The Olympics have long struggled to keep doping out of their competitions. Here’s a breakdown of how two Olympic athletes’ positive drug tests were handled–and what it means for future athletes.
In wake of the most recent Summer and Winter Olympics, hosted in Tokyo and Beijing, there has been much controversy on account of two athletes receiving positive drug tests: Sha’Carri Richardson and Kamila Valieva. The situations are difficult to compare due to the particular circumstances and background for each case, however, looking deeper reveals the biases and injustice present in the Olympic committee’s decisions.
Last summer, American sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson was banned from competing in the Tokyo Summer Olympic Games after a positive marijuana test. The runner smoked weed after learning of the death of her mother, using it to cope with the loss. Marijuana–though it is legalized in many states in the US–is banned on race days and considered to be a performance-enhancing drug by the World Anti-Doping Agency.
This February, Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva, tested positive for three substances– two of which are allowed under certain conditions, and one of which is banned– and was permitted by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) to compete in the Beijing Winter Games. At fifteen, Valieva is not legally able to consent to drug use. The Russian Olympic team has long had a history of doping– it is why they aren’t permitted to compete under the Russian flag and must instead compete as the Russian Olympic Committee– and sports have had a long history of racism.
The difference in how Richardson and Valieva’s respective cases were handled calls into question the integrity of the Olympics and whether they offer a fair and just chance to all athletes who have qualified to compete. So why were the positive drug tests for these athletes treated differently?
Sha’Carri Richardson had been favored to take home the gold medal in the women’s 100m last summer. She was barred from competing in the games by US Olympic officials after her positive doping test, the results of which were published within a week. Richardson accepted the decision at the time, but since the world learned of Valieva’s case, Richardson has criticized the Olympic Committee for their lack of transparency and the apparent double standard for Black athletes. The IOC only published Valieva’s results this February–the figure skater failed her doping test last December. Richardson said, “My name and talent [were] slaughtered to the people. Not one Black athlete has been about to compete with a case going on!”
Kamila Valieva tested positive for a trifecta of substances, including Hypoxine, L-carnitine, and Trimetazidine, the combination of which offers increased endurance, protection from fatigue, and oxygen efficiency. L-carnitine is allowed when taken orally and banned when given in large amounts through an IV or infusion, but it is unclear how Valieva ingested it. Additionally, Trimetazidine is considered a metabolic modulator and a performance-enhancer and is banned under any circumstances.
However, when asked about why she was allowed to compete despite having tested positive for the banned substance, the Court of Arbitration for Sport said that barring Valieva from competing “would cause her irreparable harm”–raising the question of whether a boost in self-esteem should come at the cost of integrity and fairness in the Olympics, which are widely considered to be the highest level of play for any athlete.
I completely disagree with the way Valieva’s doping case was treated. If a young Black athlete is banned from competing and a young white athlete is not, the message is clear: you are offered privilege and can bypass the rules because of the color of your skin. To allow an athlete to compete after they have broken the rules–and to allow her country to compete after years of failed doping tests, of violations, of unclean play is blatant racism. There is no other word for it. Richardson’s response calls out this racist culture, forcing us all to reflect on the world we live in, where equality is so highly valued–but is not offered to everyone.
The International Olympic Committee has long wrestled with establishing a drug policy that encompassed the many nuances of the issue. In 1999, the IOC supported the development of the World Anti-Doping Agency, which has since issued a zero-tolerance policy on the use of any performance-enhancing drug or doping product. Though, there are countless occasions of athletes failing to follow this ban, and the way that the International Olympic Committee has handled these situations is often objectionable.
Cheating in sports will always exist, there’s no doubt about it. If the IOC is truly devoted to creating a level playing ground for all of their competitors, then the only options they have would be more strictly enforcing their ban to ensure the incentive to staying clean is stronger than the repercussions of doping or to completely legalize the use of drugs (performance-enhancing or not) in the sport altogether.
Though difficult and highly debatable in itself, authorizing drug use could have its benefits. There would no longer be a level of inequality among athletes due to those who are secretly doping. Additionally, certain athletes already have critical advantages over competitors–this is not a foreign notion to the Olympics. Countless players have physical attributes that make them genetically stronger, giving them a higher chance of success in their sport; Athletes such as the Finnish skier Eero Maentyranta who won gold three gold medals in 1964 had a genetic mutation that meant that he naturally had 40–50% more red blood cells than the average human.
If he was allowed to compete with such an extensive advantage, does it make sense to ban those who take performance-enhancing drugs to artificially increase their abilities?
Of course, using legalization as a solution to doping has its many downsides. The deregulation of substances could quickly become unsafe. With the ban in place, minors who are unable to decide for themselves are already being subjected to drug use by coaches or trainers such as in the case of Kamila Valieva. Imagine how much more extreme the situation would become in this case, not to mention the pressure non-drug-using athletes would feel when competing against those who have an artificial advantage over them and the normalization of substance use which could be detrimental to communities already struggling with high addiction levels.
Though a permanent solution as such may not be the answer, it is clear that reforms need to be made to how the International Olympic Committee handles a positive drug test among athletes. Punishing some that break the rules while letting others avoid the repercussions of their actions is unfair in any situation. To see the layers of bias and discrimination that these decisions were based upon within the prestigious competition of the Olympics is extremely disappointing.
Sources:
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/38/6/666