Y ask Y:
Getting serious for once.
I've been reading stories about drug scandals for years (as part of my job and via the
Net), and I'm not so naive as to think drugging doesn't exist on same large scale.
But I've been bothered by the real possibility that so-called drug experts in the IOC,
IAAF and elsewhere have no clue why drugs show up in someone's system when a person
has been tested a zillion times before and been declared clean.
Biologists are finding that nature works in pretty bizarre ways (i.e. trees that
"talk" to each other to warn of pests, triggering a chemical that's toxic to certain
insects) and nutritionists continue to amaze us with research that certain food or
vitamin combinations lead to strange results. So why should we assume that scientists
in Lausanne or London or Monaco or UCLA know all there is about drug interactions
within the body?
Nandrolone appears to pop up after athletes take diet supplements that contain NO
nandrolone. Or the diet supplements launch a mysteriuous sequence that leads to
production of steroids in an athlete's body.
It's possible that athletes know this -- and have a cover story when they're caught.
But it's also possible that diet supplements that trigger steroid production are a
complete surprise to athletes (as they tearfully defend themselves in front of five
dozen camera crews).
Of course, no elite athlete should ingest ANYTHING that they haven't surveyed by
electron microscope. But if the best nutritionists in the world can't agree whether
chocolate is good for you, what can we expect of the world's doping experts?
Politics will permeate any large organization, including track governing bodied -- but
good, hard science should prevail at some point.
The question is: When?
Ken Stone
