Tweet
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/...sures.16579495
JUST a day after we expressed the belief that increased testing is not necessarily the most effective answer for either UK or global anti-doping initiatives, it was a revelation yesterday to read research published by the Carnegie Research Institute at Leeds Metropolitan University.
They produced damning statistics on disturbing levels of drug use from club to international level in a wide range of sports. They did not explore our assertions on the introduction of bio markers by pharmaceutical companies, or our suggestion that encouraging whistleblowers would more effectively combat the cancer of drugs in sport.
Leeds Met says the study reveals the limitations of drug-testing policy and identifies insufficient education as the reason for failure. It is a logical conclusion on the basis of their research which throws up a disparity which UK Anti-Doping may find embarrassing.
The Carnegie research involved 729 competitors in 54 sports. These athletes, who responded anonymously, had been approached through their sport governing bodies. No fewer than 50 admitted to either current (17) or former (33) use of performance-enhancing drugs. A dip in performance or potential loss of funding would be a trigger for doping.
Lisa Whitaker, lead researcher for the Carnegie project, confirms that of 210 international competitors surveyed, four were either current or former users; the same applied to 14 out of 142 competitors at national level, 17 out of 141 at county standard, and 11 out of 225 at club or university level. Many athletes declined to answer questions on current and former use, suggesting drug usage levels may be significantly higher.
Set against the fact that during the year to April 2011, the UK anti-doping programme conducted 7500 "test missions" with just 24 "cases" (including absence from locations where athletes had previously indicated availability for testing), this does, indeed, suggest testing alone is of limited effectiveness. With 17 current users in the Carnegie sample of 729, one might anticipate a detection rate upwards of 170 cases in a sample of 7500. And if one believes the anti-doping movement's claims that long-term former use is detectable, then a number of former users (some 330 given the Leeds figures) might surely have been detectable in the UK body's 7500 "missions".
This certainly casts doubt on the strategy of targeting suspects or, even worse, may indicate that the system is failing because competitors have found a way to avoid detection; remember Marion Jones passed 167 tests while being a serial abuser?
UK Anti-doping describes the Leeds research as a "summary of what is already known and agreed", and says this is "the basis of our prevention strategy".
Although they target key individuals from coaches to parents, as well as competitors, with prevention messages, they spend just £323,000 of their £7.3m operating budget (staff costs £2.08m) on education.
They have five full-time education and athlete support posts, plus 12 freelance staff who deliver programmes on request. They point out that the World Anti-Doping Agency believes as many as 10% of sports competitors may be dopers.
The Leeds study reveals that the vast majority of athletes use nutritional supplements, despite insufficient knowledge of the risks, and despite the fact that the industry is unregulated, exposing users to the risk of contamination (and a positive test).
A total of 65% think using nutrition supplements incorrectly will not have any health consequences despite proven potential for renal failure, seizures, and caffeine intoxication. And 65% think they will gain financially by using performance-enhancing drugs.
Ignorance is clearly widespread. Education would help. But better use of resources also seems indicated.
And another thing
It is encouraging, to say the least, to find two Brits who did not feature in the world top 20 a year ago, now ranked No.1 in the world.
Pole vaulter Holly Bleasdale, world No.24 indoors last winter, went top of the world rankings on Saturday, setting three British records, finishing with 4.87 metres. That puts her 10cm higher than her nearest rival this year, and 17cm ahead of world record-holder Yelena Isinbayeva.
On the same day, high jumper Robbie Grabarz cleared a lifetime best of 2.34m, also best in the world this winter. Grabarz was ranked 35th in the world a year ago.
Olympic year always brings out the best, especially in athletes of the host nation. It's one thing to do it now, of course, and quite another to deliver in an Olympic final, but these are performances from unheralded athletes, which, if replicated, are capable of putting them on the podium at the Games.This should be an inspiration to Scots to become likewise inspired, both now and for Glasgow 2014.
JUST a day after we expressed the belief that increased testing is not necessarily the most effective answer for either UK or global anti-doping initiatives, it was a revelation yesterday to read research published by the Carnegie Research Institute at Leeds Metropolitan University.
They produced damning statistics on disturbing levels of drug use from club to international level in a wide range of sports. They did not explore our assertions on the introduction of bio markers by pharmaceutical companies, or our suggestion that encouraging whistleblowers would more effectively combat the cancer of drugs in sport.
Leeds Met says the study reveals the limitations of drug-testing policy and identifies insufficient education as the reason for failure. It is a logical conclusion on the basis of their research which throws up a disparity which UK Anti-Doping may find embarrassing.
The Carnegie research involved 729 competitors in 54 sports. These athletes, who responded anonymously, had been approached through their sport governing bodies. No fewer than 50 admitted to either current (17) or former (33) use of performance-enhancing drugs. A dip in performance or potential loss of funding would be a trigger for doping.
Lisa Whitaker, lead researcher for the Carnegie project, confirms that of 210 international competitors surveyed, four were either current or former users; the same applied to 14 out of 142 competitors at national level, 17 out of 141 at county standard, and 11 out of 225 at club or university level. Many athletes declined to answer questions on current and former use, suggesting drug usage levels may be significantly higher.
Set against the fact that during the year to April 2011, the UK anti-doping programme conducted 7500 "test missions" with just 24 "cases" (including absence from locations where athletes had previously indicated availability for testing), this does, indeed, suggest testing alone is of limited effectiveness. With 17 current users in the Carnegie sample of 729, one might anticipate a detection rate upwards of 170 cases in a sample of 7500. And if one believes the anti-doping movement's claims that long-term former use is detectable, then a number of former users (some 330 given the Leeds figures) might surely have been detectable in the UK body's 7500 "missions".
This certainly casts doubt on the strategy of targeting suspects or, even worse, may indicate that the system is failing because competitors have found a way to avoid detection; remember Marion Jones passed 167 tests while being a serial abuser?
UK Anti-doping describes the Leeds research as a "summary of what is already known and agreed", and says this is "the basis of our prevention strategy".
Although they target key individuals from coaches to parents, as well as competitors, with prevention messages, they spend just £323,000 of their £7.3m operating budget (staff costs £2.08m) on education.
They have five full-time education and athlete support posts, plus 12 freelance staff who deliver programmes on request. They point out that the World Anti-Doping Agency believes as many as 10% of sports competitors may be dopers.
The Leeds study reveals that the vast majority of athletes use nutritional supplements, despite insufficient knowledge of the risks, and despite the fact that the industry is unregulated, exposing users to the risk of contamination (and a positive test).
A total of 65% think using nutrition supplements incorrectly will not have any health consequences despite proven potential for renal failure, seizures, and caffeine intoxication. And 65% think they will gain financially by using performance-enhancing drugs.
Ignorance is clearly widespread. Education would help. But better use of resources also seems indicated.
And another thing
It is encouraging, to say the least, to find two Brits who did not feature in the world top 20 a year ago, now ranked No.1 in the world.
Pole vaulter Holly Bleasdale, world No.24 indoors last winter, went top of the world rankings on Saturday, setting three British records, finishing with 4.87 metres. That puts her 10cm higher than her nearest rival this year, and 17cm ahead of world record-holder Yelena Isinbayeva.
On the same day, high jumper Robbie Grabarz cleared a lifetime best of 2.34m, also best in the world this winter. Grabarz was ranked 35th in the world a year ago.
Olympic year always brings out the best, especially in athletes of the host nation. It's one thing to do it now, of course, and quite another to deliver in an Olympic final, but these are performances from unheralded athletes, which, if replicated, are capable of putting them on the podium at the Games.This should be an inspiration to Scots to become likewise inspired, both now and for Glasgow 2014.