

1. Rejecting requests for relevant documents
2. Granting only one interview with the executive director Donald Fehr
3. Rejecting an interview request with the chief operating officer Gene Orza
4. Denying a request to interview the director of a Montreal laboratory that analyzes samples
5. Actively discouraged players from cooperating with Mitchell's investigation

This is a real pity for the players as cooperation with Mitchell could only have benefited them in the long term, and therefore the lack of cooperation by the Players Association to us represents an extremely short-sighted view intended to try to protect themselves from harm. A more mature decision would have been full and transparent cooperation that would help legitimize the players and strengthen their credibility.

"The problem is serious"

Ok, so tell us something we do not know! As obvious as Mitchell's statement sounds, it is an important step in this process. Yes, the pundits and bloggers would all agree, and have all been saying for a long time, that indeed the problem is serious. However we lacked the hard evidence and inside information to back this up. Mitchell's report now goes on the official record and we hope this leads to future steps in the right direction for baseball (and perhaps other sports). Namely, admission by the players and teams that indeed there is a problem is what must occur before the sport takes a serious turn towards cleaning up.

Cycling and baseball both miss the boat in the 1990's

Mitchell identifies the turning point as sometime after the 1988 Summer Olympics when Ben Johnson tested positive. In fact there were many news reports during the 1990's about steroid use in baseball, and as early as 1988 many fans were already jeering Jose Canseco about his alleged steroid (ab)use. So the interesting thing is that as players' power increased and rumours began to make the rounds, baseball found itself in a similar position to pro cycling.

In the peloton during the 1990's the same thing was happening---average speeds were increasing, rumours were lurking, and the media suspected something was up. Admittedly, hindsight is 20/20, yet it is interesting that neither sport moved on these signs and "symptoms." Cycling introduced the 50% Hematocrit rule, which was pretty weak and easily manipulated, and baseball just ignored the problem for as long as it could.

And now the two sports find themselves in equally sticky situations. Wide scale and official reports (Mitchell's report in baseball, and The Operacion Puerto report in cycling) have torn open each sport and exposed its biggest stars.


And now. . .?

The fallout from the Mitchell report is still heavy and sinking in as more and more people read it and analyze its contents. At 409 pages, the full report is a handful, but the executive summary is an excellent place to start and anyone interested should definitely read it (it is only 40 pages). In the weeks and days to come still more bloggers and writers will weigh in on what all of this means, but one thing for certain is that Commissioner Bud Selig and MLB now go in to bat. This is their call to action, and we can only hope they choose to be courageous and think about the long term health of the sport.

As we said, at 409 pages this one is a handful, but join us this week as we try to pick it apart and look at the greater implications not just for baseball, but what something like this means for all of sports. Also, don't forget about the impending IAAF report on Oscar Pistorius, which we wil analyze in full and is due out any day now. Finally, we will run a short series on exercise in the cold, as the northern hemisphere winter is in full swing.

Stay with us for a busy couple of busy weeks ahead!

Bonds breaks the record, but for how long?

After all the hype, all the pressure, and all the steroids, Barry Bonds finally surpassed Hank Aaron as the all-time home run leader in Major League Baseball. On Wednesday night, as the Giants squared off against the Washington Nationals, Bonds stepped up to the plate in the fifth inning. With the count loaded at 3-2 he hit the payoff pitch and swung his way into history, if not infamy at the same time, sending a shot deep into right center field at AT&T Park in San Francisco. He was met at the plate by his godfather Willie Mays while a pile up ensued in the stands over the ball. The game was stopped for 10 min of fireworks and ceremony before the Giants went on to lose the game.

So Bonds will likely hit a few more home runs this season, finishing perhaps with 760-765 for the new bench mark. But how long will Bonds be able to remain the home run king? Many fans, including commissioner Bud Selig and Hank Aaron himself, are already looking forward to the day when Bonds is dethroned. And who is the likely successor? All signs point to Alex Rodriguez, otherwise known as “A-Rod,” currently of the New York Yankees. The Mighty A-Rod recently hit his 500^th home run at the age of 31, in his 14^th major league season. Compare this to Bonds, who hit just 445 home runs in his first 14 seasons.

To date A-Rod is averaging 36 dingers a season to Bonds 34. This average together with his faster pace to 500 predict A-Rod will surpass Bonds in approximately seven years when he is 38 and in his 21^st major league season (Figure 1). While entirely possible, this is actually a big ask as it means A-Rod must average close to 36 home runs a season between now and then, and furthermore he appears to have had his peak home run season five years ago in 2002 when he was 26 and hit 57 home runs (Figure 2). It also means he must keep playing well past 20 major league seasons, and while there are a number of players who have not only done this but gone on to seal their place in the Hall of Fame after 20+ years, this is a long career and A-Rod (or any player) might find it challenging to keep the competitive fire burning for another 7-8 years. In addition he must remain healthy enough to keep his up output.

For now Bonds takes the spotlight and shares it with no one. The Commissioner of baseball was not even there to witness the record, instead sending a vice president to stand in. However Hank Aaron, who recently has shunned Bonds, pre-recorded a video that was played during the celebratory game stoppage. In it he expressed hope that Bonds breaking this momentous record would inspire many others to chase their own dreams.

Keep chasing, A-Rod. . .keep chasing. . .

The Barry Bonds dilemma

The tour is finished, and even though this year a breaking news (ok, doping!) story might emerge at any moment, we are going to turn to America for this post. Baseball fans or not, some of you may know that Barry Bonds (of BALCO infmay) will most certainly break baseball's most hallowed record any day now. Henry Aaron holds the record for the most number of home runs in the game at 755, but currently Bonds is at 754, and with over a month remaining in the 2007 season he is almost assured of being the new home run king.

This is such a charged topic that we could write a book on it, and in fact, two sports writers already did. In 2006 Mark Fainaru-Wana and Lance Williams published "Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids Scandal That Rocked Professional Sports" (follow the link on the left to buy this book). It is a must read for those not only interested in baseball but other sports as well since many sports had "BALCO athletes" in them. So we will leave it to them to explain the intricate details of that story, and will focus rather on Bonds' record for now.

Reaction to Bonds is mixed in this country. To be sure, many many fans boo him and taunt him at ball parks across the country. He is greeted by crowds chanting, "Steroids! Steroids!" and "Cheater! Cheater!" Yet in the San Francisco area, where Bonds' team is from, people still line up at batting practice just to try to catch one of his practice home run balls. In addition, the commissioner of baseball has always tried to dodge Bonds, and until recently had been skipping Bonds' games while he creeped ever closer to the record. Apparently he has decided to be present during the record, although you get the feeling that he really wishes it was not Bonds to break the record.

Recently at his book launch in Chicago, Floyd Landis (“Positively False,” also on the left up there) was asked about Barry Bonds and what he thought of him breaking the record. Landis’ response was that during the years when Bonds was taking steroids, these drugs were not banned in Major League Baseball, and there was no testing policy. Therefore, shouldn’t we get off of Bonds’ back? Did he really do something against the rules? After all, he was not violating the rules of baseball as they were at that time.

This is a shocking response but probably illustrates the ambition of athletes like Bonds and Landis. For those athletes who possess such a will and desire to win, the ends justify the means. Although taking performance-enhancing drugs is morally and ethically wrong, and likely a health risk, providing it is not literally against the rules, then it must be ok to do it.

So the debate will rage on for many years as it does now, and that is first whether or not Bonds’ record, together with is single-season home run record, should have asterisks next to them in the record book, and second, should he be allowed into the hall of fame? Regardless of this debate, though, the one conclusion at which we can safely arrive is the drug testing policy in baseball, even today, is a joke. Here is what happens to repeat steroid offenders:

1. First positive: 10 day suspension OR up to a $10,000 fine


2. Second positive: 30-day suspension OR up to a $25,000 fine


3. Third positive: 60-day suspension OR up to a $50,000 fine


4. Fourth positive: One year suspension OR up to a $100,000 fine


5. Any subsequent positive: “Any subsequent positive test result by a player shall result in the Commissioner imposing further discipline on the player. The level of discipline will be determined consistent with the concept of progressive discipline.”

We do not need to elaborate on this to explain why it is a joke when compared to the stringent and tough penalties that apply to all other international athletes, and the take home message here is that although now the spotlight is on cycling, it is not alone in its abuse of performance-enhancing drugs in sport. At least cyclists face a much tougher penalty system, although currently this does not seem like much of a deterrent.

Ross and Jonathan

See also:

Tom Verducci story on the record at SI.com

Results of poll on fans reactions to baseball and Bonds

Recent and very funny article about Bonds at 754

Baseball-reference.com - Fully searchable stats on all players

Jemele Hill's article on doping

Excellent article on drugs and (American) sports

We came across an amazing article during our daily visit to Letsrun.com. If you want to find out what is happening in running, track and field, or anything related to doping, the brothers Weldon and Robert Johnson scour the web and post all the running news in the web. They run an awesome site and have become the place to go for running related news.

Their quote of the day was from an article written by Jemele Hill, who is a writer for ESPN's "Page 2" website. Jemele is sublime in her description of drugs in American sports, and our outlook on the drugs as a society and culture. She really nailed the current state of affairs and should be lauded for her candid assessment of the situation. For even more insight into the American outlook on this issue, be sure to read thru all the comments that readers have left in response to her article.

Go there right now to read her article!