Stephen Vasciannie
According to The Gleaner's cartoonist, Justin Gatlin has got a shot in the arm. According, however, to Gatlin's coach, our own Trevor Graham, Gatlin has been stabbed in the back. Perhaps we will never know the full story, and perhaps Gatlin may survive this very serious threat to his career; but irrespective of how this matter is resolved, there are a number of important lessons for the wider society.
In the first place, the Gatlin episode, together with other high-profile drug use allegations, should remind us of the arguments that have been proffered against drug use in sports. When a sportsperson relies on drugs to enhance performance, this is fundamentally unfair to competitors. Presumably, the competitors rely on natural talent, a strict training regimen, a disciplined lifestyle, commitment, dedication and other laudable personal characteristics to achieve success. The drug taker seeks the short-cut to glory, and does this dishonestly. No reward should be available for that type of behaviour.
Keep the ban
In response to this line of reasoning, it is sometimes suggested that the dishonest element of drug taking may be removed simply by ending the ban on drug use in sports. This response proceeds: if all drugs are legal, then the individual sportsperson may decide to take drugs. Some will take drugs and others will not, but at least we will know that everyone starts on the level playing field of having the choice whether or not to take drugs. Thus, when you see the winner of a given race, there is no need for speculation whether or not it is a lawful win, for we would have defined away the possibility of unlawfulness.
This is a beguiling, but ultimately unacceptable approach. If you allow everyone to take performance-enhancing drugs, you will reduce sporting competition essentially to a pharmaceutical contest. Then, persons of moderate ability, and of only average commitment will be able to claim the glory that should go to those who put in the most effort.
Another point used to justify the current regime prohibiting performance-enhancing drugs concerns risk to sportspersons. The current system of drug regulation is built at least in part on the fact that some performance-enhancing drugs are either life-threatening or carry consequences that are otherwise harmful to the health of the user.
Sporting organizations therefore ban the use of some drugs to promote clean, healthy lifestyles, consistent with the widely accepted model of athleticism that can be traced back to early Greco-Roman civilisation. How could sporting activity, designed to enhance positive virtues, strength and vitality, openly associate itself with the use of drugs that will directly undermine personal health?
This question cannot be properly answered by those who support the use of performance-enhancing drugs. So, instead, the pro-drug people rely on the philosophy of personal autonomy. They say: well, the drugs may hurt the sportsperson, but that is the user's choice; if I am prepared to risk death at 35 in return for Olympic gold, why should a sporting federation deny me that choice? It is, they say, pure and awful paternalism for the sporting federation to prohibit my drug-taking.
Stick to the rules
This is not an impressive response. Sporting federations are mandated to set the terms and conditions for participation, and as part of that mandate, they are obliged to maintain the highest standards of professionalism, fairness and achievement. The taking of a drug to enhance performance is entirely inconsistent with the kind of achievement sporting federations are required to advance.
So then, we must continue to support the prohibition of performance-enhancing drugs in sport. Jamaica has recently ratified the international treaty prohibiting drug use in sports, and the country is now in the process of preparing legislation to clarify and confirm international rules in this area. This process is particularly important, for as we celebrate our unparalleled achievements in sports, we must also be able to say that we have these achievements without a shot in the arm.
Stephen Vasciannie is a UWI Professor, consultant in the Attorney-General's Chambers, and vice chair of the Jamaican Anti-Doping Committee.
