IOC Undertakes Program to Outlaw Drug Test Masking Agents by ’88

The masking agents used by athletes to avoid drug detection are likely to be outlawed in time for the 1988 Winter and Summer Olympics.

Prince Alexandre de Merode, president of the International Olympic Committee’s medical commission, said the IOC executive board is likely to approve the ban at its Dec. 8-10 meeting in Lausanne, Switzerland.

His commission is studying several masking agents, including Probenecid, with a view to adding them to IOC’s list of banned substances.

Probenecid is to be banned by the International Amateur Athletic Federation starting January, but the IOC does not want to single out any one product until the whole family of drugs has been examined.

“We hope to complete our laboratory findings by December in time for the executive board meeting,” said Prince de Merode, the 53-year-old Belgian company director, one of the three IOC vice presidents on the 11-member board. I hope for early approval so that the rule will apply to Calgary and Seoul.

“Taking laboratory testing into account, it can take from one year to two years for new substances to be added to the IOC banned list, but we can shorten the time span in exceptional cases. And I think these new sophisticated drugs call for emergency measures.”

These drugs keep anabolic steroid traces in the body’s system for a limited time so they are not excreted in a standard urine test, meaning athletes can take anabolics until the day of competition and still avoid detection.

Merode’s commission gave priority treatment to the masking-agent problem at last month’s meeting in Moscow where it also decided to recommend banning the hormone preparation Human Chorionic Gonadotrophia, which helps produce testosterone, an anabolic steroid.

“We have asked the IOC to ban HCG after carrying out extensive laboratory tests,” Prince de Merode said. “And we are still testing these masking agents.”

The IAAF adopted the recommendations of the prince’s commission made at the IOC meeting in Turkey last May calling on international federations to follow a consistent scale of punishment.

“Based on the experience of more than 20 years in doping control activities, it seems to the IOC medical commission that a differentiation between ‘deliberate’ and ‘inadvertent’ use of prohibited substances should be made,” the prince said.

The commission recommended the following penalties:

Deliberate drug use (anabolic steroids, amphetamine-type stimulants, caffeine, cocaine, narcotics and masking drugs): Three years for the first offense and a life ban for the second offense.

Inadvertent use of banned drugs (ephedrine and codeine): Three months for the first offense, two years for the second and a life ban for the third.

The recommendations were sent to the International Sports Federations and the National Olympic Committees.

“They were very well received and we have had lot of comments which we are considering,” de Merode said. “We are also were very happy how quickly the IAAF acted. The line has been drawn and it is going as it should be. We are getting away fom the hypocrisy.”

The IAAF acted in Rome Sept. 7, the day after the World Track and Field Championships. It suspended nine athletes for periods ranging from three months to two years for drug offenses at various meets during the year.

On Sept. 29 the IAAF also stripped Swiss runner Sandra Gasser of her World Championship bronze medal and suspended her for two years for using anabolic steroids. She is appealing the decision, claiming her drug test was incorrectly administered or sabotaged.

During the World Championships long jumper-sprinter Carl Lewis, winner of four gold medals at the 1984 Olympics, was among those who claimed many of the outstanding performances in Rome were drug-enhanced.

However, no such athletes were identified. Reports elsewhere concern athletes who seek assurances from promoters that they will not be tested for drugs at certain meets.

“We need names and facts,” de Merode said. “We can only act if it is a known fact, not just accusations.”

However, the prince said he did not completely support the plan by the international federations to introduce year-round random drug testing, even during training.

“It would certainly prove valuable, but in the IOC opinion the same conditions must exist for all athletes and testing facilities vary from country to country,” he said.

“We encourage (national Olympic committees) and (international federations) that conducting doping tests at world, continental, international and national championships will be sufficient. Athletes would be checked regularly enough.

“But it is important that we have more accredited laboratories. We have 21 at present and hope to have either 24 or 25 soon. Most of the existing laboratories are in Europe, the United States and Asia. Oceania will be added to the list soon, but we have no accredited laboratory in Africa yet.”

There has been considerable progress in drug testing since de Merode’s commission was formed in 1966. But the prince concedes it is difficult to keep pace with the technology.

“It is a long race, chasing drug cheating,” he said. “But we are reducing the gap.”

One example is blood-packing, a banned technique in which the athlete’s blood is stored and reintroduced to increase oxygen storing. He said it is almost impossible to enforce controls on such a practice.

“We have not found a practical test yet,” de Merode said. “It takes too much time to carry out, but we hope to have a result in two or three years. It is a very difficult problem and we can only publicize the health dangers, such as the possibility of blood poisoning or even AIDS.”

The prince says educating athletes about the hazards of drugs is the most effective weapon.

“The athlete’s health is paramount,” he said. “This is the No. 1 consideration and it is up to officials and team doctors as well as athletes to bear this in mind.”

de Merode also believes the international federations must put more money into policing drug abuse.

“Testing is expensive, but the price of judges and referees is three or four times higher,” he said. “They are there on behalf of the (international federations) to see the rules of the particular sport are observed. But doping control are also part of the rules and they should also be upheld. We are talking about the health of the athletes. Without them there would be no sport for officials to control.”