Click me and I'll connect you with your issue outline (NOTE that this outline is in the earlier single-document form)
































1998/02: Drugs and sport: have world swimming authorities done sufficient to prevent the use of banned, performance-enhancing substances?
Back to previous page

When you see a square with a link graphic in it, this means that you can click on the link to go to another information page.

The information on the linked page will be explained in bold italics in the body of the issue outline, usually close to the links graphics

Drugs and sport: have world swimming authorities done sufficient to prevent the use of banned, performance-enhancing substances?


Echo Issue Outline 1998 / 02: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney



What they said ...
`It is not fair to continue to criticise a governing body who is at the forefront in the fight against cheaters and drug abusers'
Mr Mustapha Larfaoui, head of FINA

`I'm a little embarrassed by the way FINA approaches the problem. I think it has been too lackadaisical'
Former United States swimming champion, Mr Mark Spitz

The world swimming championships held in Perth in January, 1998, attracted considerable controversy. A Chinese swimmer and her coach were found to have brought into Australia a banned growth hormone, used as a performance-enhancing substance by some athletes. Just before the end of the trials, a further four Chinese swimmers and their coaches were found to have been involved in using a banned diuretic, capable of masking steroids.
The International Swimming Federation, FINA, has attracted criticism for its handling of both of these incidents and for its banning of former East German coach, Mr Winfried Leopold, for his previous involvement in the use of prohibited substances in swimming.
Critics have claimed that FINA has significantly mishandled the vexing problem of performance-enhancing drug-use in swimming.

Background
It has been claimed that the use of performance-enhancing substances is as old as organised sporting competition and dates back to at least the original Greek Olympics. However, technological advances since then mean that performance-enhancing substances are becoming increasingly more effective and difficult to detect.
Among the key substances currently used to improve performance are steroids and human growth hormone (hGH). Anabolic-androgenic steroids specifically enlarge muscle, which can give a marked advantage in many sports, particularly those requiring strength, endurance or speed.
Tests exist which will indicate the presence of steroids in the system. Thus the taking of such substances carries with it the risk of detection.
Human growth hormone has a more generalised effect, stimulating the growth of all tissues - muscles, bone and internal organs. Because it is produced naturally within the body its presence in a urine sample is not a clear indication of substance abuse.
Both steroids and growth hormone have potential side-effects and can cause harm to athletes using them, which is one of the reasons for their being banned. They also distort competition, giving an unfair advantage to users. This unfairness and the general climate of scepticism and distrust which suspicions of drug use create are seen as extremely damaging for international sporting competition.

There are a number of useful Internet sites containing background information on the current controversy. All those about to be listed were written before September 1, 1997.
Veteran Australian swimming coach, Forbes Carlile, wrote a position paper in 1995, titled, Why China must not Swim at Atlanta `96 (LINK ONE). Carlile is a founding member of the World Swimming Coaches Anti-Drug Committee. His paper provides information re the use of drugs in sport, especially swimming, and gives detailed criticism of FINA's handling of the issue.
In June, 1996, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article by Jacquelin Magnay, titled, The Drug Busters: The Chemical Games (LINK TWO). It was written in the lead-up to the Atlanta Olympics and provides detailed information on some of the more recently developed banned substances believed to be in use and what efforts have been made to detect them.



In August, 1997, The Irish Times, published a report by Johnny Watterson, titled, Fighting a losing battle (LINK THREE). The article presents the views of Harm Beyer, secretary of the European Swimming Federation. Mr Beyer looks at the deficiencies in FINA's current procedures and regulations and at attempts to overcome these. He also considers the role played by individual nations in encouraging drug cheats.

Arguments suggesting that the world swimming body, FINA, has behaved inappropriately in its attempts to prevent the use of banned, performance-enhancing substances
Dissatisfaction with FINA's handling of the use of banned performance-enhancing substances has been mounting since the 1994 world swimming championships in Rome.
At this competition Chinese women won 12 of 16 possible gold medals, a degree of dominance which many coaches and other swimming officials felt could only have been achieved via artificial means.
Critics have claimed that FINA has been too ready to accept Chinese assurances that its swimmers were drug-free and has left the mounting of protests and the voicing of suspicions to the swimming bodies of individual nations. China, it has been argued, was then able to claim that such protests were either racist or motivated by jealousy.
FINA was then criticised for its attempt to reduce from four years to two the ban imposed on those found to have been involved in the use of steroids.
Australian Swimming vice-president, Mr John Devitt, addressed the FINA World Congress, declaring, `Two years is not excessive enough - if they [drug cheats]have done it once they will do it again.'
Mr Devitt argued that FINA had a duty to protect all swimmers from drug cheats and to send that message to the international sporting community.
This was felt to be particularly important in the lead-up to the 2000 Olympics.
The first criticisms that were made of FINA in the context of the world swimming championships in Perth were prompted by the federation's decision to ban German coach, Winfried Leopold, from taking part in the championships.
Mr Leopold had previously admitted to involvement in the administering of steroids to swimmers during his time as a coach for the former East Germany. Critics complained that Mr Leopold had already been punished by a two-year suspension in Germany. Further, it has been claimed, there is nothing to indicate that Mr Leopold is any longer using banned substances and the misconduct which he has admitted occurred more than ten years ago.
It has been suggested that such a ban has led to inconsistencies. It has been claimed that Mr Leopold is being penalised for his honesty in making the admission, while others, strongly suspected or indeed indicted of similar offences are allowed to continue as coaches or swimmers. It has also been suggested that if such an action is to be taken against Mr Leopold then swimmers who have admitted using steroids should lose their pervious titles and return their medals.
It has also been suggested that the ban on Mr Leopold is a misdirection of FINA's energies. It has been argued that rather than pursuing past offenders who are no longer a threat to the integrity of swimming, FINA should be focusing its attention on detecting current offenders, especially from China, whose recent dramatic rise in the ranks of international swimming has generated suspicion.
FINA has also been criticised for what some have claimed was its failure to take strong action against Chinese swimmer, Yuan Yuan, and her coach, Zhou Zhewen, when vials of human growth hormone were found in Yuan Yuan's luggage and Zhou Zhewen admitted having put them there.
FINA was criticised for its early caution when it considered that it may not have had jurisdiction in the matter because neither the swimmer nor her coach had formally registered for the championships when the hormone was found.
FINA also held off making any comment until laboratory tests had confirmed that the vials did contain the growth hormone. Some maintain that such a delay was unnecessary as the vials were labeled with the generic and brand name of the hormone they contained.
More particularly, FINA was criticised when only Yuan Yuan and her coach were sent back to China. Some critics maintained that the quantity of hormone confiscated made it plain that it was intended for use by more than one swimmer and that either the whole team should have faced disqualification or that a strongly worded reprimand should have been sent to China's swimming federation
Criticism of FINA became most pointed, however, after four Chinese swimmers tested positive for a banned diuretic.
Use of the diuretic attracts a FINA ban of two years for each swimmer involved. This was claimed to be illogical as the diuretic is said to be commonly used to mask steroid-use which attracts a ban of four years. Some critics saw the difference in penalty as a positive encouragement to use the masking substance.
The inconsistency between this penalty and that imposed by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) was also noted. The IOC imposes a ban of four years for use of the diuretic.
Critics were also annoyed that the more lenient view FINA takes of diuretic-use meant that a more general punishment could not be inflicted on China. Had four Chinese swimmers been found guilty of steroid-use then, under the FINA charter, the whole Chinese team could have been banned from international competition for two years.
Former American swimming champion, Mark Spitz, argued, `[FINA needs to] set a criteria and a set of rules which are stringent enough to work.'
Finally FINA has been criticised for not having been more pro-active and not having devoted more of its funds and energy into developing tests that would indicate the presence of all currently banned substances.
Mark Spitz has also claimed, `... we can send people to the moon; we can do all these technological miracles. Why can't we figure out what type of drugs are popular and test for them?'

Arguments suggesting that the world swimming body, FINA, has behaved appropriately in its attempts to prevent the use of banned, performance-enhancing substances
Supporters of the actions of FINA in dealing with banned performance-enhancing substances note that unlike some of the federation's critics, as an international sporting body, FINA has an obligation to be, and to be seen to be, fair.
According to this line of argument, FINA is unable to act on suspicion and must always be sure there is the degree of proof its regulations require before it takes action against any coach, official or athlete believed to have breached its rules.
Thus, it is claimed, FINA was unable to begin any sort of proceedings against Chinese breast-stroker, Yuan Yuan, and her coach, Zhou Zhewen, until laboratory tests had proved that the 13 files of pinky-purple substance found in Yuan Yuan's bag at Sydney Airport were in fact human growth hormone.
The need for FINA to act only when it has an acceptable level of proof has been acknowledged by some of those who have been critical of some of the federation's behaviour.
Champion Australian swimmer, Kieren Perkins, for example, has noted, `... it is difficult to ban people without proof.'
Perkins expressed his personal belief that if Chinese swimming coach Zhou Zhewen were supplying human growth hormone to one of the swimmers he was training, then he would almost certainly have been giving the hormone to the other four members of the Chinese swimming team whom he trained. However, Perkins acknowledged it was one thing to believe something was very probably the case, it was another to prove it was true.
Another defence offered for the actions of FINA is that some of the banned substances suspected to be being used by swimmers and their coaches are extremely difficult to detect. The synthetic human growth hormone apparently being used by some athletes, including swimmers, is undetectable from that produced naturally within the human body. Human growth hormone is also, it is claimed, produced in greater quantities by athletes. Thus its presence within a sample taken from a swimmer does not prove that that person has been artificially increasing their levels of the hormone.
Mr Paul Dillon, information officer at the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, has stated, `It's very hard to know whether your body has produced it [the human growth hormone] or you have stuck it in there.'
FINA's supporters have noted that where the federation did have proof that a coach, Zhou Zhewen, and a swimmer, Yuan Yuan, were involved in the use of the growth hormone it supported a 15-year ban for Zhou Zhewen and a four-year ban for Yuan Yuan.
The question of proof has also been raised in defence of FINA's taking action against German swimming coach, Winfried Leopold, and not taking action against Austria's swimming coach, Rolf Glaser.
Both men were swimming coaches within the former East Germany, a nation strongly implicated in the systematic use of performance-enhancing drugs, especially steroids, by swimmers and other athletes taking part in international competition.
FINA has banned Mr Leopold from coaching at the world swimming championships in Perth. (The ban was temporarily stalled, however, when Mr Leopold mounted a successful legal challenge which saw FINA's ban briefly overturned because it had not been ordered by the correct body within FINA.)
FINA has defended its banning of Mr Leopold and not Mr Glaser, though each may have been equally implicated in the use of steroids and other drugs in East German swimming.
FINA has noted that Mr Leopold has confessed to his involvement, whereas Mr Glaser has denied having taken part. Charges of promoting steroid use were brought against Mr Glaser last October, however, these have yet to be heard.
Thus, FINA has argued, it knows, by his own admission, that Mr Leopold is guilty of having promoted the use of performance-enhancing drugs and therefore action can be taken against him. Mr Glaser, FINA argues, must be given the benefit of the doubt until his trial at which clear evidence of his involvement may be presented.
FINA has also claimed that its bid to have the penalty for the use of steroids reduced from four to two years was appropriate.
FINA claimed that it sought to have the ban reduced to two years because the current ban of four was proving very difficult to apply. FINA has maintained that the Court of Arbitration for Sport has regularly overturned four-year bans.
FINA has also noted that a two-year ban for the use of steroids would bring the penalty given by FINA into line with that imposed by the IAAF, the international athletics body. The IAAF imposes a two-year ban.
Finally, FINA has defended its decision not to ban the entire Chinese swimming team from the world swimming championships and other international competition because four Chinese swimmers tested positive for the use of a banned diuretic. The diuretic is banned because its use can mask or hide the presence of steroids in urine samples.
If the four athletes had been found to have used steroids, then FINA's regulations would have allowed the entire Chinese team to be banned from international competition for two years. However, though FINA prohibits the use of diuretics because they can be used to mask steroid use, it does not regard diuretic use as absolute proof that steroids have been taken and so did not impose a ban on the entire team.
Had each of the four swimmers been found to have used steroids, each would have faced an individual ban of four years. Diuretic-use attracts a ban of two years for each swimmer involved.
FINA defends its treatment of diuretic-use by claiming that it is only circumstantial evidence and so is not conclusive proof that steroids have been taken.
As an indication of its determination to stop the use of performance-enhancing substances within world class swimming, FINA has noted that it conducted 820 tests for banned substances in the last twelve months. Of these 173 were conducted in China.
FINA's medical commission secretary, Mr Taffy Cameron, has stated that in making these tests, FINA had gone beyond the top 50 world ranking listing which had been its original objective, sometimes testing swimmers ranked in the top 150.

Further implications
Many of the criticisms leveled at FINA appear to be the response of swimmers and coaches to a suspicion of cheating and drug abuse which they fear is getting out of control.
Though it is possible to note inconsistencies in FINA's conduct, there appear to be justifications for much of the caution FINA has displayed.
Though criticism has currently focused on FINA, it seems likely that as the Sydney 2000 Olympics approach, demands will be made for the International Olympic Committee and possibly the Australian Olympic Committee, in addition to FINA, to take a more pro-active approach.
This has already been foreshadowed by some of the comments made in relation to the Chinese drug controversy at the world swimming championships in Perth.
Former Australian swimming champion, Mr Murray Rose, has stated, `We haven't had the leadership from FINA or any of the other international governing bodies or the IOC ...'
In the lead-up to the 2000 Olympics, the Australian Customs Service has already indicated that it is aware of the need to look for performance-enhancing drugs being smuggled into Australia. Given that the Service admits that such searches have something of the quality of seeking a needle in a hay-stack it is unlikely that they will prevent such substances entering the country.
Australian scientists are currently taking part in an international project to find a means of identifying or tagging hormone use. Should this be successful it would be a large step forward.
Some commentators have suggested, however, that science will always be playing catch-up, trying to devise tests for whatever is the latest miracle substance being used by some competitors to give them an unfair advantage.
Others have suggested that the only long-term hope of reducing these practices lies in a shift of national attitudes away from winning at all costs, together with the knowledge that such cheating is likely ultimately to be exposed and to bring international disgrace on those concerned.
One suggested method of ensuring that cheats would ultimately be detected is to have blood samples of all place-getters in major international competitions taken and frozen so that as appropriate tests become available these samples can be screened for banned substances.

Sources
The Age
9/1/98 page 1 news item by Jacquelin Magnay, Nick Papadopoulos and Caroline Overington,, `Swimmers in hiding'
9/1/98 page 2 news item by Jacquelin Magnay, `Winning women raise international brows'
10/1/98 page 1 news item by Jacquelin Magnay, Michael Cowley and Caroline Overington, `Disgraced swimmer sent home'
10/1/98 page 8 news item by Jacquelin Magnay, `Talbot calls for strong action against doping'
10/1/98 page 8 analysis by Jacquelin Magnay, `Swimming body faces tough decisions'
10/1/98 page 9 (News Extra) editorial, `Play by the rules'
10/1/98 page 3 (News Extra) analysis by Jacquelin Magnay, `China's drug syndrome'
16/1/98 page 1B analysis by Matthew Moore, `The drug problem exists, but just what is the solution?'
16/1/98 page B12 news item by Jacquelin Magnay and Matthew Moore, `Coaches angry over Chinese'
16/1/98 page B12 comment by Kieren Perkins, `Drugs scandal casts doubt over all swimmers'

The Australian
6/1/98 page 1 news item by Nicole Jeffery and Colleen Egan, `Swim coach dodges ban by keeping mum'
6/1/98 page 2 news item by Nicole Jeffery, `Drip turns to flood on the East's little blue pills'
6/1/98 page 10 editorial, `Some FINA points of public relations'
6/1/98 page 11 comment by Ron Laura, `A wasteful witch-hunt'
8/1/98 page 5 news item by Trudy Harris, `Customs on guard over Olympic steroid flood'
9/1/98 page 6 news item by Katherine Glascott, `Growth hormone the secret assistant'
9/1/98 page 22 news item by Nicole Jeffrey, `FINA testers swoop after bungled hotel raid'
9/1/98 page 22 news item by Natalie O'Brien, `Spitz, Rose attack governing body'
10/1/98 page 1 news item by Judy Hughes and Trudy Harris, `Swimmer sacrificed for banned hormone'
10/1/98 page 4 news item by Fiona Kennedy, `Secretive scientists close in Don test'
10/1/98 page 4 news item by staff reporters, `Child's stimulant that speeds elite athletes'
10/1/98 page 4 news item by Nicole Jeffrey, `Weight of fiasco could sink titles'
10/1/98 page 14 editorial, `Credibility the highest of values'
16/1/98 page 12 editorial, `China must prove tough drug stance'
16/1/98 page 13 comment by Tim Watts, `Fame dulls name of the game'

The Herald Sun
7/1/98 page 70 news item by Catriona Dixon, `Protest defeats drugs ban cut'
8/1/98 page 76 news item by Wayne Smith, `Dope base claim'
10/1/98 page 2 news item by Catriona Dixon, `Shamed champ sent packing'
10/1/98 page 8 analysis by Wayne Smith, `Cheats in the swim'
10/1/98 page 24 editorial, `What became of sport?'
16/1/98 page 18 editorial, `Drugs in sport'
16/1/98 page 4 news item, `Coates backs Beijing'
16/1/98 page 106 analysis by Ron Reed, `Samaranch to China: Forget about 2008"
16/1/98 page 107 news item by Wayne Smith, `Drugs penalty defies all logic'

Internet
There are a number of useful Internet sites containing background information on the current controversy. All those about to be listed were written before September 1, 1997.
Veteran Australian swimming coach, Forbes Carlile, wrote a position paper in 1995, titled, Why China must not Swim at Atlanta `96. Carlile is a founding member of the World Swimming Coaches Anti-Drug Committee. His paper provides information re the use of drugs in sport, especially swimming, and gives detailed criticism of FINA's handling of the issue. It can be found at http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/swimming/drugs/carlile.html

In June, 1996, the Sydney Morning Herald published an article by Jacquelin Magnay, titled, The Drug Busters: The Chemical Games. It was written in the lead-up to the Atlanta Olympics and provides detailed information on some of the more recently developed banned substances believed to be in use and what efforts have been made to detect them. This article can be found at http://www.smh.com.au/atlanta/articles/2458.html

In August, 1997, The Irish Times, published a report by Johnny Watterson, titled, Fighting a losing battle. The article presents the views of Harm Beyer, secretary of the European Swimming Federation. Mr Beyer looks at the deficiencies in FINA's current procedures and regulations and at attempts to overcome these. He also considers the role played by individual nations in encouraging drug cheats. This report can be found at http://www.irish-times.com/irish-times/paper/1997/0823/spo3.html