How doping control is carried out for Olympic winners. Olympic Games and doping. Classification of doping drugs

A paradoxical situation has developed in professional sports: on the one hand, the laws of show business, which big sport has now become, require from athletes results beyond the bounds of human capabilities, on the other hand, athletes are prohibited from taking drugs that help the body withstand these crazy loads. How this could have happened, Kommersant-Sport correspondent Ekaterina Avetisyan finds out.

Well-known American athletes, totaling about 50 people, in whose analyzes a new type of doping was discovered - tetrahydrogestrinone (THG), have so far been summoned to court as witnesses, but the sword of Damocles of disqualification and deprivation of previously won titles hangs over many of them. The development of the struggle between those who manufacture new types of doping and those who monitor their appearance and prevent athletes from using them has led to the fact that perhaps the main sports intrigue these days is the pharmaceutical intrigue. To understand what led to this and what can come out of it, one should turn to the history of pharmacological intervention in the life of athletes - in other words, doping.

"Pure" fight

Strictly speaking, despite the fact that the official ideology of the modern international sports movement is a return to fair and doping-free competition, sport has never been “clean”. Already by the time of the first modern Olympic Games, which took place in 1896, athletes had a fairly wide arsenal of pharmacological support, from codeine to strychnine (in near-lethal doses it is a powerful stimulant). True, in most cases, athletes actually blindly experimented on themselves, which could sometimes end disastrously for them. Thus, at the 1904 Olympic Games, American Thomas Hicks, who won the marathon race, was pumped out by four doctors after taking brandy with the addition of cocaine and strychnine as a stimulant. They pumped me out... and awarded me a gold medal.

The real beginning of the modern era of doping should be considered 1935, when injectable testosterone was created. First used by Nazi doctors to increase aggressiveness in soldiers, a little later it confidently entered the sport along with German athletes in 1936 at the Berlin Olympics, and then, after the end of World War II, it was actively used in preparing the USSR national team to participate in the 1952 Olympic Games .

The stunning success of the Soviet team was completely unexpected for their opponents. However, it soon became clear that the “magic” remedy, as it seemed at first, had quite serious side effects. Leading pharmacological laboratories and institutes began searching for a solution to this problem.

Era of anabolics

Soon the efforts of pharmacologists were rewarded: already in 1955, the first steroid with increased anabolic properties, Dianabol, appeared on the market.

The quantities in which this drug and its derivatives began to be used can only be described as madness. By the early 1960s, according to one American football player, coaches were filling salad bowls with Dianabol and setting them on the table. The athletes took handfuls of pills and ate them with bread. They called it the "breakfast of champions." Soviet athletes also remember the same thing. Sometimes the number of tablets, for example retabolil (a drug used to restore the body), went off scale at twenty pieces per day, despite the fact that the therapeutic dose of the drug for muscle recovery after injury is three to four tablets per day. Everyone drank, they just didn’t talk about it out loud.

Probably, it was then that the foundations of the system were laid, according to the laws of which big sport still lives today, 50 years later. The component of pharmacology in the sport of great achievements is so great that without exaggeration we can say: all other things being equal, in the arenas there was and is a struggle of doctors rather than athletes.

Sometimes this struggle took on a completely detective shade. For example, in 1988, in order to avoid doping scandals, all Soviet athletes participating in the Seoul Olympics were tested by their doctors on the eve of the start. Those whose tests turned out to be positive were withdrawn from the competition “for health reasons.” Especially for this purpose, a secret doping laboratory was equipped on the ship where part of the Soviet delegation lived. Everything would be fine, but upon entering the deck - it was already considered Soviet territory - it was necessary to go through mandatory border control. What it took for the members of the Soviet delegation to hand over the treasured test tubes to the doctors, they still remember with a shudder: border guards were waiting at the entrance to the deck, and in the city almost every one of them was being watched by the Korean secret services. In order not to disgrace the honor of the flag, we had to resort to all sorts of tricks: securely hiding test tubes in the folds of clothing, “getting away from the tail,” discreetly passing samples to each other...

Fight and search

Despite the fact that the history of modern sports is already counting down its second hundred years, the fight against the dark side of sports medicine began a little over 40 years ago, when Danish cyclist Kurt Jensen died on the course at the 1960 Olympics in Rome. Already in 1967, the IOC Medical Commission was established. At the same time, the first list of prohibited drugs was compiled and the rule of mandatory doping control at international competitions was introduced. The debut of the IOC medical commission took place in 1968 at the Winter Games in Grenoble and the Summer Games in Mexico City.

Since then, the IOC anti-doping structures have come very far. The work of the IOC medical commission reached its apogee in 1999, when, to strengthen the fight against “chemistry,” the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was created, which set to work so zealously that now not a single athlete can feel calm (what can we say if officials of this organization can get an athlete out of bed at night and send him for doping control).

Find and legitimize

Thus, the issue of doping control finally turned into a global problem in sports. The sports community should no longer have any illusions: the Anti-Doping Code places WADA above the sport. IOC President Jacques Rogge, himself a former doctor who lobbies the interests of the agency, says: “We will suspect everyone and everyone. I am ready to do without the participation of the best basketball or hockey players in the Games if they refuse to obey the rules.”

The concept of “prohibit and keep out” ultimately led the sport to a dead end. After all, prize money continues to grow, which means that athletes, even at risk to their health and career, will continue to take chemistry. Television and sponsors still expect athletes to achieve records. And pharmaceutical companies will never stop producing more and more new drugs.

Some people see a way out of this situation in the legalization of doping. Indeed, why can you consume handfuls of digestive enzymes, artificially improving digestion and, therefore, anabolism, but you cannot use, say, testosterone? Why is ascorbic acid in megadoses good and natural, but methandrostenalone is unnatural and harmful? These are just medicines. In some doses it is poison (including vitamins), and in others it is medicine and salvation. Today, athletes are exposed to the pathogenic effects of overload, therefore, they need constant prevention and treatment.

Laboratory work

Others are advocating for further tightening of the rules and an increase in the list of prohibited drugs. And it seems that the latter have a better chance of success. Everything is simple to the point of banality: the greater the number of drugs included in this list, the more expensive, naturally, the doping test. First of all, manufacturers of expensive equipment for doping laboratories are interested in this (the cost of one, depending on the equipment, ranges from two to three to tens of millions of dollars). An increase in the list of prohibited drugs forces laboratories to update their “fleet” of instruments every three to five years. Already today, many large tournaments in terms of doping control are more expensive than the competitions themselves.

It seems that everything is heading to the point that very soon fans will be waiting not for sports competitions, but for the results of doping control, and reveling not in the beauty of competitions, but in the scandals that accompany them. After all, everyone knows that without pharmacology modern sport is impossible. Nevertheless, they continue to pretend that all current records are the result of the harmonious development of the human body. Indicative in this regard are the words of the 1972 Olympic champion in marathon running, American Frank Shorter. When journalists asked him whether he would compete in four years at the Olympic Games in Montreal, the champion replied: “I will... If I find a good pharmacologist.”

Classification of doping drugs

The name "doping" comes from the English word "dope", which means "to give a drug". According to the definition of the medical commission of the International Olympic Committee, doping is the introduction into the body of athletes by any means (in the form of injections, tablets, inhalation, etc.) of pharmacological drugs that artificially increase performance and athletic performance. According to this definition, a drug can be considered doping only if it itself or its breakdown products can be determined in biological fluids of the body (blood, urine) with a high degree of accuracy and reliability.

Currently, doping agents include:

1. Stimulants (central nervous system stimulants, sympathomimetics, analgesics). The effect of stimulants is similar to the effect obtained from the action of adrenaline. In any organism there are always fuses that do not allow the reserves built into it to be completely used up. Stimulants remove them, so that under extremely high loads the athlete draws his strength from the “emergency reserve”. Most of these drugs have dose-related side effects: respiratory depression and the risk of sudden death. The use of stimulants can cause an accident to occur to an athlete as a result of an inadequate assessment of the situation. In addition, abuse of stimulants leads to drug dependence.

2. Drugs (narcotic analgesics). These include morphine and its chemical and pharmacological analogues, which act on the central nervous system and reduce pain. These drugs increase the pain threshold so much that the athlete is unable to recognize how serious the injury is. They cause very rapid addiction, leading to severe dependence.

3. Anabolic steroids and other hormonal anabolic agents. Chemicals that cause accelerated muscle growth and increased muscle strength. Unlike stimulants, which allow you to use the body's emergency reserves of strength, anabolic steroids increase these reserves and allow the athlete to withstand loads several times greater than usual. However, interference with normal hormonal activity causes detrimental side effects such as tumor growth, psychiatric syndromes, and hepatic and renal dysfunction.

4. Beta blockers. A group of drugs acting on the so-called beta receptors. As a result of use, the heart rate decreases and an antiarrhythmic effect is caused. Beta blockers are used by athletes to calm and reduce tremors in sports that require precise coordination, such as archery, shooting, and diving. At the same time, these drugs increase fatigue and reduce endurance.

5. Diuretics (diuretics). In some sports, such as weightlifting, boxing, wrestling and others, diuretics are used to quickly lose weight. In bodybuilding, diuretics are used to improve muscle definition. In addition, diuretics are often used to reduce the concentration of other illicit drugs in the urine. This procedure is aimed at concealing the presence of doping agents in the body and therefore, naturally, is prohibited. Side effects of using diuretics include dehydration and muscle cramps.

If you try to rank doping drugs according to the degree of their threat to the health and life of an athlete, you will get the following picture: the most dangerous are stimulants and drugs (used immediately before or during starts, they can cause death right on the track), in second place are anabolics and beta blockers (as a rule, the serious consequences of using these drugs “emerge” several years after the end of a sports career) and diuretics, which, when used wisely, are practically harmless, close the list.

In addition, doping methods include:

1. Blood doping (taking blood from an athlete a certain period before the competition and infusing it back immediately before the start). The use of blood doping can lead to the development of allergic reactions (rash, fever), impaired renal function, circulatory overload, the formation of blood clots and the development of metabolic shock.

2. Pharmacological, chemical and mechanical manipulations with biological fluids (masking agents, adding aromatic compounds to urine samples, sample substitution, suppression of urine excretion by the kidneys).

What is tetrahydrogestrinone?

Despite the fact that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has already recommended that international federations recheck the samples of leading athletes for the content of tetrahydrogestrinone (THG), information about the new drug is still extremely scarce. WADA, on its official website, fighting off numerous questions that the journalistic fraternity bombarded the agency with, issued a press release where it tried to clarify the situation, but, it seems, it confused it even more. So what do we know?

THG is a modification of trenbolone, an anabolic steroid that is hundreds, maybe thousands of times stronger than nandrolone. The raw materials used to produce THG are still unknown, as is exactly when it was invented. Everything related to the side effects of using a new drug is also shrouded in secrecy. Naturally, no research has been conducted on this matter. However, as stated in the WADA press release, it can be assumed that this will be baldness and impotence for men and increased hair growth for women.

Today, all 30 laboratories accredited by the IOC have a technique that allows them to detect new doping in athletes’ samples.

The IAAF, the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport and the Portuguese National Anti-Doping Agency have so far agreed to recheck the samples stored in the laboratories.

"No one has yet defined what doping is"

Deputy Director of the All-Russian Research Institute of Physical Culture, Professor Timur Absalyamov told Kommersant-Sport correspondent Ekaterina Avetisyan about what Russia got by joining WADA, as well as about what hinders the fight against doping.

— WADA’s activities today attract the attention of the whole world. Russia was one of those countries that were the first to join this organization. Are there any positive aspects from this step or was it a purely routine procedure to keep up with others?

— I don’t want to draw any parallels, but unlike Russia, the United States has not joined WADA. Please note that all the latest scandals are related to American athletes. Membership in such an organization is, first of all, an opportunity to quickly receive complete information about everything that is happening in the world of sports and doping, in other words, to keep your finger on the pulse. After all, most of the scandals in which our athletes were involved are connected precisely with the fact that for some reason neither doctors, nor coaches, nor the athletes themselves were aware of the latest news. This is what happened in Salt Lake City, when, having just arrived in America, our ski team suddenly discovered that, it turns out, the prohibited substance darbepoetin, for which there was no test previously, was already being successfully “detected” by laboratories. This was the case with Lyubov Egorova, who drank bromantane when it was already on the list of prohibited drugs. And many examples can be given.

— How long does it usually take today from the invention of a drug to its inclusion in the list of prohibited drugs?

— Well, unofficially the whole world becomes aware of a new invention literally the next day, but the whole procedure with testing and imposing a ban takes a year and a half.

— Although there has been talk for a long time that doping should be allowed, I think it is still dangerous to do so. It is also wrong and constantly increasing the list of prohibited drugs is a dead end. We need to look for ways to regulate and regulate the use of doping drugs.

- What's stopping this?

“The problem is that for almost 50 years, experts have not been able to give a clear definition of what doping is. After all, the definition of “something that improves athletic performance and can be harmful to health” also includes training... So what, now ban athletes from training? We thought and thought, and decided to add one more point to the wording - “violates the ethical values ​​of sport and the rules of fair play.” But show me a skier who would refuse good lubrication, or a rider who would ride an inferior bike model to the detriment of his results. Everything is very fragile, and this is the main problem.

Victims of doping

Paradoxically, despite the fact that the whole world has been actively fighting doping for decades, no one keeps statistics on deaths as a result of excessive use of doping drugs, of which there have been many in the history of sports. Why WADA has not yet used these facts as the best anti-doping advertising is unclear. Nevertheless, Kommersant-Sport correspondent Ekaterina Avetisyan managed to put together a number of facts.

1886 - the first recorded case of doping: English cyclist David Linton died at a competition in France from taking an excessive dose of cocaine and heroin.
1912 - a marathon runner died from a drug overdose at the Olympic Games in Stockholm.
1960 - cyclists Knud Jensen and Dick Howard died during a bicycle race (use of amphetamines)
1967 - Tommy Simpson died of an amphetamine overdose during the Tour de France.
1983 - water polo player Billy Ylvisaker (cocaine)
1986 - American basketball player Leo Bayes died as a result of cocaine abuse
1987 - professional football player Don Rogers (also cocaine abuse); all-around athlete Bejit Dressel (anabolic steroids); bodybuilder David Singh (anabolic steroids)

This is not a complete list of doping victims; these are only those cases where doctors were able to establish that death occurred directly from taking a stimulant. No fewer athletes died at home, in bed, having already finished their performances, and the illness seemed in no way related to sports activities. For example, in 1998, the entire sports world was shocked by the death of the American runner, Olympic champion in the 100 and 200 meters, Florence Griffiths-Joyner, who, however, had never been caught doping in her career. Meanwhile, the phenomenal records set by a previously unremarkable American woman back in 1988, when she managed to run 100 meters in 10.49 seconds at the Olympics in Seoul, have not yet been broken. The vast majority of experts believe that it is impossible to show such seconds without additional stimulants. In addition, it is also alarming that Griffith-Joyner announced the end of her career immediately after the IOC tightened doping control rules.

Oh sport, you are a syringe!

The unofficial world doping championship continues

Afsati Jusoity

What did the deceased take?

The fight against doping is waged by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) under the slogan: “Give fair play!” The cornerstone on which all anti-doping policy rests is the belief that chemicals violate the principle of competition by giving individual athletes an unfair advantage. In addition, it is believed, and not without reason, that the passion for doping causes serious harm to the health of the athletes themselves. The IOC is generally a very conservative organization, and especially in everything that concerns tricks that lead to improved results. By the way, even the equipment used by athletes (skates, spikes, poles, rackets, etc.) is subject to mandatory and very tedious certification. What can we say about doping?

The fight against the dark side of sports medicine began in 1960. Until then, the IOC simply preferred to turn a blind eye to the doping problem. But when at the Olympics in Rome one of the cyclists died right on the course, sports officials perked up. Confirmation that the death was caused by excessive doping could not be obtained. But the investigation showed that this option is the most likely. They even found out which group of drugs the deceased took - amphetamines, which significantly increase endurance due to the body's reserve forces. And already at the next Olympics, held in Tokyo, athletes began to be checked for doping. True, this did not bear fruit, since methods for guaranteed detection of certain substances in the human body had not yet been developed.

But already in 1967, the IOC medical commission was established. At the same time, the first list of prohibited drugs was compiled and the rule on mandatory doping control at international competitions was introduced. The debut of the IOC medical commission took place in 1968 at the Winter Games in Grenoble and the Summer Games in Mexico City. A stupid debut, I must say. At the Winter Olympics they couldn’t catch anyone at all, but at the Summer Olympics they had to settle for a pentathlete who showed up to the competition drunk: he smelled so bad that no test was needed.

Tea with cocaine

Since then, the IOC anti-doping structures have come very far. The work of the IOC medical commission reached its apogee towards the end of the last century. Created to intensify the fight against “chemists,” the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) got to work so zealously that now not a single athlete can feel calm. Indeed, for some time now WADA has acquired the right to check athletes outside of competitions. That is, they can apply for a test not only to training or training camp, but also simply to go home. Doping passports are issued for athletes, which contain all the data on tests passed, medications taken by the athlete, his illnesses, etc. With such total control, it would seem that athletes would not be able to think about any doping. After all, as stated in the WADA report summing up the results of the Sydney Olympics, even before the start of the Games, 2,700 athletes passed the test. This is despite the fact that in total just over 10 thousand people took part in the competition. In addition, during the Games, another 3,200 tests were carried out.

Now it is becoming clear to many that the IOC is going too far in its fight for the purity of sport. The list of prohibited drugs is constantly growing - it already includes more than 300 substances and their derivatives. And this leads to the fact that athletes, even if they become quite seriously ill, refuse treatment, hoping that the sores will go away on their own. The explanation for such a strange position is simple: there is no guarantee that if you take a drug that does not seem to be on the stop list, you will not run into disqualification after the next doping test. The IOC leadership, however, rejects this argument, stating that there are more than 15,000 medications in the world, many of which are identical in action, and athletes have the opportunity to choose how to be treated. But still, even the treatment of a banal acute respiratory infection is best carried out by athletes under the supervision of a sports doctor. Otherwise, it turns out that ordinary painkillers, many of which contain caffeine, will cause disqualification.

But caution in choosing medications is still all right. But you still need to think about what not to eat. It used to be that sausage was just sausage, meat was meat, and yogurt was yogurt. Not everyone can determine for themselves what manufacturers are hiding under beautiful packaging these days. And then the athlete will buy something in the bluest store, and then traces of prohibited drugs will appear in his urine! It may seem to some that such a situation is completely incredible, but the IOC medical commission has been conducting research for more than a year in order to make recommendations for athletes on what they can eat and what it is better to abstain from. The commission is just developing the menu, but many athletes have already seen from their own experience how dangerous, for example, various kinds of national cuisine are. In the late 1980s, football team players who came to play in Colombia suddenly began to find traces of cocaine in their urine over and over again. They swore that they never came close to drugs, but the fact was obvious. Then a huge scandal was avoided: it turned out that the football players ordered from local restaurants a drink called tea in Colombia, and when brewing it, coca leaves are used, among other things. But where is the guarantee that next time we will be able to find an equally simple explanation?

Or remember the completely ridiculous incident at the Winter Olympics in Nagano in 1998. Then Canadian Ross Rebagliati, who became a snowboarding champion, was stripped of his medal because traces of marijuana were found in his blood. Marijuana is on the stop list, but what kind of advantage it can give an athlete is not specified anywhere. In addition, it turned out that Rebagliati could have smoked a cigarette six months before the Olympics, then not touched marijuana at all, and still his test would have given a positive result, simply because marijuana tends to linger in the body. After some reflection, the decision to disqualify was overturned and the medal was returned.

Not caught, not a thief

Of course, the improvement of methods for detecting doping is accompanied by no less, or even more intensive improvement of methods for hiding its traces.

Almost every self-respecting sports power has national anti-doping centers. The IOC takes special credit for this. However, according to many experts, in reality they are primarily engaged in nothing more than improving the methods of using prohibited substances. So the prefix “anti” is not very appropriate here.

The author of these lines attended a meeting of the board of the Ministry of Sports before the Sydney Olympics. There, among other things, one of the deputy ministers said that if Russia does not urgently receive a new anti-doping center, then our athletes will not be able to properly prepare for international competitions and all this could lead to an avalanche of disqualifications of Russian athletes.

And it’s not only Russia that is “preparing” for the competition. When was it that athletes were disqualified for doping in domestic competitions? This practically never happens. Traces of doping, of course, are revealed, but the case does not receive official progress, and everything is limited to issuing a verbal warning to the athlete and his coach. And they regard this not as a punishment, but as a signal about an insufficiently developed training methodology.

In general, if you look at the representatives of which countries are most often caught en masse in chemistry, it becomes clear that these are primarily athletes from poor countries. The fact is that equipment for a modern anti-doping center is very expensive. And besides, the country must have very qualified specialists. Where will they come from if there is no developed chemical and pharmacological industry? So it turns out that representatives of rich countries are much less common. However, they also have punctures.

Goodwill needles

Juan Antonio Samaranch, now a former president of the IOC, once said that the most terrible day in the history of the modern Olympic movement was the disqualification of the world record holder in the 100-meter race, Ben Johnson. “One more case like this, and the Olympic movement can be put to rest,” Samaranch said.

At the Games in Seoul in 1988, traces of stanozol, a drug from the anabolic group, were found in Johnson’s sample. This happened after he ran the distance with a fantastic time of 9.79 seconds.

As it turned out later, Johnson had been taking stanozol for many years and had never been caught. But it's official. In fact, some people knew that he was taking doping long before the Seoul Olympics.

The fact is that for the Moscow Games of 1980, the Soviet government, without stinting, purchased ultra-modern equipment for the anti-doping center. He was, if not the best in the world, then one of the best. Largely thanks to this, five years later, Soviet specialists managed to reproduce, using existing equipment, the technique of Czech professor Berndjich Hundela, which made it possible to detect traces of stanozol. They just didn’t shout about it at every corner. And in 1986, the first ever Goodwill Games were held in Moscow. Johnson also fled there. He, of course, won the race and, sincerely believing that no laboratory in the world would determine his passion for anabolic steroids, he went to take the test. But no. In the sample of Johnson, and then a dozen other athletes, traces of anabolic steroids were detected. But none of them were hurt. The USSR authorities decided not to spoil the holiday, and the names of the violators were not made public. Johnson left with the medal and then passed doping tests twelve more times until he was caught in Seoul. It is noteworthy that the accreditation of the Korean anti-doping center was carried out by Moscow specialists, who set up the equipment there to detect stanozol. But if it had been hinted to Ben Johnson then, in 1986, that not everything was all right with him, he would have urgently taken action and, perhaps, would still be considered the greatest of the greats.

Sports for mutants

Over the past 20 years, the IOC, under the leadership of Samaranch, has been pursuing the commercialization of sports. Prize money for victories in tournaments was constantly growing, and athletes were injecting more and more intensely in pursuit of money. The situation will not change in the future. After all, prize money continues to grow, which means that athletes, albeit at risk to their health and career, will continue to take chemicals. Television and sponsors still expect athletes to achieve records. And pharmaceutical companies will never stop producing more and more new drugs. Moreover, recently, drugs are increasingly being created specifically for use in sports, and not for sale in pharmacies. IOC Medical Director Patrick Schmeich recently admitted that we should soon expect the emergence of drugs that, by acting on a person’s DNA, will allow him to very quickly build muscle mass or, by increasing the size of red blood cells, to become fantastically resilient. It would be nice, Schmeich said, to find a way to identify such mutants, but he doesn’t know how to do this.

However, there is no reason to consider the IOC a loser in this forty-year war. Paradoxically, he has already achieved his main goal - to provide athletes with equal conditions in competitions. After all, everyone shoots, which means the strongest wins.

History of Olympic doping

At the Athens Olympics, the anti-doping laboratory works around the clock

Before an athlete enters the doping test room, he must remove all clothing... below the waist. The door must be slightly open during the test. Moreover, regardless of whether the doping control officer is a man or a woman. These are the rules.
We talked about doping and doping scandals at the Athens Olympics with the director of the Kazakh anti-doping laboratory, Doctor of Biological Sciences Talgat Talbaev.
On the eve of the Olympics, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) officially announced that the fight against doping at the Olympics will be very tough. However, as expected, some athletes ignored these threats. Several high-profile doping scandals broke out in Athens.

“Before the Olympics, athletes from most countries participating in the Games undergo doping control, as they say, for themselves,” says Talgat Talbaev.

— Everyone wants to make sure that there are no prohibited substances in their tests. Some Kazakh athletes also underwent doping tests in our laboratory before leaving for Athens.
- And what are the results?
— We found no traces of illegal drugs. But there is one "but". There are approximately 140 prohibited substances on the anti-doping list. Our laboratory detects approximately 80 percent of this number. Therefore, not all of our athletes passed doping tests at home.

— They were probably tested in other laboratories?
- Maybe. There are about 40 anti-doping laboratories in the world. The most advanced laboratory is considered to be in Cologne (Germany). In America, the laboratory in Los Angeles is central; in Europe, laboratories in Paris and Barcelona are at the forefront. By the way, the anti-doping organization in Barcelona is headed by the secretary of the IOC Committee on Doping and Biochemistry, Professor Sigura.

— How is the doping test procedure carried out?
— Athletes are required to remove all clothing below the waist. The Doping Control Officer must ensure that the athlete submits his own urine test. There have been cases when athletes tried to smuggle “clean” urine in plastic bags.
To carry out the analysis, 75 milliliters are required. The athlete prints two special test tubes - for samples A and B, pours urine into them and seals them himself. Officers are advised not to touch the test tubes with their hands at all. Then the test tubes are assigned a code. Naturally, no first and last names, only numbers. Access to such information is limited. At the Athens Olympics, the anti-doping laboratory operates 24 hours a day.
— Are there any time limits for taking a doping test?
- No. The Doping Control Officer must wait as long as the athlete requires.
— At the Athens Olympics, Russian shot putter Irina Korzhanenko was stripped of her gold medal for using stanozolol. What can you say about this drug?

— It is used to increase muscle mass. In general, almost all known doping drugs are used in medicine. The same stanozolol has been used for more than 20 years for insufficient protein synthesis, in other words, dystrophy. The only drug that was created specifically as a performance enhancing drug is tetrahydrogestrinone (THG), a synthetic anabolic steroid produced by a California laboratory. The most notorious doping scandals have recently been associated with him. As you know, the world record holder in the 100-meter run, Tim Montgomery, is accused of using it (the world record is 9.78 seconds).

— What do you think about the scandal with Greek sprinters Kostas Kenteris and Ekaterina Tanou, who evaded doping control on the eve of the opening ceremony of the 2004 Games? Judging by their statements, they were involved in a traffic accident and therefore could not appear for the procedure.
— An athlete’s refusal to undergo the procedure automatically means a positive result for doping. As is known, the accident was not serious. After all, the Greek sprinters could have asked to be tested at the hospital. I think that the notification from the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) about testing for Kenteris and Tanu came as a surprise. By the way, the Greeks immediately excluded them from the team.
— Some athletes caught doping claim that prohibited drugs entered their body by accident...
— Theoretically, this is possible. Doping may be contained in dietary supplements. It is recommended to first check the drug for the presence of prohibited substances, and only then use it.
— Is naphthyzin for a runny nose also doping?
— Naphthyzine contains ephedrine. Just last year, ephedrine was considered a dope. But since 2004, ephedrine and caffeine are not prohibited. However, these drugs are under WADA supervision. As soon as athletes begin to abuse them, ephedrine and caffeine will once again be blacklisted.

— Is the presence of alcohol in doping samples also fraught with sanctions?
— In some sports, alcohol is strictly prohibited. For example, in shooting, a glass of wine can help an athlete cope with anxiety. In general, the list of prohibited drugs is constantly expanding.

Modern high-level competitions cannot be imagined without doping control. The concept of “doping” and the first attempts to combat it appeared at the end of the 19th century, but the modern formulation (“the introduction into the human body by any means of a substance alien to this body, of any physiological substance in an abnormal amount or of any substance in an unnatural way for in order to artificially and dishonestly increase an athlete’s performance during competitions”), this phenomenon in sports appeared in 1965 in Strasbourg. The reason for this was the death of a cyclist during the Olympics in Rome. The first doping tests were carried out at the Grenoble and Mexico City Winter Olympics in 1968, and the World Anti-Doping Authority was created in 1999.

agency (WADA).

The emergence of WADA led to serious steps in the fight against doping. The number of doping tests taken has increased significantly, and many prohibited drugs that were previously considered elusive are successfully detected by modern methods used by laboratories. That is why the first years of WADA’s functioning resulted in a series of high-profile doping scandals in many cyclic sports, in particular in cross-country skiing, biathlon and speed skating. A record number of samples will be taken at the upcoming Games in Sochi for the Winter Olympics

To conduct doping control, athletes, upon notification of the anti-doping organization, submit blood or urine for analysis. Blood is taken from a vein in the athlete’s arm in an amount of no more than 25 ml. To carry out this procedure, a medical worker must have a certificate confirming his qualifications, a needle, vacuum tubes with holders, containers for transportation, napkins and a tourniquet. The athlete gives a urine sample in the presence of a doping officer of the same sex, exposing his body from the waist to the knee, since in history there have been frequent cases of sample substitution.

Immediately during the doping control process, the sample is divided into A and B, sealed, placed in a transport bag and sent to the WADA laboratory. There, first of all, it is checked whether the container was damaged in transit, after which sample A is analyzed, and sample B remains sealed. Its opening is required only if the result in sample A is positive. The athlete also does not have to wait for the opening of sample B, but admits his guilt. The latest high-profile scandal at the Olympic Games involving Russian athletes was the case Olga Pyleva in Turin. The athlete used a medicine containing a prohibited drug to treat a leg injury.

Kh. A. Samaranch, the fight against doping in Olympic sports was carried out, but was not of a fundamental and systematic nature. Having taken the post of head of the IOC, X. A. Samaranch identified the fight against doping in Olympic sports as one of the main priorities of his activities. The main areas of activity of the IOC in the fight against doping were identified as follows:

• strengthening the material base for creating a highly effective anti-doping control system;
• conducting large-scale scientific research aimed at developing informative doping control methods;
• coordination of the activities of the IOC, NGOs, ISFs and NSFs in the fight against doping;
• improving the control system for doping in the Olympic Games, covering not only the process of important competitions, but also the training period;
• development of a system of sanctions in relation to athletes who use doping in the Olympic Games, as well as persons who incline them to use it - coaches, doctors, managers, etc.;
• extensive educational work among athletes, coaches, doctors, sports officials, aimed at preventing the use of doping, covering a wide range of moral, ethical, social and medical problems.

The active position of the IOC in the 1980s was widely supported by the world sports community. There have been cases when the struggle for the purity of sport was placed above sporting interests. American swimmer Meyer won three gold medals at the US qualifying championships for the Seoul Olympics, but during testing she was found to have traces of steroids and the athlete was disqualified. This case became known to the whole world, which was a reflection of the federation’s concern for the purity of the reputation of its athletes. The same examples can be taken from the experience of the weightlifting federations of Canada and Sweden.

The leadership of sports in the USSR clearly demonstrated its attitude to the problem of doping when, in the mid-1980s, two Soviet weightlifters in Canada were caught red-handed and accused of distributing doping. The athletes were disqualified. The case gained wide public resonance, its materials were widely used in educational work with athletes.

The National Olympic Committees of the USA and the USSR showed a promising initiative in the fight against doping by signing an agreement on combating doping in sports at the end of 1988. One of the points of the agreement provided that every athlete included in the national team must undergo doping testing, which could be subjected to all athletes without exception, and not just those who take part in international and national competitions.

An important stage in the fight against doping was the signing in the late 1980s of a joint protocol between the IOC and the ISF on summer sports as a result of a comprehensive discussion of the problem at a meeting of the IOC Executive Committee and the Association of International Federations for Summer Sports. In accordance with this protocol, a comprehensive anti-doping program was implemented, which was based on a uniform list of prohibited substances for all sports, compiled and updated annually by the IOC; adoption of uniform rules and procedures for anti-doping control, including sudden unscheduled control during competitions and the training process; consolidating doping sanctions and ensuring their implementation at the national level; development of cooperation between the IOC, NOC and ISF with government organizations to combat the trade in illegal drugs.

Intensive commercialization and politicization of Olympic sports stimulated representatives of many countries to use prohibited drugs and search for ways to conceal such use. Suspicions have emerged of the systematic use of prohibited drugs and means of concealing them by teams of individual countries and sports in general. Suspicions were especially strong regarding the sports of the GDR, and among the Olympic sports, weightlifting was the most affected by doping.

The spread of doping in Olympic sports has become a pressing problem, pushing into the background many other contradictions and complexities of the sport. “To take doping means to die. To die physiologically when irreversible abnormal processes occur in the body. To die physically, as the tragic facts of recent years have shown. And to die spiritually, intellectually, agreeing to cheat, recognizing one’s powerlessness or lack of will to honestly use one’s own capabilities or make an effort, in order to surpass them. Finally, to die morally, actually placing oneself outside the framework of those rules of behavior that a humane society requires," said former IOC President X. A. Samaranch at the 94th IOC session, held on the eve of the opening of the Games of the XXIV Olympiad in Seoul.

It was at these Games that the most resonant scandals related to the use of doping in the Olympic Games erupted: the disqualification of Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson, a group of Bulgarian weightlifters and the demonstrative departure from Seoul of the entire team of Bulgarian weightlifters, unofficial information about a significantly larger number of positive samples compared to the officially announced and etc.

Seriously concerned about the state of affairs with doping and the lack of real progress in the fight against its spread in sports, in the early 1990s the IOC took the path of increasing funding for anti-doping activities and further tightening sanctions. However, this did not bring real results. Firstly, the development and implementation of new effective drugs and methods to cover up the use of doping clearly outpaced the development of the anti-doping control system. The lack of objective methods for monitoring the use of erythropoietin drugs led to the fact that achievements in many endurance sports during the 1990s were obtained precisely through the use of these drugs. And only 10 years later (at the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney) relatively objective testing methods for the use of these drugs were first developed. The situation was similar with bromantane. New methods of masking anabolic steroids have made it much more difficult to monitor the use of these drugs. Anti-asthmatic drugs have become widespread, significantly influencing the level of achievement in sports that place high demands on aerobic performance.

The achievements of the anti-doping system in the 1990s turned out to be much more modest compared to the activities of people who introduced various doping substances and methods into Olympic sports. Cases of doping being discovered were rare. At the same time, indirect evidence, numerous media materials, statements by experts, the athletes themselves, their coaches and doctors indicated that the fight against doping did not bring any positive results. Moreover, this negative phenomenon has spread, and in certain sports it has become widespread.

The disinterest of international and national federations in identifying cases of doping, especially by outstanding athletes, has also begun to be seen. It is well known that the enormous damage caused to the credibility of, for example, such popular sports as athletics and weightlifting, by a series of disqualifications of prominent athletes caught taking illegal drugs. As practice has shown, neither the federations nor numerous sponsoring companies were interested in this.

In the second half of the 1990s, sports specialists, representatives of the business community, and the media criticized the very concept of the IOC fight against doping as insufficiently substantiated and suffering from serious miscalculations, not to mention the practice of anti-doping laboratories, which, being called upon to fight for purity and adherence to moral and ethical principles in sports, their activities have shown many examples of the opposite nature. There have been cases where anti-doping sanctions have raised questions not only among the public, but have also been challenged in civil courts.

In particular, all three main arguments that underlie the concept of anti-doping were criticized quite reasonably:

• the use of doping is unacceptable for moral and ethical reasons due to the fact that it is prohibited;
• doping gives a one-sided advantage to athletes over non-doping opponents;
• The ban on doping is due to concern for the health of the athlete.

Each of these arguments seems quite reasonable and beyond doubt. However, this can only take place if the practical activity based on them is logical, consistent, and has strict scientific foundations. Without going into deep analysis, it is worth noting the most obvious contradictions between the initial assumptions and actual practice, which have caused justified criticism.

Naturally, prohibited substances are completely unacceptable to be used in sports, either from a moral, ethical or legal point of view. And in this regard there should be no doubt. However, as many experts have rightly argued, this thesis is beyond doubt only if the validity of the very fact of banning a huge number of publicly available, widespread and in many cases urgently necessary for the athlete in the interests of his health and the preparation of drugs and methods. Unfortunately, not only doubts arise here, but there are also serious scientific grounds to assert that in many cases the practice of anti-doping activities violates the legal rights of athletes, contradicts the principles of sports training, and deprives the athlete of full medical protection.

The basis for banning means and methods does not stand up to criticism due to the fact that they give athletes a one-sided advantage over their opponents. These funds are a reflection of the achievements of scientific and technological progress, and in all cases where their positive impact on sports performance is clear and there are no medical contraindications, their use seemed justified. Today's elite sport is an arena for the introduction of the most advanced achievements of science. Sports uniforms, equipment, training equipment, diagnostic and control systems, DD, restorative agents, pharmacological preparations and much more, when used correctly, can and do bring a one-sided advantage to some athletes over others. Every major sporting event provides numerous examples of athletes who have adopted innovations provided by science gaining an advantage over their competitors. This is a natural process that occurs in any field of activity, so the argument that an athlete taking illegal drugs gains a one-sided advantage is far-fetched. Such an advantage can also be obtained by an athlete who uses approved drugs, new effective designs of skis, bicycles, bobs, sleds, boats, etc. Moreover, it is well known that many outstanding achievements in recent years were achieved by the use of substances that were first approved and then prohibited.

No less vulnerable was the thesis constantly declared by representatives of the anti-doping service, according to which the fight against doping is determined solely by concern for preserving the health of athletes. The list of prohibited substances and methods has long gone beyond the limits that needed to be observed in the interests of the health of athletes; it has deprived athletes of the opportunity to use many advanced advances in medicine for preventive and therapeutic purposes, not to mention stimulating the effectiveness of the training process. In this regard, athletes turned out to be representatives of the only extreme profession deprived of the right to protect their health with effective pharmacological agents not only from occupational diseases, but also from ordinary widespread diseases.

The practice of purchasing stimulant drugs on the “black market”, from random people, which has developed in the field of elite sports, also poses a serious danger to the health of athletes. This is understandable, given the lack of proper educational work and strict control by anti-doping services over the actions of athletes, coaches and doctors related to the acquisition, transportation, storage and use of doping drugs, as well as sanctions for such violations. Low-quality medicines flooding the black market have become an additional serious risk factor for the health of athletes.

The system of organizing and conducting testing and the objectivity of the presented conclusions were constantly criticized. Of particular concern were cases of the use of insufficiently reliable research methods, the lack of a system in organizing control - regular testing of some athletes and a liberal attitude towards others. The system of sanctions also seemed one-sided, when all responsibility and heavy punishment fell only on the athlete, although there were known cases when athletes caught doping did not even know that they had been injected with prohibited substances, or could not assume that these substances were in drinks or foods.

It became obvious that many (hundreds) of victories and records at the Olympic Games, Winter Olympic Games and World Championships in sports such as athletics, weightlifting, swimming, cycling, rowing, speed skating, cross-country skiing, biathlon and some others , were achieved or established through the use of prohibited or permitted substances and methods at the time of the competition, and then prohibited substances and methods. There are a huge number of objective and subjective grounds for such a statement - materials from anti-doping laboratories, statements of experts, confessions of athletes, doctors and coaches, results of trials, etc. This was especially clearly demonstrated in the material of sports in countries such as the GDR, USA, Bulgaria, China , and sports such as athletics and weightlifting.

The phenomena described above took place against the backdrop of intense activity by anti-doping services, which eloquently proves the insufficient effectiveness of anti-doping policies and practices that have been in place for many years.

It was increasingly recognized that Olympic sport had turned into a kind of arena of competition between pharmaceutical companies, international and national doping control systems, biomedical specialists, coaches and athletes focused on the widespread use of stimulants, on the one hand, and anti-doping laboratories, whose activities are aimed at on the detection of the use of these drugs and the corresponding sanctions, on the other. In such conditions, specialists from any country who are serious about the Olympic training system are faced with the need to choose their own attitude to this problem and formulate an appropriate methodology for solving it. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the imperfection of the anti-doping system in the Olympic Games led to it being used as a tool to discredit the sports of individual countries and eliminate competitors in the international sports arena.

Thus, the forty-year fight against doping in sports, especially intensified since 1980, when X. A. Samaranch proclaimed it one of the main priorities in the activities of the IOC, did not produce the expected results.

During his long time at the helm of the Olympic movement, the seventh IOC President was able to successfully solve many difficult problems: the fight against apartheid in sports; boycotts of the Olympic Games by groups of countries; the problem of amateurism in Olympic sports; admission to the Games for professional athletes; commercialization of elite sports, etc. However, the problem of countering the use of doping in sports turned out to be, perhaps, the only task that Samaranch failed to cope with.

Despite the improvement in the technical equipment of the doping control system, the constant increase in the volume of testing, the tightening of sanctions, the spread of doping not only does not decrease, it, on the contrary, increases. New drugs and methods are being developed and introduced, schemes for their use and masking of use are being improved. In the sports world, a policy of double standards has become almost official, in which many sports figures called upon to fight for the purity of sports (including representatives of the IOC, some international sports federations, national Olympic committees and national sports federations) began to justify the impossibility of high sports achievements at the Olympic Games. arena without the use of now prohibited drugs - and now they are openly talking about the widespread introduction of pharmacological programs, about the need to find an alternative to the modern doping control system. Moreover, we are talking about new approaches in this matter, in particular about the prospects for using the achievements of genetic engineering to create athletes who will be able to show outstanding results.

The creation of WADA in 1999 practically coincided with an unexpected interview with X. A. Samaranch, who was ending his career as IOC President. Being a subtle politician, a person who sincerely supports the authority of Olympic sports and has made an invaluable contribution to its development, Samaranch found the courage to admit the imperfections of the IOC policy in the fight against doping, called for a radical reduction in the list of prohibited drugs, the authorization of drugs that do not harm the health of the athlete, and increased the role of educational and educational work, expanding the rights of athletes in the use of substances and methods that stimulate the effectiveness of their preparation and competitive activity.

The interview with Kh. A. Samaranch caused a very active reaction: overwhelmingly positive from sports specialists and, mostly negative, from people working in the anti-doping control system.

It is necessary to take a much calmer approach to the problem of doping than is being done today by the IOC. Doping in the Olympic Games is not the main prerogative. Substances that are prohibited and classified as doping are widespread in various fields of activity. Thus, effective psychostimulants were quite widely used by the army at the beginning of the 20th century. during the First World War. Stimulants, sedatives and other drugs are widely used in various branches of the military and special units at the present time. Stimulants are common among politicians, who use them during public appearances, and in show business. Various anabolic agents have become extremely widespread in the modern fitness industry. A significant part of the population today widely uses drugs prohibited in sports to normalize their mental state, reduce body weight, and correct their physique.

We must not forget that at present the entire world community is also concerned about problems generated not only by the wide replenishment of the range of pharmacological agents and DDs, which often give undesirable side effects, but also by the fairly widespread use of various drugs to increase yields in crop production and increase weight gain in animal husbandry , as well as the use of cell biology and genetic engineering methods for the genetic modification of certain agricultural crops, the consequences of which for people consuming such products have not yet been fully studied by science.

The number of athletes using illegal drugs is a small percentage (according to experts, no more than 5%) of the number of people using such drugs in other areas of human activity. However, no one imposes sanctions on politicians or entertainers who gain an advantage over their competitors as a result of the use of stimulants. Extensive research work is being carried out to identify negative side effects that can result from excessive enthusiasm and unreasonable use of various chemical drugs, DD, which contain various pharmacological substances. The dangers of using food products produced using modern technologies based on the achievements of chemistry, biology, and genetic engineering are being studied. However, in none of the spheres of human activity, in which there is a problem of using various performance-enhancing substances and methods, is there the hysterical atmosphere that has developed in sports.

It is this atmosphere that does not allow the fight against doping in sports to be directed in a normal, civilized direction, in which educational, general education, educational, and research activities will be given a leading place. In this case, undoubtedly, the very attitude towards the problem of doping in sports will become more balanced and moderate, there will be an opportunity to formulate a scientifically based methodology for the use of various pharmacological substances and stimulation methods in sports, drawing a clear and justified boundary between those allowed (in the interests of health and effective training athletes) and prohibited (violating the moral and ethical principles of sport, destroying health) substances and methods, carrying out thoughtful educational and educational work. In this system, a place should be given to doping control and sanctions, but not as the main means of fighting doping, but as a mechanism for managing this fight in a civilized manner.

The loads that athletes have to endure in modern sports force doctors and coaches to recommend that athletes widely use various substances with energetic and plastic effects, stimulants of the central nervous system, hematopoietic organs, metabolic processes and other means to optimize recovery and adaptation processes, prevent overexertion and diseases , decreased immunity, etc. The expansion of this area of ​​sports pharmacology, as many experts believe, is the most important section of modern sports science, the development of which can largely neutralize the negative effects of the loads of modern sports, which are on the verge of human capabilities. However, the line between the natural pharmacology of sports, which helps effective adaptation and does not harm health, and the illegal one, which undermines the ideals of sports and undermines the health of the athlete, is becoming more and more difficult to determine every year.

In laboratories around the world, work is very actively underway to search for new substances and identify the optimal system for using already known drugs to increase the effectiveness of training and competitive activities. In particular, with regard to Chinese athletes, who have been under close scrutiny by the IOC Medical Commission in recent years, the focus has been on whether athletes are using prohibited drugs. At the same time, the experience of using numerous stimulants of plant and animal origin in Chinese sports, accumulated by Chinese medicine with its ancient history, rich traditions and capabilities, remains out of sight. According to our observations, this area in Chinese sports is developing much more intensively than the use of well-known drugs.

Modern sport is characterized by enormous training and competitive loads and an extremely overloaded sports calendar. Bearing these loads and participating in a large number of sports competitions almost throughout the year is impossible without stimulating recovery and adaptation reactions by the most effective means. The chairman of the IOC Medical Commission, A. de Merode, drew attention to this problem back in 1989, speaking at a joint meeting of the IOC Executive Committee and the Association of International Summer Sports Federations: “To get rid of a phenomenon, you need to look for its causes. Otherwise, the same reasons "will lead to the same results. An overloaded competition calendar requires athletes to increase their normal capabilities. All this leads to the fact that, on the one hand, they are subjected to control, and on the other, such loads can only be performed through illegal means."

Many years have passed since then. The sports calendar not only did not shrink, but also expanded significantly, mainly due to commercial competitions with large prize pools. Naturally, athletes cannot function in the conditions of modern sports without the use of stimulants. However, the activities of the IOC in the fight against doping are in no way connected with the realities of modern sports, and do not include, as one of the areas of the fight against doping, the limitation of the unrestrained exploitation of the physiological capabilities of the athlete, predetermined by the policies of sports federations and other competition organizers, but only limit athletes’ opportunities to increase their performance. through the use of pharmacological agents, the quality of preparation, to ensure the prevention of diseases and injuries.

That is why the position taken earlier by Kh. A. Samaranch regarding the fight against doping has found wide support. To confirm this, it is enough to quote the statements of prominent experts in cycling - a sport that in recent years has become the subject of intense activity by anti-doping services. In particular, the head of the famous professional cycling team Banesto, Eusebio Unsue, noted: “I am extremely grateful to the head of the Olympic movement for stating his position on doping issues right now, when the search for riders consuming illegal drugs began to look like a medieval hunt for "witches. All the president's critics know very well that the problem of doping is by no means clear-cut and that the bodies of athletes who work in extreme conditions sometimes simply need those very prohibited drugs." He was supported by an equally authoritative specialist in cycling, the director of one of the sports clubs, Manolo Sais: “Stop being hypocritical. Samaranch became the first person in the IOC who found the courage to look at the problem of doping without hypocrisy. I think that he was finally able to find the path along which professional sports should continue."

These views are shared by the presidents of the most authoritative international sports federations, in particular FIFA and UCI, and many prominent representatives of political and business circles, sports and medical science. Unfortunately, anti-doping services are trying to avoid serious analysis of the problem and are doing everything in order to maintain the existing practice of anti-doping activities.

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia defined doping as pharmacological and other means that promote, when introduced into the body, emergency temporary stimulation of its physical and nervous activity. The International Olympic Committee in our time understands doping as any manipulation with biologically active fluids or the introduction into the human body of drugs that artificially increase the physical capabilities of an athlete.

For many years now, the fight against doping in sports has resembled an endless race between developers of defensive means and developers of offensive means. New types of doping are developed every year, and the World Anti-Doping Agency can only catch up with the developers and add new items to the lists of prohibited drugs and methods. This war has been waged with varying success for more than 45 years.

Anti-doping rule violations

In accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code, an anti-doping rule violation is considered:

• the presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites in a sample taken from the athlete;
• the Athlete's use or attempted use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method;
• refusal or failure to provide samples without good reason after receiving official notification;
• failure to provide information about the whereabouts of the athlete during the out-of-competition period;
• falsification or attempted falsification in any component of doping control (for example, urine substitution, sample substitution, manipulation of doping control protocols, etc.);
• possession of prohibited substances or prohibited methods;
• distribution or attempted distribution of a prohibited substance or prohibited method;
• Prescribing or attempting to prescribe to an Athlete a Prohibited Method or Prohibited Substance.

Types and methods of doping

The lists of known types and methods of doping have been growing since the classic Olympic Games in Greece.

But if initially few types of doping were known and they were mostly of natural origin (for example, fly agarics), then in our time they include hundreds of different chemicals and methods, divided into several large groups:

• anabolic agents (eg testosterone);
• peptide hormones, growth factors and similar substances (for example, erythropoietin);
• beta-2 agonists (eg, salbutamol);
• hormones and metabolic modulators (eg, insulin);
• diuretics and other masking agents (eg, furosemide);
• manipulations with blood and its components (for example, hemoglobin transfusion, including that previously withdrawn from the same athlete);
• chemical and physical manipulations (for example, sample substitution, injections);
• gene doping (for example, the use of genetically modified cells);
• stimulants (such as cocaine or strychnine);
• drugs (such as heroin or morphine);
• cannabinoids (such as hashish or marijuana);
• glucocorticosteroids;
• alcohol (interestingly, alcohol is prohibited only in a few sports: motorsports, aeronautics, powerboating, karate, motorsports and archery, and only in doses exceeding 0.1 mg/l of blood);
• beta blockers (used by athletes to calm and reduce tremors in sports that require precise coordination, also prohibited only in certain sports during competitions).

In addition, for 2014, the monitoring program includes nicotine and caffeine, as well as a number of other, not yet prohibited, drugs to track cases of abuse of these substances in sports.

History of doping

In the modern history of the Olympic Games, the first use of doping agents by an athlete was recorded back in 1865, at a swimming competition. And the following year, the first death of an athlete from doping occurred - British athlete David Linton, who was participating in a bicycle race, died from an overdose of cocaine and heroin.

At that time, doping was not yet prohibited, and deaths did not stop anyone, since victory in competitions was at stake. There is a known case at the 1904 Olympics, held in St. Louis. Marathon runner Thomas Hicks, representing the United States, lost consciousness after being several kilometers ahead of his rivals. The trainers poured a mixture of brandy and strychnine (a powerful stimulant in near-lethal doses) into his mouth, after which Hicks ran a few more kilometers and lost consciousness again. After another portion of alcohol with strychnine, Thomas Hicks became an Olympic champion. And the European running champion in 1946 was the Briton Sydney Wooderson, who injected himself with arsenic before the race.

The invention of testosterone made it possible to set many records at the 1936 Olympics in Berlin. Only at the 1952 Olympics was the first, still timid, ban on amphetamines introduced, which did not entail any consequences for its violation. At that time, athletes were swallowing handfuls of amphetamines and several skaters were hospitalized with overdoses.

However, science did not stand still and in 1955 the first steroid with increased anabolic properties was invented - Dianabol. By the early 1960s, its use exceeded all reasonable limits: trainers filled salad bowls with Dianabol and placed them on the table. The athletes ate pills by the handful and ate them with bread. It was called " breakfast of champions".

Anti-doping

An active fight against the use of doping substances began in 1967, when a medical commission was established at the International Olympic Committee, the first list of prohibited drugs was approved and a rule was introduced on mandatory testing for doping in competitions. The new rules were first tested at the 1968 Winter Games in Grenoble and the Summer Games in Mexico City, but failure followed. In Grenoble, 86 samples were taken, but not a single case of doping could be detected. The first case of detection of prohibited doping occurred at the Summer Games in Mexico City - out of 667 samples, one case of doping was identified and that was completely anecdotal - the athlete came to the competition in a state of strong alcoholic intoxication, which would not have required tests to establish. But already at the next Summer Games in 1972 in Munich, 7 cases of doping were identified, then at the 1976 Summer Games in Montreal, 11 cases of the use of prohibited substances were identified. Interestingly, the number of doping cases at the Winter Games has always been noticeably lower than such cases at summer competitions. Thus, if during the period from 1968 to 1998 at the Winter Games five cases of doping were detected, then during the period from 1968 to 2000 at the Summer Games 69 such precedents were established.

In 1999, the struggle for fair sport reached its climax and the World Anti-Doping Agency (hereinafter referred to as WADA) was created, which has powers close to emergency ones, including the right to wake up at home at night and send any athlete for testing. Doping control can be in-competition or out-of-competition. In-competition control is carried out during competition, and out-of-competition control can be carried out at any time and in any place, and there are no restrictions on the number of tests.

Many countries also have their own anti-doping centers. In Russia, such a center is NP "RUSADA". However, in the fall of 2013, the Disciplinary Committee of the World Anti-Doping Agency expressed its intention to revoke accreditation from NP RUSADA due to “insufficient reliability.” According to the statistics of this organization, in 2012 it took 22,241 doping samples, while 124 cases of anti-doping rule violations and 187 atypical results were identified, which totals 1.92%. For comparison, in 2011 the number of such results did not exceed 1.55%. Statistics again confirm my earlier observation about the predominance of violations in summer sports over winter sports. Thus, 82% of identified cases of anti-doping rule violations occurred in summer sports.

Modern anti-doping policy

The anti-doping war has recently become a global problem in sports. The prohibitive policy chosen by WADA scares few people, since the ongoing commercialization of sports requires new records and athletes, chasing growing prize money, will continue to use any available methods to achieve results. And pharmacologists will help them with this.

The race between offensive and defensive means, as usual, brings profit to all involved. Pharmacists make money by developing new types of doping, and equipment manufacturers equip doping research laboratories with devices worth tens of millions of dollars per set. At the same time, the increase in the list of prohibited drugs forces laboratories to update their equipment every few years. Already, some major tournaments spend more on anti-doping protection than on organizing the competitions themselves.

The component of pharmacology in the sport of great achievements is so great that without exaggeration we can say: all other things being equal, in the arenas there was and is a struggle of doctors rather than athletes. At the same time, almost everyone understands this, but pretends that all current records are the result of the harmonious development of the human body.

IOC Medical Director Patrick Schmeich admitted that we can soon expect the invention of drugs that, acting directly on a person’s DNA, will allow him to very quickly build muscle mass or increase the size of red blood cells, which will make a person incredibly resilient.

The records that athletes set nowadays have long been beyond human capabilities. It is difficult to imagine that modern athletes without any doping surpass the records set by athletes who used doping without restrictions at the beginning of the twentieth century. But, as they say, “if you’re not caught, you’re not a thief.”

And just in the capture, a breakthrough is planned. According to the rules, doping samples of Olympic Games participants are stored for eight years and are subject to re-checking at the first request of the International Olympic Committee. Since methods for detecting doping, although they lag behind its development, also do not stand still, new testing methods are being developed during this time. This makes it possible to identify those who, using new chemicals, successfully deceived the doping control and achieved victory. Retaliation could befall many, although the International Olympic Committee is trying to minimize such double-checks.

Thus, at the end of 2013, a huge doping scandal broke out in connection with the re-testing of old samples of the world's leading athletes using a new research method. Experts from laboratories in Cologne and Moscow found heavy anabolic steroids in hundreds of urine samples. These tests were negative in 2012, but new technology has made it possible to detect steroids more than six months after the end of use.

The scandal with the legendary cyclist Lance Armstrong, who was convicted of using prohibited substances following an investigation by the American Anti-Doping Agency, also gained fame. In October 2012, the International Cycling Union banned the American, who had already completed his career, for life, canceling the results of all his performances since 1998. So gradually the secret becomes clear. I believe that new discoveries in this area of ​​sports are still awaiting us, although this will not stop athletes in the race for medals, because it is impossible to constantly exceed the physical capabilities of one’s own body without the use of doping.

Lecture outline:

The concept of "doping". Historical data on the use of doping.

Classification of doping agents and methods, their brief characteristics.

Organization and conduct of anti-doping control.

The concept of "doping". Historical data on doping use.

Doping (English doping, from English dope - “dope”, “intoxicating drug”) is a sports term denoting the use of any substances of natural or synthetic origin in order to improve athletic performance. Such substances can dramatically increase the activity of the nervous and endocrine systems, muscle strength, or even stimulate the synthesis of muscle proteins after exposure to muscle loads (for example, steroids). A huge number of medications have the status of prohibited for athletes. The modern concept in the field of combating doping in elite sports is given in the World Anti-Doping Code of WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency, established on the initiative of the International Olympic Committee - IOC). Each year, WADA issues an updated list of prohibited substances for athletes and new versions of the following standards: International Standard for Laboratories, International Standard for Testing and International Standard for Therapeutic Exemptions.

Today it is generally accepted that doping is the deliberate intake of a substance that is excessive for the normal functioning of the athlete’s body, or an excessive dose of medication for the sole purpose of artificially increasing physical activity and endurance during sports competitions.

The history of doping in sports and the fight against it began a long time ago. Substances and methods that enhance human performance have been used long before the first Olympic Games were organized in Ancient Greece, where various stimulants were used by athletes to obtain better results. There is evidence that back in the 3rd century. BC e. in Greece, Olympic athletes used performance-enhancing substances. Participants in the ancient Greek Olympic Games believed that sesame seeds increased endurance in running, and before a fight a wrestler had to eat ten pounds of lamb, washed down with wine and strychnine. Some medicinal plants, testes of killed animals that were used for food, all sorts of spells and other techniques were also used. Stimulating substances were used by both Babylon and Ancient Egypt, which waged active hostilities with their neighbors and needed to increase the combat effectiveness of warriors, and also, possibly, athletes. Later, Europe began to use stimulants in connection with the conquests of Alexander the Great and subsequently the Roman Empire. The Indians of North and South America have also long used various stimulants, mainly of plant origin (coca, sarsaparilla).

The word "doping", originally used to refer to a drink that South African tribes took during religious rituals, has been used in sports since 1865. The term "doping" was first used in relation to athletes who took stimulants during a swimming competition held in Amsterdam . However, there is evidence according to which the word “doping” was used already in the first half of the 19th century. called the drugs that were given to horses participating in horse racing held in England.

Stimulant drugs not only helped to win, but also often had a negative impact on the health of athletes, sometimes leading to tragedies. In 1886, at a cycling competition, the first death of one of the participants was recorded - the Englishman Linton, which followed due to his use of doping during a race along the Paris-Bordeaux route.

The first international federation to actively combat the use of doping was the International Athletics Federation. Back in 1928, she banned the use of stimulants. Other federations followed suit. However, this did not give a serious result, since there was no system for monitoring the use of doping.

The use of various stimulant drugs by athletes at the Olympic Games at the beginning of the 20th century became widespread. and later, becoming more frequent in the 1950s-1960s and subsequent years. At the 1952 Winter Olympics, there were cases of phenamine use by speed skaters who required medical attention. At the Games of the XVI Olympic Games in Melbourne (1956), a similar incident occurred with cyclists. And only after the death of the Danish racer Kurt Jensen during a cycling competition at the Games of the XVII Olympiad (Rome, 1960) as a result of the use of phenamine, the International Olympic Committee began the fight against doping. The first samples, designed to check whether athletes were using prohibited stimulants, were taken in Tokyo in 1964 at the Games of the XVIII Olympiad.

However, even before this (in 1960), the problem of doping attracted the attention of the Council of Europe: 21 Western European countries adopted a resolution against the use of doping substances in sports.

The loudest and saddest story related to doping occurred with the Canadian athlete Ben Johnson, who for two years in a row at the 1987 World Championships and the 1988 Olympics in Seoul surprised the world with super results at a distance of 100 meters. The athlete's speed was approaching space speed - 10.2145 m/sec or 36.772 km/h, but Johnson was not celebrated for long. A few days later it became known that a significant concentration of the anabolic steroid stanozolol was found in the doping sample of the triumphant. The Canadian was disqualified for two years and his records were annulled.