What's so "Dope" About Sports?
Before almost every major sporting event, drug scandals are unearthed, suspending many athletes from competing. In an editorial in Nature and an article from Bob Lipsky of The Morning Call, the controversy is made apparent, but they present conflicting reasons behind the mayhem. In spite of the fact that both articles agree on the need of drug test improvement, they disagree as to the reason behind the problem: Nature insists the problem is to be blamed on faulty tests, while Lipsky places the blame on man.
In Nature, the primary focus of the article was that drug tests are not entirely accurate, which presents a possibility for a false positive/negative. This could allow a guilty athlete to compete in the competition while gaining an unfair advantage over the others but prohibit an athlete who has trained intensely and fairly for the event after a false accusation places them on probation. In the editorial, the author writes, “Detecting cheats is meant to promote fairness, but drug testing should not be exempt from the scientific principles and standards that apply to other biomedical sciences, such as disease diagnostics.”
Lipsky of The Morning Call presents more problems with drug tests, primarily focusing on the ability to remove illegal substances from your body, contaminated samples, and switched samples. Since athletes know months in advance the date of the drug test, they can allow a certain amount of time to flush the toxin from their system. Another problem arises when an athlete provides false identifications. A situation that he mentioned specifically was the ability to switch out a sample of urine and replacing it with the urine of someone else. Since the errors are caused by human and are not scientific, he places the blame on the knowledge of the athletes and on the lack of stricter guidelines.
Based on their arguments, the more solid argument comes from Lipsky since it is based on specific ideas rather than vague concepts. While the Nature editorial shows that there can be some flaw behind the science of drug testing, the idea of tampering with the samples is not presented. Many athletes will store samples of their urine to reuse or drink massive amounts of water to dilute it. This could provide more of a problem than the occasional misdiagnosed drug test.
As presented by both articles, many problems can arise during drug tests leading to inaccurate results. When determining the problem surrounding drug tests, they differ in opinions: Nature claims error in the test is to blame, while Lipsky insists the inaccuracies result from manmade challenges.
o Campbell, Philip. "A level playing field?." Nature 454.667 (2008): n. pag. Web. 15 Sep 2010.
o Lipsky, Ben. "Drug Test Results Doubly Important." Morning Call (1990): n. pag. Web. 16 Sep 2010.
‘Roids=Death?
In an attempt to keep the 2012 Olympics free of illegal supplement uses, many scientists have been focusing on the effects of their use and abuse in attempt to deter usage. However, many athletes continue to use them in an attempt to get an advantage on their opponents. In their study, N.A. Hassan, M.F. Salem, and M.A.E.L. Sayed worked to prove the harmfulness of anabolic steroids on the human body, particularly the heart, as an attempt to deter usage.
Written in the most basic format, “Doping and Effects of Anabolic Androgenic Steroids on the Heart: Histological, Ultrastructural, and Echocardiographic Assessment in Strength Athletes” by N.A. Hassan, M.F. Salem, and M.A.E.L. Sayed is a study comparing the effects of anabolic androgenic steroids (AAS) on the hearts of male subjects and the effects on albino rats. The males were similar in age and were divided up into fifteen bodybuilders that were given the steroids, five that were not given the steroids, and five non-bodybuilders to serve as the control group. The study was also performed on thirty albino rats weighing 200 g.
As a result of the study, blood pressure was not significantly altered by the use of AAS, but the heart rate of both groups one and two were significantly lower than the heart rate of the control group. As determined by the study conducted, athletes who use AAS regularly in amounts that are greater than already found in their bodies are left with smaller left ventricles, bigger left ventricle mass, and subclinical heart failure, possibly attributing to structural changes found in the hearts of albino rats with large doses of AAS. This can ultimately lead to heart failure, premature death, aggressiveness or other unusual behaviors among users, as demonstrated by the administration of it to the rats, indicating an impact on the central nervous system. Some more specific problems mentioned were sarcoplasmic vacuolation and inflammatory cellular infiltrations. Test subjects also showed severe ischemic degeneration of the cardiac muscle fibers with obvious inflammatory infiltrations. PSSR was significantly higher in drug-using bodybuilders denoting altered systolic function in spite of normal EF and SM waves (EF is load dependant and has many fallacies in the accurate estimation of systolic function especially with diffuse wall motion abnormalities, SM could be affected by tethering and translation) while Doppler tissue imaging obtained SR has the time resolution capability far superior to any other non-invasive method, it accurately measures longitudinal deformation of the heart and is sensitive to early stages of ischemia.
However, even with these studies athletes continue to abuse anabolic steroids, ultimately leading to their untimely deaths. However, many of them just focus on the positive impacts According to Lyle Alzado, an NFL player on the 1984 LA Raiders team, ““I'm sick, and I'm scared. Ninety percent of the athletes I know are on the stuff. We're not born to be 300 pounds or jump 30 feet. But all the time I was taking steroids, I knew they were making me play better. I became very violent on the field and off. I did things only crazy people do. Now look at me. My hair's gone, I wobble when I walk and have to hold on to someone for support, and I have trouble remembering things. My last wish? That no one else ever dies this way.” Alzado died at the age of forty-two, placing the blame on his steroid abuse. According to the study, continual abuse ultimately can result in premature death; this NFL athlete witnessed the detrimental effects first hand.
Since it has become a commonly accepted fact that anabolic androgenic steroids are hazardous to a person’s health, what are the reasons for using anabolic androgenic steroids? According to the authors, the steroids increase skeletal muscle mass and overall strength effects, making it more desirable to athletes and other competitors. As proven by the study, the mass of the group under the influence of the steroid was significantly greater than the mass of the groups not receiving treatment. For an athlete in a sport that size matters, such as football, this ability to gain muscles mass with less effort outweighs the potential health risks.
· "Athletes Against Steroids: Beware of Using These Powerful Drugs." Athletes Against Steroids. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Sep 2010. <http://www.athletesagainststeroids.org/pgs/steroiddeaths.php>.
· Hassan, N.A., M.F. Salem, and M.A.E.L. Sayed. "Doping and effects of anabolic androgenic steroids on the heart: histological, ultrastructural, and echocardiographic assessment in strength athletes.." Human and Experimental Toxicology 28.5 (2009): 273-83. Web. 21 Sep 2010. http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=115&sid=63fabc19-64f6-4ebe-a8be-4215a811ad1b%40sessionmgr111&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=44255668.
Science and Olympics and Sports, Oh My!!
While economic fears continue causing families stress, governments continue their attempt to change the money amounts certain areas receive, like education, research, and road improvements. According to a Nature article, governmental officials maintain investigations exploring new ways to redistribute organizational funds, including Olympic sporting events, scientific research, and higher education. To prevent tax increases, Britain cut university funding, providing scientists with additional money. Rather than cutting university funds, scientists should use private contributions and donations to fund their research.
The main reason science departments should not take university funding is because, unlike popular belief, they do not require extraordinary funding amounts or renovations to stay competitive with other nations. The Nature article stated four-fifths of the universities interviewed believed old and out-dated equipment limits progress, leaving the remaining one-fifth working poorly. However, the article’s author contradicts his argument, saying, “Indeed, the Manchester report found that more than half of university science departments in Britain felt that their equipment is as good, or better than, the international average.” Their departments share similarities with other countries, so the nation’s finest researchers would not gain many more tools leaving the country and studying abroad. Since British scientists do not rank themselves significantly lower than the other countries and do not express a serious concern financially, the issue proves less pressing than claimed.
Now, you may be asking, what makes leaving federal funding in higher education so important? Universities possess a greater need monetarily because they train the economy’s future; without this funding, important instruction does not reach students, decreasing workplace efficiency. An Investopedia article declared, “The education and training of a country's workers is a major factor in determining just how well the country's economy will do.” As plastered among news and media sources, the economy struggles presently, so if training employees could improve its current state, why not give it a try? Training employees to work more efficiently will not only teach them to do better but also be more resourceful. If they become more resourceful during their training years, they will have knowledge preparing them to fulfill their job requirements using the least assistance necessary. Specific problems occurring include increased tuition and reduced courses. This makes education payment more difficult, and since many times they can’t enroll in the courses that will prepare them for the future, they opt to bypass college. As a response to this recurring problem, the president of the Student Senate for California Community Colleges, Reid E. Milburn, said “How are we going to save the future if we can’t even get into our classes?” She provides a valid argument: how do people expect our generation to change the economy without receiving adequate training and preparation? Taking funding from a cause that already suffers from lack of resources would increase the problems experienced.
In addition to getting reducing the students’ training, university and college employees would suffer the consequences. Taking away the institute’s money would not only cause teacher’s job loss, but also janitors, maintenance workers, and other jobs working the facilities. Their dismissal would spark a tough decision: should they find a job in the same field or start a new job and learn a new trade. If the workers took a job they did not understand, they would reduce efficiency, making the time to complete a simple task significantly longer, requiring additional payment, and taking longer to finish. Taking away these people’s jobs to purchase more expensive lab equipment would negatively impact employees.
An alternative plan involves having the scientists and their respective departments fundraise and obtain their own finances to buy new equipment by alternate methods. When a great need exists, they can ask private contributors to support their cause; otherwise, they can work toward their goal. Having scientists fundraise and acquire private contributions will force them to face more pressure than if they just received it, no questions asked. Since they will continue to work their projects while people sharing their concerns supply them, they will find more motivation to attain results quicker. For example, if a pharmaceutical company provides the research money for curing the common cold, the scientists would be more apt to work harder so they would not upset their providers.
Many fear having researchers devote time to finding other methods for obtaining resources will cause them to lose valuable work time; however, this concern should be disregarded because fundraising can be a simple task. Each department member could seek out corporate and local sponsors when needed, the group could host a race, or a few members could organize and host a silent auction, all requiring little planning while earning great funds. Many people also willingly assist programs that promise to help them in the future, so people will be willing to contribute. Relay for Life raises funds for breast cancer research nationally. Last year, UNC students alone raised $196,427.85, showing even the smallest efforts’ effectiveness, encouraging others to work more diligently.
Instead of taking colleges’ money while they try preparing students’ futures, scientific research should place higher value in their private donors and their own fundraising efforts, promoting greater works while still developing the economy. The future educational possibilities remain endless, granted the funding doesn’t become extremely limited from poor financial distribution.
· McKinley, Jesse. "California Students Protest Education Cuts." New York Times 04 Jan 2010: n. pag. Web. 13 Oct 2010. .
· Radcliffe, Brent. "How Education and Training Affect the Economy." Investopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Oct 2010. .
· "University challenge for Britain." Nature Journal Online 382.6591 (1996): 479. Web. 13 Oct 2010. .
