A long time clinic lurker, but first time real poster in the clinic, however please everyone excuse the length of my post!
Skimming the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) report, while it indicates it focuses on the major sporting codes, the following from the key findings (page 8 of the Report) under the heading Professional Athletes makes the following statement:
Multiple players across some sporting codes and specific clubs within those codes are suspected of currently using or having previously used peptides, which could constitute an anti-doping rule violation. The level of suspected use of peptides varies between some sporting codes, however officials from a club have been identified as administering, via injections and intravenous drips, a variety of substances, possibly including peptides. Moreover, the substances were administered at levels which were possibly in breach of WADA anti-doping rules.
The use of peptides and hormones is linked to a culture in some professional sports in Australia of administering untested and experimental substances to athletes in the hope they will provide an advantage in the highly competitive world of professional sport. In some instances, the substances are not yet approved for human use.
at
http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/s...ganised-crime-and-drugs-in-sports-feb2013.pdf
At least there is now acknowledgement that the issue is much wider than one sport, particularly in light of the following Statement made in the Australian Sports Commission "The Essence of Australian Sport" report, that
“Australians are proud of their sporting ability and reputation as a nation of good sports, and our society expects high standards of behaviour from all people involved in sport.”
at
http://www.ausport.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/312869/A4_brochure_7_05-V5.pdf page 2 as quoted in the ACC report, and that the ACC report identified
the increasing link between
sports and wagering markets means the issues identified by the ACC and ASADA also have major implications for the integrity of sports betting markets.
According to the report
anabolic steroids remain the most widely recognised PIEDs, an array of drugs that were originally developed for the treatment of medical and hormonal disorders by manipulating the body’s hormonal system are now also being used as PIEDs.
(note that the report uses PIED as an abbreviation for Performance and Image Enhancing Drugs). Clearly it is acknowledging something that we have known in cycling for years, that drugs are a real issue in sport, and that they impact on the competition, but also the public and its view of the sports involve in such scandels.
The report, thank goodness takes the time to explain some of the major issues that were found (for those who really don't understand PEDs clearly, at least it provides an insight).
When explaining the users the report, for elite athletes, which would include cyclists states:
Widespread use of peptides has been identified, or is suspected by the ACC, in a number of professional sporting codes in Australia. Although the use of peptides appears to be more widespread in some major codes, individuals from a number of other sports are also suspected of using peptides.
Multiple players (in one code) from a number of clubs are suspected of currently using or having previously used peptides, which could constitute an anti-doping rule violation. Some players have also been identified as sourcing peptides for personal use. An instance of team-based doping, orchestrated by some club officials and coaching staff, has also been identified.
Apart from the peptide’s anabolic effects, it has been found that injured elite athletes, particularly players from one sporting code, have been using peptides to assist in rehabilitating soft tissue injuries.
While the level of suspected use of peptides varies between sporting codes, officials from one club have been identified as administering, via injections and intravenous drips, a variety of substances, possibly including peptides. Moreover, the substances were administered at levels which were possibly in breach of WADA anti-doping rules. This activity was orchestrated by some club officials and the club’s high performance unit.
While intelligence confirms the use of peptides in major sporting codes, it further suggests that individuals in a range of other codes may also be using peptides.
Of course in light of the revelations from the Essendon Football Club in the AFL of the last few days, we can see that there is significant substance to this. We all know that cycling in Australia cycling is not exempt, and may remeber the 2004 cycling scandel around Mark French and the finding of PEDs in his accommodation at the Australian Institute of Sport cycling program (e.g. see
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/06/18/1087245115867.html for a reminder), we have to assume (and it does grate on me as an Aussie to say this) that cycling is still not exempt from this behaviour.
The report is, while not obvious at a first read scathing of sport scientists and high performance staff. It notes with elite sports that
The standard of competition at the elite level of sport has reached a point where winning margins are now measured in hundredths of a second. There is an everincreasing focus on the science of sport in order to ensure that athletes perform at the highest possible standard and gain any possible competitive advantage. Remaining competitive at the elite level is now dependent on access to the best sports scientists and use of the latest technology.
While focusing on Australia's various football codes, clearly we can draw links to cycling that we know from the "Armstrong" era that winning is necessary and people are willing to do whatever they can to ensure that this happens through the access to "sport scientists" amd technological advances. However to illustrate their point the use as a case study the USADA investigation into Discovery Channel/US Postal (see page 27 of the report), clearly showing how this can be effected and impact on a sport.
The more disturbing thing that I found in the report, was the use of untested substances on Athletes, which for lack of evidence WADA has not yet determined should be on the banned list or not (note page 28 of the report) - what could cyclists be using that will become later banned, and how will this impact on the record books in the future.
While the report, takes the time to examine organised crime and its impacts wiht sport (both in the betting markets but also the supply of PEDs, which is not really relevant to the point of doping per se), one of the most compelling comments in its final peices of analysis is:
Due to the highly sophisticated nature of doping, specific skills and knowledge are required to ensure athletes obtain the greatest possible benefit without returning a positive anti-doping sample. Overseas experience has illustrated the fundamental role contracted sports scientists and medical professionals play in sophisticated doping programs, as was most clearly demonstrated in the case of Dr Ferrari and his involvement with Lance Armstrong.
Clearly it has to ring bells with anyone that where there is a potential advantage, either in the race of finanial, people will seek to circumvent the systems. We know that cycling has shown this to be the case, and we can not be so dense as to ignore the fact that the issues that the ACC identified will still be the case in cycling.
As an Australian, you cannot ignore the fact that Australia cyclists are likely still using PEDs, and cheating the system as much as anyone from any other country. Hopefully the ACC report, through provides both a wake-up, and a potential way to make changes that will benefit all sports - however cycling shows that officials are likely to put their head in the sand and ignore the issue.
From its analysis the ACC is, identifying that the issue is not a one-country only (as they are clear that there are international aspects to all the issues), and therefore any resolution to the issues will require international cooperation, but we know that this is unlikely, and therefore the issues that cycling as a sport has had to confront, and other sports will have to confront will continue to be an issuem and we will not eliminate PEDs from any sport. This however would not, in this humble poster's opinion, mean that we should wipe our hands and allow open slather, as the risks to the sports persons, particularly the vunerable, to agree to a program will be significant, and the consequences dramatic.