http://www.swimmingcoach.org/articles/JL07082003b.asp
snipped:
Dr. Don Catlin on Drug-Testing and Privacy (1986, 1989)
The USOC's lack of interest in a transparent drug-testing operation during the 1980s was clearly expressed by Dr. Don Catlin, then chair of the USOC Committee on Substance Abuse, Research, and Education in 1986. At this time Dr. Catlin advised caution with regard to the introduction of drug testing into some sports governing bodies where performance-enhancing drugs had been used. As he bluntly put it: "If you go in with a sickle and scythe, you could put all their athletes out of business. In some sports, you could wipe out the whole team.”[xiii] I have seen no evidence that the USOC responded in any meaningful way to this public comment by one of its own insiders.
"His suggestion," according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, was "to announce testing well in advance of the implementation of a program and to encourage the sport’s governing body to educate its athletes."[xiv] The likely results of such a plan were (1) to allow athletes more than sufficient time to evade positive test results, and (2) to put unwarranted faith in an "educational" process that conflicts with the ambitions and the ethical standards of many elite athletes as well as those of the USOC itself. In 1989 Dr. Catlin stated: “I think that, when the sports organization identifies a drug user through a test and imposes a sanction, that’s the penalty. I don’t see the necessity of making a public announcement. The public has a right to know, but not necessarily to know instantaneously.” This view contrasts strongly with that expressed by Dr. Voy at this time. “I am one," said Dr. Voy, "who thinks that if we are going to solve the problem of drug use in sports we have to expose those who cheat. I don’t go along with aggregate figures. If an athlete has cheated ..............................
snipped:
Dr. Don Catlin on Drug-Testing and Privacy (1986, 1989)
The USOC's lack of interest in a transparent drug-testing operation during the 1980s was clearly expressed by Dr. Don Catlin, then chair of the USOC Committee on Substance Abuse, Research, and Education in 1986. At this time Dr. Catlin advised caution with regard to the introduction of drug testing into some sports governing bodies where performance-enhancing drugs had been used. As he bluntly put it: "If you go in with a sickle and scythe, you could put all their athletes out of business. In some sports, you could wipe out the whole team.”[xiii] I have seen no evidence that the USOC responded in any meaningful way to this public comment by one of its own insiders.
"His suggestion," according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, was "to announce testing well in advance of the implementation of a program and to encourage the sport’s governing body to educate its athletes."[xiv] The likely results of such a plan were (1) to allow athletes more than sufficient time to evade positive test results, and (2) to put unwarranted faith in an "educational" process that conflicts with the ambitions and the ethical standards of many elite athletes as well as those of the USOC itself. In 1989 Dr. Catlin stated: “I think that, when the sports organization identifies a drug user through a test and imposes a sanction, that’s the penalty. I don’t see the necessity of making a public announcement. The public has a right to know, but not necessarily to know instantaneously.” This view contrasts strongly with that expressed by Dr. Voy at this time. “I am one," said Dr. Voy, "who thinks that if we are going to solve the problem of drug use in sports we have to expose those who cheat. I don’t go along with aggregate figures. If an athlete has cheated ..............................
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram