Paid millions to perform (or hoping to be paid millions someday), the pressure to win can be staggering for professional athletes. It’s no coincidence that steroids and supplements are so widely used by elite athletes –and often makes appearances in the headlines in the form of salacious scandals.
We all know a bit about steroids, butwhat’s thereal scoop? Why are they so prevalent? When are they illegal? How, if at all, do they differ fromperforming enhancing drugs andsupplements?
These questions aren’t simple ones. Even in an organizationasincredibly well regulatedas the NCAA, there isnoexhaustive list of illicit substances. Here we’ll delve into the answers to some of these oft-asked questions alongside some of the juiciest stories to hit headlines in recent years.
Historically, if an athlete wanted a competitive advantage, he or shewould turn to anabolic steroids. This class of medication–initially created to treat ailments or symptoms relating to delayed musculoskeletal growth or excessive inflammation –represents asynthetic alternative to the male sex hormone, testosterone. Inathletes, this medication would enhance protein synthesis to permit rapid increases in muscle size, gains in strength, enhanced endurance,and faster recovery. Athletes taking anabolic steroids areable to rapidly gain an edge over their non-steroid-using competitors.
The downside? Long-term use of anabolic steroids causes a broad scope of symptoms –bothpsychological and physiological. Over time, repeated use of steroids weakens the body’snatural immune system and makesusers susceptible to osteoarthritis, liver disease,and cancer.It also causes a variety of hormonal changes, weight gain,and hair loss in both men andwomen.Psychologically, it can cause unchecked aggression (endearingly termed ‘roid rage’), depression,and anger. Despitethese downsidesand the high potential for abuse, sometimes the pressure to perform is sogreat that athletes can rationalize steroiduse.
Floyd Landis, the American Cyclist and 2006 Tour de France victor, was a classic underdog story to the undiscerning eye. In Stage 16’s infamous climb up La Toussiere, Landis failed spectacularly –losing 10 minutes, his yellow leader jersey,and seemingly all potential for victory. Stage 17(of 20)was a different story. In a move deemed ‘suicidal’ and ‘irrational’ by commentators and competitors, Landis staged a bold and seemingly miraculous comeback to win Stage 17 by a full seven minutes and,a few stages later, the Tour. He was a true American hero –a bold, confident dark horse –andtheworld of cycling rejoiced.
Less than a week later, Landis’sreputation and victory went up in flames as he leftbothAmerican cyclists and the sportdisgraced. A urine sample, taken afterhishistoric Stage 17, contained evidence ofsynthetic testosterone use, with hisnumbers almost tripling the permissibleamount. Although he maintained his innocence, Landis was subsequently suspended
from professional cycling. Finally, in 2010, he admitted to persistent doping and testosterone useand released allegations of prolific doping among his American teammates (including cycling legend Lance Armstrong).
Interestingly, Landis is still cycling. In fact, while cheering on our rock starbeta tester, Luke Pearson, in the Levi’s GranFondo, we saw Landis finish the 160 mile Il Regno racein a mere 7 hours and 9 minutes. In addition to his cycling pursuits, Landis now sells high-grade cannabis products for athletes in Colorado.
While all anabolic steroids are classified as performance enhancingdrugs (PEDs), not all PEDs are steroids. The once-pervasive steroid is now being replaced by other medications and supplements. Some of these drugs serve a relatively simple function, like increasing production of red blood cells in order to train longer and harder (Erythropoietin and/or blood doping), while others are far more complex. Some of the most common of these non-steroidal PEDs are human growth hormone (hGH), ephedrine, creatine, and albuterol. While thephysiological effectsdiffer for each of these PEDs, they functionally work to build muscle, extend endurance,and accelerate recovery –much like an anabolic steroid.
The lines become blurred, however, when it comes to the legality of these drugs. Many of these medications can be taken for valid medical reasons but also have a performance enhancing effect. For the average, non-professional athlete, a numberof these drugs and supplements are legal (although many require a prescription). For professional athletes, however, medications like albuterol are screened for and prohibited because of the potential enhancement of lung capacity (although the data supporting this claim are mixed). Regulating these drugs becomemore complicated by cases in which the athlete requires albuterol or another restricted medication for valid medical purposes.In thesecases, theathletemust apply for a therapeutic use exemption or risk testing positive for PED useand face fines, suspensions, and worse.
In June of 2016, Maria Sharapova was banned from the sport of tennis for two years after testing positive for the banned substance ‘meldonium’ at the Australian Open – immediately following her match against long-time tennis archrival, Serena Williams. Meldonium, designed to treat ischemia (inadequate blood flow), increases blood flow throughout the body and thereby increases exercise capacity and recovery.
When Sharapova took her first dose of meldonium in 2006, a full ten years prior to her doping ban, she was doing nothing wrong. At that time, meldonium was just one of numerous medications being monitored by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). Eventually it was added to the official WADA watch list in 2015. Unlike some drugs that remain on this watch list for years without end, meldonium was upgraded to a banned substance in 2016 – due primarily to patterns of use that spanned entire teams.
Sharapova’s case is a particularly convoluted one. In a 33-page tribunal, the factors playing into the charges are spelled out and scrutinized. Here’s the gist: Sharapova had been taking meldonium legally for 10 years. When 2015 became 2016, the drug was no longer on a watch list but was rather listed as a banned substance. No formal decree stating this change was issued, nor was this information actively communicated to athletes, but it was findable. Although meldonium is not FDA approved in the United States, it is sold as an over-the-counter substance in Eastern Europe, so Sharapova’s use of the drug was not under the care of a doctor. All these defenses aside, she took an illicit substance and did not disclose its use, so she was subsequently banned from tennis for two years. Interestingly, a later ruling by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (yes, that’s a real thing) reduced the ban by 9 months (to a 15-month ban) after determining that her infraction was unintentional.
The challenge in a case like Sharapova’s (and many of the recent cases) is in justifying harsh penalties as the rules surrounding PEDs become more and more convoluted. Long gone are the days of testing for a single marker like testosterone. Now PEDs come in all shapes, sizes, and forms. Some, like energy drinks, caffeine, and anti-inflammatory drugs, appear completely benign and are legal according to WADA but are still by definition performance enhancing drugs. Others are more obviously nefarious – meaning they both clearly enhance performance and pose a health risk. But many substances, including meldonium, fall into a gray area somewhere in the middle. Virtually all athletes are constantly devising new way to enhance their performance, some through condoned methods and others through banned ones.
Technology to detect PEDs improves more and more by the day, but advances in technology also continually introduce new means of enhancing performance. Some such means are drug-based or artificial, but there are also environmental and more natural manipulations, such as hypoxic air tents (simulating sleeping at high altitude) and altitude trainers (allowing for exercise with thinner air conditions), that ultimately perform virtually identical functions to certain PEDs without the use of drugs.
The role of PEDs and bio-hacking technology in the future of sport has yet to be determined. Many passionately argue for legalized PEDs in pro sports – and equal numbers passionately advocate for further enforcement. The decisions we make over the next few years will dictate a great deal – so stay tuned, stay vigilant, and be vocal!
Outside the realm of professional sports
The legality of steroids and supplements in professional and collegiate athletes is determined by a designated organization, but what about for the rest of us?
There are technically rules for most athletes competing in amateur athletic events, but they are very rarely tested and even more seldom enforced. Just like the pros, there is no rule against taking creatine, prescribed medications, or pounding Red Bull before a race. Although many athletes may get away with questionable medication use (say, a Sudafed habit or an unnecessary inhaler), there are also natural, healthy, and ethical ways to supplement training.
Outside of sports altogether? Well, that’s a different story.
There is no WADA or rule-book for the game of life, and stories of media luminaries, CEOs, and other high-achievers using performance enhancers are becoming increasingly common.
While the workplace is vastly different from the sport arena in many ways – there are similar demands of vigilance, attention, performance, and efficiency. To date, no drugs are specifically approved or marketed for performance enhancement in this arena, but like athletes, some people engaging in “work-doping” take advantage of the off-label uses of certain medications. The most common of these workplace PEDs? Adderall and Ritalin (prescribed for ADHD) and Modafinil (a drug commonly used to treat narcolepsy). Micro-dosing (taking approximately 1/10th of a typical recreational dose) of the illegal psychedelic, LSD, is also becoming increasingly common as a means to enhance productivity. A limited body of research provides evidence supporting this claim, but LSD is still far from becoming a legal, regulated medication in the workplace.
There are a number of alternatives to enhance workplace productivity that are seemingly more benign. Biohacking, a term that once exclusively referred to genetic tampering, has emerged as a fairly recent practice that is akin to ‘do-it-yourself-biology’ or curiosity-based experimentation based on biological principles. A subset of biohackers extend this practice to hacking their own biology in attempts to gain increased control over their own bodily systems. Biohackers’ practices range from the mundane to the extreme -- from a low-toxicity coffee habit to applying direct electrical current to the scalp to influence neural activity patterns. We’re likely only beginning to see the ways in which people will use both natural and synthetic products in attempts to unleash their full potential.
49-year old venture capitalist, early investor in Facebook and Co-Founder of PayPal, Peter Thiel, is outspokenly passionate about trying to prevent aging and increase longevity. In addition to investing in various companies he believes to be working toward biological advances that will extend human life, Thiel admits to taking human growth hormone as a part of his quest to live to 120.
His quest may not end there. Thiel has conveyed fascination with the notion of ‘parabiosis’, an experimental fusing of blood vessels between two different mice. According to an article published in ‘Nature,’ joining the circulatory system between two mice, one young and one old, results in rejuvenation of the aging mouse’s organs. Thiel isn’t alone in this enthrallment. A start-up, Ambrosia LLC, buys blood from blood banks and transfuses this blood into adults over the age of 35. Although Thiel is not an Ambrosia customer (and it is unknown whether he actually engages in this practice), HBO’s ‘Silicon Valley’ and its ‘blood boy’ is not too far from the rapidly approaching future of performance enhancement in the workplace.
The future of PEDs
In some ways, the future is already here. ‘Juicing’ in the traditional sense still occurs, but we now live in world rife with creative alternatives for performance enhancement. People inject themselves with their own stem cells, and some use neurofeedback to tinker with their brains to optimize performance. There are supplements that replenish the tips of chromosomes in attempts to combat aging (although the evidence is tenuous…), cryotherapy canisters that flash-freeze the body to enhance recovery, and pods that can mimic the altitude on the top of Everest to increase red blood cell volume. Perhaps the near future will bring engineered DNA for the ultimate performer.
The question is not if these technologies will exist, but rather, how they will be used. Will they remain contained among professional athletes and wealthy high-achievers in business? Will performance enhancers run rampant among the workforce? Will they find a home in the tactical athletic realm – like the military or fire department?
What ethical ramifications accompany the ever-increasing presence of PEDs across numerous domains? Will the non-users be left in the dust? Perhaps the most important question of all – what role, if any, should PEDs play in our future?