Athletic Drug-Testing Procedures Fail to Hold Up Under Microscope

How’s this for wilting confidence in international drug-testing procedures? According to a questionnaire circulated this year among the 21 drug-testing laboratories accredited by the International Olympic Committee, the majority of athletes who tested positive for banned substances were never punished.

If there is one aspect of the drug taking and drug-control loop that is most criticized and most scrutinized, it is testing. More challenges--legal, ethical and cultural--are being leveled at the notion of giving a sample in front of strangers.

Figures released from the 21 labs--the IOC projects there may be 26 by the end of the year--show that about 2% of all athletes tested are found to have banned substances. This means that either athletes are not taking drugs in significant numbers or they are not getting caught.

In 1987, there were 37,882 tests taken worldwide before and during major competitions and out of competition. Of those tested, 854 were positive. Of the 9,759 athletes tested at international championships, only 229 were found positive.

The figures vary from country to country. Since 1985, Sport Canada has tested about 2,000 athletes and found only 15 positives, less than 1%. In 1987 about 4,000 British athletes in all Olympic sports were tested with 150 positives, about 3.7%. Also in 1987, 2,517 West German athletes were tested with 111 positives, about 4.4%.

In the United States, the number of positives is closer to 2% in all Olympic sports. In track and field, according to figures obtained from The Athletics Congress, the sport’s national governing body, the number is closer to 1%. Of 1,213 track and field athletes tested in 1986 and 1987, 12 tested positive for banned substances.

Clearly, officials believe something is wrong with the way testing is currently structured.

Testing of athletes in competition, when they are no longer using the banned drugs, is not solving the problem.

There is ample opportunity for cheating by sports officials who fail to report the positives or don’t sanction the athletes who do test positive.

And, to the chagrin of many in the sports medicine community, there are still no tests for some drugs and procedures that are currently banned and little hope for development of such tests for the future.

To many, it is the official cheating that is most offensive.

“When we look at the figure of 854 (found positive worldwide in 1987), we must ask what happened to all these people,” said Prince Alexandre de Merode, chairman of the IOC Medical Commission. “Why so few sanctions?”

It is a fundamental question. Athletes wonder why some athletes don’t test positive, lab technicians wonder why positives aren’t reported, international officials wonder why national sanctions aren’t given.

Much of the discrepancy stems from the varied international organizations involved and their differing rules and procedures. Standardization is not difficult on an Olympic level, but testing in the Olympics represents only a small portion of the picture.

“One of our biggest problems has been to persuade and cajole and bully the international federations to take the problem seriously,” said Dick Pound, an IOC vice president from Canada.

A few basic questions regarding drug testing in sports:

Are Tests Accurate?

The legally acceptable lab analysis is 99.44% accuracy. It is an important benchmark, for, without this assurance of accuracy sports officials have little defense against complaints from athletes who are suspicious of tests and their efficacy.

It is on this point that testing is most vulnerable. In fact, the majority of legal challenges have hinged on some detail of the procedure. The language of testing protocol is precise--doors in the testing area must have locks, for example.

If any one aspect is not followed to the letter, the test may be ruled invalid. This opens the door for clerical error--a mistake having nothing to do with the handling or actual testing of the sample--causing an otherwise positive test to be thrown out, letting the athlete off the hook.

Most drug-testing protocols allow for a dual sample collection, that is, the urine provided by the athlete is divided into an A and B sample. If the A sample tests positive, the B sample is then tested. If the B sample is negative, no action is taken. However, it is almost mathematically impossible that a B sample would test differently from an A sample.

If the B sample is also positive, the athlete is declared to have tested positive and, presumably, the test is reported to the national federation and sanctions are given.

Most testing protocols also allow for an appeals process, through which the athlete may appeal a positive test and seek reinstatement. In their 12 years of testing, Sport Canada has had two appeals. In both cases, the athletes won on procedural grounds.

In one case there was a brief blackout during the collection procedure. That athlete argued that the sample could have been tampered with. In the second case, the athlete questioned whether his sample had been switched with that of another athlete.

Canadian officials said there was little doubt that the athletes involved had taken banned substances, but that on technical grounds the athletes had a point. These cases illustrate the importance of maintaining the integrity of the procedure with close attention to detail.

The performance of the IOC-approved labs has been under fire of late. One lab in Australia lost its accreditation this year and another lost accreditation last year.

Further, Prince de Merode, the chairman of the IOC Medical Commission, has gone on the offensive against labs that are not measuring up. Several sports medicine officials, including those from the United States, have criticized the practices of some labs, describing them as sloppy and questionable. Considering the international breadth of the labs and the depth of the testing, it’s not difficult to understand the lack of standardization.

The Medical Commission says that is not acceptable. To shape up the laboratories, the Medical Commission has put together a 60-page how-to manual.

The commission also has spent much of the year investigating testing procedures in the accredited labs and has been given a mandate of redefining the IOC lab standards. The commission’s report will be delivered at the Seoul Olympics.

Until then, however, the commission has sent a get-tough message to the labs. Prince de Merode, attacking what he called “rogue” laboratories, sent a warning in May: “The Commission wishes to remind its accredited laboratories that the purpose of its action is based on deterrence of drug misuse and that it is strongly opposed to laboratories getting involved in testing athletes during training . . . in order to determine when to stop taking banned drugs and thus avoid detection.”

Are There Some Drugs The Tests Can’t Detect?

Several.

Even though blood doping is a banned practice by the IOC, scientists are a long way from devising a valid test for it. Officials say its use is increasing the fastest.

There also is no test for human growth hormone, which is secreted by the pituitary gland and used by athletes to maintain strength between cycles of steroid use. With the development of a synthetic form of the hormone, officials fear the drug will become available to more athletes than ever.

Because HGH is found naturally in the body, it is unlikely a test will ever be developed to determine excessive amounts.

There is no test for erythropoietin, an experimental drug that stimulates the production of red blood cells. It is thought that athletes may use this drug in place of blood doping. EPO is not yet on the IOC’s banned list, but one doctor said that even if it was it would be nearly impossible to detect.

What About Suppression Of Positive Test Results?

What’s known for sure is that it happens. What’s not known is how widespread.

Dr. Robert Voy, the chief medical officer for the U.S. Olympic Committee, in a strongly worded speech to the General Assembly of International Sports Federations in Colorado Springs, Colo., last year, said: “It is now time to admit that suppression of results by officials occurs. Athletes must have the assurance that positive cases will be dealt with by all national sport organizations no matter what athlete--superstar, rookie or journeyman--is involved. That is not the case today and you know it.”

Voy was talking about a scenario in which an athlete is tested and the positive result is never reported. But what about officials who arrange for athletes to avoid taking the test in the first place.

In a series of articles last year in the Times of London, several instances of this sort of abuse were detailed. The newspaper charged that in 1983 British officials struck a bargain with a delegation of athletes from East Germany, promising no testing at a track meet in England. A similar agreement was alleged to have been made that same year with a U.S. team that went to an indoor meet in Cosford.

The Times of London also reported that the British Amateur Athletic Board allowed a Soviet team to provide its own urine samples for the test but only under the supervision of Soviet, not British, medical officials. The Soviets were allowed to take the samples with them when they left.

These and other revelations have prompted the British to set up a board of inquiry to review the administration of testing.

In many ways, the manipulation of tests by officials is the most serious charge that can be made. Tampering by officials erodes confidence in the entire system.

An anonymous letter was circulated early this year to a wide range of U.S. track and field athletes, outlining in detail which drugs were less detectable and how to cycle drug use so as to avoid detection at competition testing.

The several pages were a comprehensive package telling an athlete how to cheat. The information was even sent, apparently inadvertently, to some track officials. The Athletics Congress said it is aware of the letter and has investigated to find out who sent it, apparently using a TAC mailing list.

TAC officials, especially, are sensitive to allegations of suppressed test results. Since track and field is what is termed a high profile drug sport, one with a proven high incidence of drug use, TAC officials seem to find themselves on the defensive. Mobil Grand Prix meets held in the United States and U.S. Olympic trials have long been the subject of rumor regarding the suppression of test results.

To combat this, TAC officials have organized a series of media seminars to explain in detail how the tests are administered. In a seminar in Indianapolis last February, Ollan Cassell, TAC executive director, strongly questioned the source of rumors.

“It has occurred to us that an awful lot of rumors have been going around in track in general, and some of it concerns us,” Cassell said. “As you can see from the testing procedures, there is no possible way that we can manipulate tests. The samples are taken and sealed in front of the athletes, then sent to the labs. We don’t touch the samples.”

Are Tests A Deterrent?

Under the current system, athletes know beforehand if there is to be testing at a competition. Many simply choose not to enter the competition, rather than submit to testing. Much the same happened at the Pepsi Invitational track meet at UCLA this year. When the meet organizer notified athletes in the men’s throwing events that there would be testing, so many throwers pulled out that he had to cancel the shotput and the discus.

Voy of the USOC estimates that if unannounced tests were conducted at competitions, as many as 50% of the athletes would test positive.

A recent survey of athletes found that 90% agree that drug testing prevents cheating. But it is not the test themselves that are the deterrent. Athletes are concerned more about punishment than getting caught.

The International Amateur Athletic Federation has some of the more specific, and stringent, testing and punishment schemes. The IAAF adopted rules in 1987 classifying two levels of drug use. If an athlete tests positive for substances such as anabolic steroids, he is suspended for two years in the first instance and banned for life for a second offense.

If an athlete tests positive for the second category--drugs such as ephedrine that might have come from a medication--the athlete is banned for three months for the first offense, two years for the second offense and life suspension for the third.

In addition, the IAAF has dropped its appeal process wherein athletes may contest a positive finding. That process has been applied at the national level.

The IAAF has joined such international federations as weightlifting and has moved to conduct random year-round tests. In making the announcement at the World Championships in Rome last summer, Arne Ljunqvist of the IAAF medical commission said: “We are fully aware that people are working on substances which conceal the use of drugs, and we are equally aware that many athletes take drugs for a given period and then stop before official competitions so they can’t be detected. So we have to strike back with the weapons we have--our authority and efficiency.”

The IAAF has also found another unique penalty--with the help of the World Sporting Goods Federation, clothing or shoe contracts will be canceled for athletes who test positive for drugs.

Are Drug Tests Constitutional?

The IAAF has adopted a rule that calls for random, unannounced, out-of-season testing.

TAC has already decided that it cannot apply the rule in the United States.

Generally, the issues center on the Fourth Amendment right against unlawful search and seizure, privacy and due process.

Internationally, the legal claims against testing have lagged behind those in the United States. Sports officials are suggesting, that as a means to get around the legal issues, that athletes be made to sign a waiver in order to compete, agreeing to all forms of testing.

These suggestions are still in the formative stages. However, one thing is sure, the future of drug testing in the United States will be guided by judges and attorneys, rather than athletes and sports officials.

DRUG TESTING AT THE OLYMPIC GAMES

YEAR SITE POSITIVES 1968 Grenoble 0 Mexico City 1 1972 Sapporo 1 Munich 7 1976 Innsbruck 2* Montreal 11 1980 Lake Placid 0 Moscow 0 1984 Sarajevo 1 Los Angeles 11 1988 Calgary 1

*A Czech hockey player was found to have taken codeine, for a cold. However, the athlete was allowed to play and the team doctor was banned for life by the IOC.