The recent spate of doping reports has left the sporting landscape indelibly pockmarked from the damage which has been inflicted.
The current narrative of sport seems to be as much about doping as it is about performances. For several decades, road cycling was the sport most heavily stained by performance-enhancing drugs. But cycling, it appears, has cleaned up its act somewhat of late and the recent flood of positive tests in athletics has left track and field with the unenviable moniker of dirtiest sport in the world.
If the size of the ripple caused by a positive doping test is in direct proportion to the calibre of the athlete involved, then athletics has battled a veritable tsunami in 2013. It was announced last month that the 2007 world champion Tyson Gay, former world-record holder Asafa Powell and 2012 Olympic relay gold medallist Sherone Simpson have all failed drugs tests. This trio is just the tip of the iceberg, though. Earlier this year, Scotland's Lynsey Sharp was promoted from second place in the 2012 European Championships 800 metres to first when Russian gold medallist Yelena Arzhakova tested positive for drugs.
Doping in athletics will again be in the headlines when Moscow host the World Athletics Championships, which begin tomorrow. There is considerable debate as to whether Russia should have been awarded this major championship at all, given the country's dreadful doping record. Currently, 44 Russian athletes are serving bans for doping violations. To add to this bleak picture, a Mail on Sunday investigation last month alleged that the country's athletes are doping under instruction from coaches and are assisted by cover-ups at Russia's main anti-doping laboratory.
Numerous British athletes have denounced the decision of the IAAF to install Russia as hosts. Greg Rutherford, the Olympic long jump gold medallist, questioned Russia's suitability. "Something needs to change with their testing," he said. "Obviously they catch some [guilty athletes], but I understand that it's hard to get into the country to do tests a lot of the time. To then give them a major championships . . . should you reward people that clearly have a problem?"
Rutherford makes a valid point. Doping in sport will never be eradicated entirely; as long as there are significant rewards on offer, there will be athletes willing to cheat. But everything possible must be done by those at the helm of each sport to discourage and punish doping. Cycling, on the face of it at least, appears to be a significantly cleaner sport than it was in the past. But the fact that doping allegations continue to haunt the top riders illustrates the damage that can be done to the reputation of a sport once it has been tainted by drugs. Athletics is teetering on the brink of finding itself in the same predicament as cycling did in the '90s, with a significant proportion of spectators not believing that what they are witnessing are fair, drug-free races. If the cloud which hangs over athletics becomes any darker, it could signal the death-knell for the sport.
Countries which have a poor anti-doping reputation, such as Russia, should not be awarded a single major championship until they have proved they are making significant progress in terms of cleaning up sport in their country. Irrespective of the power or money which a bidding nation has at its disposal - it should not be forgotten that Russia is an athletics superpower, having finished second only to the USA in the 2012 Olympic athletics medal table - the doping issue should supersede these factors.
While countries with dire anti-doping records continue to be awarded major championships, there is little incentive for that nation to improve its enforcement of anti-doping procedures. It should be a foregone conclusion that a country with such a poor anti-doping record as Russia will not be considered to host a World Championships.
Russian authorities dispute the claim that they are not seriously attempting to rid sport in their country of doping. The Russian sports minister, Vitaly Mutko, claimed that the recent flurry of negative doping stories in British newspapers about his nation's athletes was motivated by jealousy after Russia beat GB in the European Team Championships in Gateshead in June. This theory seems unlikely. During my badminton career, my compatriots and I harboured suspicions that other nations did not implement as stringent drugs-testing procedures as Britain does. These beliefs were largely unfounded but the pervading feeling continued that more could be done to rid sport of the disease that is doping. And if that means withholding major events from specific countries until they clean up their act, then that is what must be done.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article