Date 1 February 2014 Page 128 Circulation 71000 Scale 100% Size 1539cm Article AVE 27702

THE

WA R ON

DOPING

Ahead of this month's release of The Armstrong Lie- a documentary detailing shamed cyclist Lance Armstrong's admittance of doping to win theTourde France - loaded investigates doping in modernday sport, the tools to prevent it, and why banned substances can't be made legal.

COPYRIGHT: Extracted by Kantar Media. The contents of the publication from which these extract have been taken are copyright works and without prior permission may not be copied or otherwise reproduced (even for internal purpose) or resold or scanned to an internet/intranet site.
Copyright (Loaded Consumer) No reproduction without authorisation

Date 1 February 2014 Page 128 Circulation 71000 Scale 100% Size 1539cm Article AVE 27702

[words] TOM SHEPHERD t's been a year since Lance Armstrong came clean. Sitting on an armchair opposite American TV host Oprah Winfrey, the man who for more than 10 years was hailed as an American hero, winning seven Tour de France titles after recovering from cancer, was proven to be a false idol. Armstrong confessed to using banned substances and techniques, such as the performance-enhancing drug EPO and blood doping, to help claim those seven yellow jerseys, of which he was ultimately stripped. The documentary The Armstrong Lie, released on January 31, sees director Alex Gibney chronicling the rise and fall of cycling's infamous son. But in addition to Armstrong's misdemeanors, the film also brings to light the murky environment the Texan competed in - now a notoriously bleak era for the sport, exampled by the fact that 20 of the 21 podium finishers of the Tour de France between '99 and "05 have since been directly tied to likely doping. It posits the question that in a sport where everyone around you is cheating, would you be the athlete who dopes to compete for the top, or the one with morals firmly in tact, placing last? It's this dilemma that proves the importance of a level playing field is paramount within any sport. Last year was a turbulent time for athletics, with JADCO, Jamaica's anti-doping agency, making headlines when six of its athletes were banned for failing drugs tests, including former 100m world record holder Asafa Powell. This was compounded by an admission from the former head of JADCO that only one out-of-competition drug test was performed on any of its athletes in the five months prior to the London Olympics. With revelations such as these, how confident can we be that the prevalence of the doping that surrounded Armstrong is truly over, and that the athletes we see at the Olympics and World Championships are clean? "The tools we have to deal with doping are much better," Graham Arthur, director of legal for UK AntiDoping (UKAD), tells loaded. "The tools that anti-doping organisations had in the Lance era - including towards the end of his athletic career - now are much more targeted, and much more effective, than they were in his day." The two biggest weapons that anti-doping agencies, such as UKAD, now have against doping in athletics are known as the 'blood passport program' and the 'whereabouts system'. The former requires an athlete to give blood samples at regular intervals over a period of time, which are then monitored for traces of banned substances and evidence of blood doping. "Because

substances and evidence of blood doping. "Because Lance was doing a lot to improve his endurance, it would be very difficult for him to beat the passport system," says Arthur. "It's not impossible to beat the passport, but it'd be very difficult." The second line of attack against substance abuse the whereabouts system - rules that an athlete must give notification of where he or she will be for one hour, every day, 365 days of the year, in which they may be visited by a doping control officer to give a sample. If an athlete misses a testing, they're given a strike - three strikes and it's the equivalent of a doping offence, complete with a ban of up to two years. "For most of Lance's career, he had to provide whereabouts to enable him to be tested, but they weren't particularly rigorous," says Arthur, "and as he's admitted since, they were quite easy to avoid. If he was doing now what he did then, and he was on the whereabouts system, it would be difficult for him to avoid being banned for filing failures or missed tests, because if he was doping he would have had to give the testers the slip, otherwise he'd get found out." The whereabouts system gives anti-doping agencies added muscle, particularly for testing athletes outside of competition time. But do these modern tests make it impossible to avoid detection?

"The analytical techniques will show up very minute trace amounts of banned substances," says John Brewer, professor of sports science at University of Bedfordshire, and board member of UKAD. "Samples can now also be stored so they can be retrospectively tested. If there is evidence that something has been used illegally, then a sample can be retested. "It's not impossible to avoid detection, but the procedures that are in place make it very, very difficult. An athlete who tries to use banned substances on a regular basis is running a far higher risk of testing positive than they do of getting away with it." The penalty that comes with failing a test is a ban for as long as two years for a first-time offender - this will be extended to four years at the start of 2015. meaning that any offending athlete would miss an Olympics. Anyone caught doping for a second time faces a lifetime ban. But the main issue is whether it's enough to deter an athlete contemplating doping going through with it.

COPYRIGHT: Extracted by Kantar Media. The contents of the publication from which these extract have been taken are copyright works and without prior permission may not be copied or otherwise reproduced (even for internal purpose) or resold or scanned to an internet/intranet site.
Copyright (Loaded Consumer) No reproduction without authorisation

Date 1 February 2014 Page 128 Circulation 71000 Scale 100% Size 1539cm Article AVE 27702

// Lonce Armstrong was doing now what he did then, it would be difficult for him to ovoid being banned. He would have to give the testers the slip

COPYRIGHT: Extracted by Kantar Media. The contents of the publication from which these extract have been taken are copyright works and without prior permission may not be copied or otherwise reproduced (even for internal purpose) or resold or scanned to an internet/intranet site.
Copyright (Loaded Consumer) No reproduction without authorisation

Date 1 February 2014 Page 128 Circulation 71000 Scale 100% Size 1539cm Article AVE 27702

"It's never a black-and-white situation." Andrew Triggs Hodge tells loaded. The British rower won gold at the Beijing and London Olympics in the coxless four, and has recently joined UKAD's athlete committee. "My personal belief - not necessarily that of UKAD - is if you have young athletes who make genuine mistakes then what we have now is alright. A two- to four-year ban is appropriate for the guys who didn't know any better, who have maybe taken something because they were pushed into it - they deserve a second chance.
"But for someone like Lance Armstrong to face a two-year ban, that doesn't even touch the sides. If you read all the books of people who have got into doping they always ask the question: is it worth it? And they always have someone saying: 'Look, the worst case scenario is you'll have a two-year ban, you can come back.' If you take that argument away, then you'll have a decent deterrent."

"I would never question an athlete's performance." says Triggs Hodge, "just because I would hate it if somebody did that to me. Questions do get raised when you hear things such as the lamaican system, or when you hear about the UCI. But they're questions aimed solely at

the system surrounding an athlete. Are the people surrounding these athletes fallible? Are they conducting enough out-of-hours testing? If you can get to grips with that, then I think you get a much better picture than, 'oh shit, that was a fast time, was it real?" It seems near impossible that doping will be eradicated from sport and, much as was the case with the Armstrong era of cycling, if there's a suspicion that your opponent is taking banned substances, it can have a snowball effect on competing athletes. But what if doping were to be made legal - surely it would level out the playing field if everybody had access to the same drugs cabinet? "The key thing is that it just would not be regulated." says Brewer. "The problem is, as soon as you say that a particular dosage works, then the pressure will be to say, well let's take twice that dosage - you won't ever get proper regulation if you open it up." Arthur agrees: "If you allow doping, what you have then is something different to sport. Sport is a reflection of some really important core values - they reflect dedication, discipline, hard work, self sacrifice, teamwork, ethics - all of those things in combination make a great athlete. All of these positive values that go with sport make participation something valued by governments, and we encourage children and everybody to do it. All of that evaporates if you introduce doping, because it becomes something that's plastic and counterfeit and fake." While the moral responsibility of sport is undoubted, it's hard to ignore the spectacle and 'wow' factor that sport - particularly athletics - can bring. To legalise doping would certainly increase that spectacle, and who wouldn't want to see the 100m completed in seven seconds? "If you do that then sport becomes like EastEnders or the cinema," continues Arthur, "it's something that's entertaining and fun, but it's not real. You have a spectacle in the way that Gladiator is a spectacle, but it's not real, and once you've consumed it, you leave it. Whereas with sport, once you've consumed it, you admire the athletes and you think 'I want to have a go at that, I want to do that.' And you believe that you could."

The decision on ban length is decided by the World Anti-Doping Agency [WADA|, whose role it is to ensure that all national doping agencies - such as UKAD agencies - such as UKAD - adhere to the laws on testing and the imposition of bans. When questions are raised, such as those currently surrounding Jamaica's anti-doping agency, it is the role of WADA to investigate any discrepancies.
"WADA'sjob is to make sure that different countries or different organisations do their job when it comes to testing their athletes." Arthur tells us. "That's what they've done with these countries - they've visited them and said we've looked at your doping programme, looked at the way that you work with your athletes and we think that there are improvements to be made. "It's probably rare that the delinquencies that are perceived on the part of overseas anti-doping organisations are wilful. They can result from a lack of resources, a lack of ability, a lack of training, a lack of understanding as to where the balance should lie
between domestic training and international training. That's where cooperation with organisations with WADA is very important for those countries." While a climate of finger pointing will ultimately undermine the efforts of WADA, it seems only natural that suspicions among athletes will be raised while such allegations of ineptitude are abound, particularly if a fellow competitor smashes a personal best.

COPYRIGHT: Extracted by Kantar Media. The contents of the publication from which these extract have been taken are copyright works and without prior permission may not be copied or otherwise reproduced (even for internal purpose) or resold or scanned to an internet/intranet site.
Copyright (Loaded Consumer) No reproduction without authorisation

Date 1 February 2014 Page 128 Circulation 71000 Scale 100% Size 1539cm Article AVE 27702

that, I want to do that.' And you believe that you could." Performance aside, there's also the effect these banned substances have on an athlete's health. "You also have to look at why the majority of banned substances are on the banned list," says Brewer. "Many of them started life, and still are used, as very worthwhile medical treatments that won't damage health. The moment you've got an athlete who takes them in high dosages for a long period, you see an increased risk of cancers, heart problems and impotence.

It's never a black-andwhite situation

,

"Inevitably, it will circulate down the age range, so you'll end up with young people feeling that they have to take banned substances in order to get on that talent development pathway. The thought of giving human growth hormones or testosterone to a 14- or 15-year-old to stay on a development pathway is. frankly, quite scary."

The guys who didn't know any better, who hove maybe token something because they were pushed into it, they deserve o second chonce

loaded
The Armstrong Lie is out in cinemas January 31

Controle

Anti-Dopa

COPYRIGHT: Extracted by Kantar Media. The contents of the publication from which these extract have been taken are copyright works and without prior permission may not be copied or otherwise reproduced (even for internal purpose) or resold or scanned to an internet/intranet site.
Copyright (Loaded Consumer) No reproduction without authorisation