That unequal fight between banned substances and controls

In times of cancellations, post-truths and absolutist thoughts, we are losing the possibility of learning through debate.

These are years in which it is difficult for us to hear arguments different from ours and, in this way, to enrich ourselves intellectually.

Let’s imagine what our intimate reunions with friends would have been like if, at the end of the evening, everyone had gone home convinced not only that the only truth is their own but that none of their own deserves to be discussed. How many fewer mistakes would we make if we accepted the possibility that we all have something to learn from each other. After all, who do we trust more than our lifelong friends?

A couple of weeks ago, the world of sports -especially the Olympic one- was shaken by the announcement of an Australian businessman based in England named Aaron D’Souza, in which he promotes the holding of the so-called Enhanced Games, or competitions open to athletes without any type of doping control.

Surely many of you have read and listened to the point of exhaustion regarding the proposal and the businessman’s conviction that, “giving absolute freedom to the athlete, countless records will be crushed”

I can also imagine a crowd of sports fans outraged by the project.

I largely agree with the initial rejection. However, I think that, based on this initiative with many aspects between inconductive and provocative, High Performance sports could well bring to the table a few dark and toxic issues regarding the use of banned substances and how they have been proceeding in this regard from certain desks.

The first thing that comes to mind is the unequal struggle between the production of new stimulant substances and the volume of prohibited consumption and the ability of the controls to detect.

It has always been a race between a Formula 1 and a horse-drawn car.

Then, the memories of what happened at the World Athletics Championships in London in July 2017.

A total of eleven athletes and five post teams upgraded their rankings compared to previous world championships in which the positive cases were discovered a few years later.

For example, Jessica Ennis, a British heptathlete, went from silver to gold medals due to a positive result from Russian Tatiana Chernova in the competition corresponding to Daegu. The North American station 4 x 400 experienced the same situation.

There were also changes in classification compared to five cases corresponding to Osaka 2007: podiums corrected a decade later show that something is not working properly in the doping versus anti-doping equation.

Probably the most dramatic case in this regard has to do with the Lance Armstrong-Tour de France saga.

The North American phenomenon had the seven consecutive triumphs achieved between 1999 and 2005 canceled. Not only were the titles vacant, but it soon became known that several of his teammates and rivals had not been able to overcome the controls either.

Olympism speaks of the fight against doping as a moral commitment to the pursuit of fair play. Unfortunately, year after year, it becomes clear that the proclamation still has more of a saying than in fact.

Beyond good intentions, reality shows something other than desire.

Surely the solution is not the one that D’Souza wants to impose. However, if the scene were divided between substances that, in addition to improving performance, harm the bodies of athletes compared to some that, even without complying with established rules, are harmless in terms of health, a shortcut could be found to prevent the battle from continuing to be so unequal.

And that we must never again consecrate champions ten years after a competition.