Doping deja vu.

Even though it was published 33 years ago, many of the perspectives and conundrums presented in L. Jay Silvester's anabolic steroid article read as if it was written within the past three weeks. Mr. Silvester's focus was the 1972 Olympics and what appears to have been a pervasive steroid problem, and the athletes' fractured justifications for abusing them.

While reading it, my ears were buzzing with a much too familiar negative ring. If administered today, the survey results would probably produce carbon copy answers, or worse yet, lean even closer to the dark side.

It certainly makes you wonder if we've made any progress at all in the fight against performance enhancing drugs (PED's).

Based upon recent events stemming from Major League Baseball (MLB), Olympic Track and Field, and the torturous Tour de France, the bottom line is easily discernable: We are facing a formidable PED upswing with a stout contingent of athletes from all sports who are being mentored and advised by astute associates who search feverishly for testing loopholes.

Remember, these are not school children experimenting with chemistry sets. These are well-educated biochemists with extensive backgrounds in the current testing technology, and in manipulating the structural designs of these anabolic compounds so as to avoid detection.

ONE STEP FORWARD, TWO STEPS BACK?

On the surface, it appears we are making some inroads in the chemical arms race. In July, 2006, the NCAA Committee on Competitive Safeguards and Medical Aspects of Sports released data from a five-year report showing that positive steroid tests in the NCAA collegiate ranks have made notable decreases. Here is an overview of positive steroid tests since 2000 (SOURCE--NCAA NEWS JULY 17, 2006):

* 2000/01 -- 93 positive tests.

* 2001/02 -- 71 positive tests.

* 2002/03 -- 80 positive tests.

* 2003/04 -- 46 positive tests.

* 2004/05 -- 49 positive tests.

An important footnote is that the number of athletes being tested in the NCAA is rising exponentially every year.

Hopefully, these results are a true representation of progress, rather than a warning that there are a lot of athletes who are embedded with a juice guru.

MLB has finally sharpened its testing and penalty teeth to make deeper cuts into playing time, salaries, and job security for non-compliant steroid abusers.

The NFL, NHL, and NBA conduct random steroid tests with appropriate suspensions for first and second time offenders, and long-term suspensions or lifetime bans for a third offense.

Some question the effectiveness of the frequency and the profile / composite of drugs under scrutiny, but at least we have a foundation to build upon.

The Olympics--at least on paper--take a no-nonsense approach to doping. All of the pro leagues should take a close, hard look at their standards (e.g., a 2 year suspension for a first offense, and a lifetime ban for a second offense).

However, before we cheer too rambunctiously for these admirable efforts to get a handle on test tube muscles, be aware that new threats are looming in the PED jungle.

Richard Pound, Chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency, puts it like this: "We're in pretty good shape on designer steroids. We're good on stimulants. We've wrestled blood-doping to the ground. But human growth hormone (HGH) is a different animal; we haven't got our hands around a good, easy, reliable test. The older athlete is the more likely HGH abuser, especially those in the twilight of their careers."

Enter the Jason Grimsley debacle.

Knowing that HGH is difficult to detect, the experts fear that athletes (especially the pros) are turning to it to replace their steroid regimens.

Brian Derwin, former Chairman of the U.S. Olympic Anti-Doping Policy Committee, puts it into unnerving perspective: "Just when you've figured out a test for drug ABC, athletes have moved on to drug DEF."

GENETIC NIGHTMARE

The mother of all unethical performance enhancing challenges, unfortunately, is already starting to rear its ugly head--gene doping. Scientists have raised the spectre of gene-modified athletes, a therapy that involves injecting copies of genes that are encoded with growth factors.

Due to the fact that this performance enhancing DNA is naturally occurring in the body, it may be impossible to detect.

Charles Yesalis, retired Penn State University professor and an outspoken expert in PED abuse, fears that we may see genetically altered athletes as soon as the Beijing Olympics in 2008.

We can only hope that those with scientific acuity find a detection mechanism to keep this potentially devastating assault in check.

FINAL REP

The lines have been drawn, the fight will intensify before it wanes, and all of us who truly care about the honesty, integrity, and high standards that athletics have represented for centuries must spearhead the effort.

Consider our choices: Battle this dilemma tooth and nail, or allow our athletes carte blanche on the chemicals or genes of the month.

Let's choose to fight!

By Ken Mannie, Strength/Conditioning Coach Michigan State University