Wow. I didn’t see that coming.
Right alongside the latest reports of another incredible evening of swimming at the 12th FINA World Championships in Melbourne, Australia (Michael Phelps edged world record holder Ian Crocker by .05 in the 100-meter butterfly final to win his 5th gold medal of the event), came the news last night that FINA (the world governing body for swimming) is pursuing sanctions against former world and Olympic champion Ian Thorpe (aka “The Thorpedo”). Supposedly, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency had received an “adverse analytical finding” as the result of an out-of-competition drug test administered against Thorpe last May. Subsequently – in an apparently unrelated development -- Thorpe retired from the sport last November. What is unusual here is that if a test was not clearly positive (as evidenced by positive results from both “A” and “B” samples), then no other administrative entity or agency should have ever been aware of this. So, a lot of Australians are up in arms about a “leak” of this news. They feel that Thorpe’s reputation has now been unfairly maligned, and that his privacy invaded without cause.
One thing is for sure, however. Michael Phelps had better sit down with his PR folks, because his next gold medal press conference is going to be a shooting gallery of questions from the media about Thorpe, doping in swimming, and his own status as a “clean” swimmer. I think he is clean, and he is a pretty polished 21-year old when it comes to interacting with the media. But he is going to have to earn a gold medal in media relations in order to survive what is sure to be an onslaught of inquiry on the doping subject.
It is ironic, because I just got an email earlier this week from an old swimming friend about whether Phelps was clean. There had been an article in The Washington Post earlier this week about Phelps’ new strength training regime, and the discussion we had was around whether or not the Post piece was intimating a darker reason for his breakthrough swimming in Melbourne. I responded that I didn’t’ think the article was suggesting anything illegal or unethical on Phelps’ part, and I also said I didn’t think Phelps was a doper. But it is true that swimming has had its problems with doping.
A lot of folks will recall the machine that was the East German women’s swimming team from the late 1970’s through early 1980’s. What many were suspicious of at the time – that the East German women were rampant steroid users – actually was proven true later. There had been a Government-sponsored program of doping from the age group level all the way up to the national team level. In fact, the doping was so pervasive – most of it unknown to the athletes themselves, who had a blind allegiance to their state-appointed, Communist party coaches – that many of these women subsequently developed horrible health problems like cancer and birth defects in their children. The reunified German government eventually paid reparations to some of these women as the result of the chemical atrocities committed against these girls by the East German government. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, the Chinese apparently imitated the East German formula, and a number of their national team swimmers tested positive for steroids at regional and international competitions. In 1996, Irish swimmer Michelle Smith came from out of nowhere to win 3 gold medals and a bronze in the swimming events at the Atlanta Olympics. However, 2 years later she was suspended for tampering with a urine sample from an out-of-competition drug test, and she lost a lot of her popularity. It never helped her situation that her husband and “coach” was a Dutch shot-putter with no swimming background who had served a 2-year doping suspension as the result of testing positive for steroids in competition. Even Americans like Jess’ca Foschi have been forced to serve drug-related suspensions.
There can be no question anymore that virtually any stellar sports performance is going to be suspected by some as being the result of doping. However, in the case of Michael Phelps, I think it is unlikely for a couple of reasons. First, the guy has been a prodigious talent since Day 1; he made the Olympic team at age 15 and set his first world record at age 15, nine months. So, it is less likely that he has need of performance-enhancing than some others. Plus, he is from the United States, and the sorts of drugs which would most enhance a swimmer’s performance (likely to be steroids, testosterone, and/or HGH [human growth hormone] and, possibly, EPO [erythropoietin]) are currently the subject of some pretty rigorous investigation at the Federal level; the FBI has a task force that is trying to track down bogus home labs, “aging labs,” and illegal shipments from pharmacies in Mexico. So, unlike some other jurisdictions, he is more likely to be found out, I think, than if he lived in, say, Russia.
On top of all that, I have my own doubts about the ability of the average swimmer/coach partnership in the U.S. to secure the extra time, financial resources, connections, and ability to focus on a program of doping. I’ve been around competitive swimming in one form or another for over 35 years, and this just doesn’t fit with what I've seen and experienced. In order to work, a doping program almost has to be systemic; you need to acquire the drugs, you need medical advice on how/when to use them, you need a coach or trainer who will advise you on when to use them to maximum benefit and when to not use them so as to avoid detection in or out of competition, and you need to keep the secret form other people who might have an incentive to reveal your secret (like competitors). On the other hand, the more haphazard (or solitary) a program of doping is, it seems even more unlikely that it could succeed, especially if you account for out-of-competition testing, which just about all prominent athletes like Phelps are subject to these days.
I doubt either of these scenarios applies in the case of Phelps. And when it comes to keeping secrets, keep in mind that Phelps is not training in isolation. Although he turned pro and therefore cannot swim competitively in an NCAA program, he is a student at the University of Michigan where he lives and trains with Bob Bowman (his old coach from North Baltimore Aquatic Club, and head coach of the Michigan men’s swim team). I doubt very seriously there is a systematic program of doping at Michigan (all NCAA swimmers are likewise subject to testing for performance enhancing drugs), or that Phelps could keep any solitary, personal program of doping a secret from the men he lives and trains with.
An athlete like Phelps who knows he is one of the best in the world seems to me to be less likely (at least psychologically) to feel the need to dope than, say, someone struggling to reach that level. A champion, in this view, doesn’t feel the needs to use performance enhancing drugs. In fact, to use them might be, for such an athlete, an admission that he is not as good as he thinks he is. While some might say the endorsements ratchet up the temptation level, the converse is as likely to be true, if not more so. Why take performance enhancing drugs and risk a set of multi-million dollar guaranteed promotional contracts?
But, yeah, he is going to get asked the question. A lot.
Finish strong.
Right alongside the latest reports of another incredible evening of swimming at the 12th FINA World Championships in Melbourne, Australia (Michael Phelps edged world record holder Ian Crocker by .05 in the 100-meter butterfly final to win his 5th gold medal of the event), came the news last night that FINA (the world governing body for swimming) is pursuing sanctions against former world and Olympic champion Ian Thorpe (aka “The Thorpedo”). Supposedly, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Agency had received an “adverse analytical finding” as the result of an out-of-competition drug test administered against Thorpe last May. Subsequently – in an apparently unrelated development -- Thorpe retired from the sport last November. What is unusual here is that if a test was not clearly positive (as evidenced by positive results from both “A” and “B” samples), then no other administrative entity or agency should have ever been aware of this. So, a lot of Australians are up in arms about a “leak” of this news. They feel that Thorpe’s reputation has now been unfairly maligned, and that his privacy invaded without cause.
One thing is for sure, however. Michael Phelps had better sit down with his PR folks, because his next gold medal press conference is going to be a shooting gallery of questions from the media about Thorpe, doping in swimming, and his own status as a “clean” swimmer. I think he is clean, and he is a pretty polished 21-year old when it comes to interacting with the media. But he is going to have to earn a gold medal in media relations in order to survive what is sure to be an onslaught of inquiry on the doping subject.
It is ironic, because I just got an email earlier this week from an old swimming friend about whether Phelps was clean. There had been an article in The Washington Post earlier this week about Phelps’ new strength training regime, and the discussion we had was around whether or not the Post piece was intimating a darker reason for his breakthrough swimming in Melbourne. I responded that I didn’t’ think the article was suggesting anything illegal or unethical on Phelps’ part, and I also said I didn’t think Phelps was a doper. But it is true that swimming has had its problems with doping.
A lot of folks will recall the machine that was the East German women’s swimming team from the late 1970’s through early 1980’s. What many were suspicious of at the time – that the East German women were rampant steroid users – actually was proven true later. There had been a Government-sponsored program of doping from the age group level all the way up to the national team level. In fact, the doping was so pervasive – most of it unknown to the athletes themselves, who had a blind allegiance to their state-appointed, Communist party coaches – that many of these women subsequently developed horrible health problems like cancer and birth defects in their children. The reunified German government eventually paid reparations to some of these women as the result of the chemical atrocities committed against these girls by the East German government. In the late 1980’s and early 1990’s, the Chinese apparently imitated the East German formula, and a number of their national team swimmers tested positive for steroids at regional and international competitions. In 1996, Irish swimmer Michelle Smith came from out of nowhere to win 3 gold medals and a bronze in the swimming events at the Atlanta Olympics. However, 2 years later she was suspended for tampering with a urine sample from an out-of-competition drug test, and she lost a lot of her popularity. It never helped her situation that her husband and “coach” was a Dutch shot-putter with no swimming background who had served a 2-year doping suspension as the result of testing positive for steroids in competition. Even Americans like Jess’ca Foschi have been forced to serve drug-related suspensions.
There can be no question anymore that virtually any stellar sports performance is going to be suspected by some as being the result of doping. However, in the case of Michael Phelps, I think it is unlikely for a couple of reasons. First, the guy has been a prodigious talent since Day 1; he made the Olympic team at age 15 and set his first world record at age 15, nine months. So, it is less likely that he has need of performance-enhancing than some others. Plus, he is from the United States, and the sorts of drugs which would most enhance a swimmer’s performance (likely to be steroids, testosterone, and/or HGH [human growth hormone] and, possibly, EPO [erythropoietin]) are currently the subject of some pretty rigorous investigation at the Federal level; the FBI has a task force that is trying to track down bogus home labs, “aging labs,” and illegal shipments from pharmacies in Mexico. So, unlike some other jurisdictions, he is more likely to be found out, I think, than if he lived in, say, Russia.
On top of all that, I have my own doubts about the ability of the average swimmer/coach partnership in the U.S. to secure the extra time, financial resources, connections, and ability to focus on a program of doping. I’ve been around competitive swimming in one form or another for over 35 years, and this just doesn’t fit with what I've seen and experienced. In order to work, a doping program almost has to be systemic; you need to acquire the drugs, you need medical advice on how/when to use them, you need a coach or trainer who will advise you on when to use them to maximum benefit and when to not use them so as to avoid detection in or out of competition, and you need to keep the secret form other people who might have an incentive to reveal your secret (like competitors). On the other hand, the more haphazard (or solitary) a program of doping is, it seems even more unlikely that it could succeed, especially if you account for out-of-competition testing, which just about all prominent athletes like Phelps are subject to these days.
I doubt either of these scenarios applies in the case of Phelps. And when it comes to keeping secrets, keep in mind that Phelps is not training in isolation. Although he turned pro and therefore cannot swim competitively in an NCAA program, he is a student at the University of Michigan where he lives and trains with Bob Bowman (his old coach from North Baltimore Aquatic Club, and head coach of the Michigan men’s swim team). I doubt very seriously there is a systematic program of doping at Michigan (all NCAA swimmers are likewise subject to testing for performance enhancing drugs), or that Phelps could keep any solitary, personal program of doping a secret from the men he lives and trains with.
An athlete like Phelps who knows he is one of the best in the world seems to me to be less likely (at least psychologically) to feel the need to dope than, say, someone struggling to reach that level. A champion, in this view, doesn’t feel the needs to use performance enhancing drugs. In fact, to use them might be, for such an athlete, an admission that he is not as good as he thinks he is. While some might say the endorsements ratchet up the temptation level, the converse is as likely to be true, if not more so. Why take performance enhancing drugs and risk a set of multi-million dollar guaranteed promotional contracts?
But, yeah, he is going to get asked the question. A lot.
Finish strong.
No comments:
Post a Comment