If
the Olympic Committee allowed performance enhancing drugs (PEDs),
problem is not knowing which ones would work best since they're
developed to be safe and effective in the sick while drug use in sports is done by the healthy.
Since
drugs aren't tested for their effectiveness in the healthy and since
doping is illegal in sports, athlete drug use is entirely underground
where drugs tested in a therapeutic context for treating diseases
get surreptitiously co-opted for performance enhancement by the sports
industrial complex of doctors, coaches, support staff and most
importantly athletes who empirically test these drugs on themselves.
Growth hormone - Wikipedia (HGH) is a case in point. Developed to treat childhood growth disorders such as Prader–Willi syndrome - Wikipedia,
athletes started using it to enhance their performance thinking if HGH
increases muscle mass and reduces fatigue in the ill, it should do
likewise in healthy athletes. Problem is HGH is known to benefit those
who under-produce it. Could it do the same in those who produce normal levels of it? Data on HGH given to the healthy is limited to small studies in the elderly (1) which only suggest adverse events outweigh limited benefits, i.e., they're unhelpful, and yet HGH use among athletes soars (2, 3, 4). Some athletes may even naturally over-produce HGH, which may be why they turned out to be good in sports in the first place.
What if supplemental HGH was just flushed out of those who produce normal or extra levels of it? A waste. And what if it produced toxicity in those who produce normal or extra levels of it? A tragedy. Since PEDs haven't been tested for their safety and effectiveness in healthy bodies, athletes taking them are playing Russian roulette with their health.
As
with society's failed war on drugs, attitude to PEDs in sports is also
driven by a counter-productive, moralistic crackdown even as more and
more athletes use them, 'a losing battle not against any particular substance, but rather human nature' as a recent article put it (5). In recent years, high-profile individuals like former US Track & Field CEO Doug Logan - Wikipedia have come out publicly against PED prohibition (5).
Destigmatizing
PEDs would encourage thorough scientific tests of their safety and
efficacy in athletes. No more Russian roulette, no more unnecessary and
avoidable risk. One such, funded by Dallas Mavericks' owner, Mark Cuban - Wikipedia,
is an FDA-approved two-year US $800,000 exploratory study of HGH at the
University of Michigan to examine whether it helps recover from
anterior cruciate ligament surgery (6).
Only
a cultural change could bring PED use in sports out of the shadows.
After all thorough scientific tests are necessary to identify which ones
are optimal for athletes. More such studies would maybe help change the
culture of drug use in sports from an illegal, underground, widely
prevalent but heavily risk-laden endeavor to an open but regulated and
therefore safer practice.
Bibliography
1.
Liu, Hau, et al. "Systematic review: the safety and efficacy of growth
hormone in the healthy elderly." Annals of Internal Medicine 146.2
(2007): 104-115. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/vie...
2. HGH: Performance enhancer or healer? ESPN, Tom Farrey, Sep 5, 2006. HGH: Performance enhancer or healer?
3. The case for HGH, ESPN, Tom Farrey, Jan 17, 2007. The case for HGH
4. Analysis: Pharmaceutical firms cash in on HGH abuse. USA Today, David B. Caruso, Jeff Donn, December 31, 2012. Analysis: Pharmaceutical firms cash in on HGH abuse
5. The Drugs won: The case for ending the sports war on doping. Vice Sports, Patrick Hruby, August 1, 2016. The Drugs Won: The Case for Ending the Sports War on Doping | VICE Sports
6. A study might change the way sports thinks about human growth hormone. ESPN, Bonnie D. Ford, Dec 4, 2015. A study might change the way sports thinks about human growth hormone
https://www.quora.com/If-the-Olympic-Committee-wanted-to-allow-performance-enhancing-drugs-which-would-be-the-best-ones-to-allow/answer/Tirumalai-Kamala
No comments:
Post a Comment