One of the things that you can guarantee when it comes to “big” championships like the Olympics is that there will be a few headline hogging drug cheats exposed. At this particular edition of the Games the issue has been made even more high profile (if that is possible) by the recent revelations regarding the fidelity of the testing process in Russia.
I am not going to wade into that particular debate, however, I do want to pick up on the fact that today the Russian’s are suggesting that “cupping” is a questionable practice.
Now, if you have read my previous writing (which was ‘inspired’ by the case of Maria Sharapova) you will not be surprised to hear that I would not entirely disagree with them on that particular point. The use of “drugs” to enhance performance is almost universally accepted as “bad practice” – however, and as I have written before, although there is no doubt that a “clean” athlete deserves to be competing on a level playing field it is nonetheless difficult to specify where the line is that must not be crossed.
Which side of the line does “cupping” belong to?
Well – given the current rule set it is “legal” – but then so were a number of drugs before being put on the “blacklist”. Is it possible to really draw a line in the sand and say that anything that falls on one side of it is a reasonable (and therefore legal) way to enhance performance and anything on the other side is banned?
That is what they are trying to do – and – at the same time – that is “goal” of those trying to cheat the system – find ways of not crossing the line – or not being found to have crossed the line.
Any time that it becomes necessary to regulate something there will be some who feel that it is necessary (or at least advantageous) to get round the regulation in one way or another. When the regulation – as in the case of performance enhancing drugs – is there to stop some having an unfair advantage then the regulation must necessarily incur a cost to ensure that it is enforced.
The group (usually the majority) who are deemed to be ‘law abiding’ will then be at a disadvantage when compared to those who find ways of circumventing the regulation – or the means of enforcing it. Unfortunately, for those who are willing to break the law, there is no limit to what they will do. They quite literally are playing to a different set of rules – a set that cannot be countered successfully within the culture of the law abiding population.
Imagine if cupping was banned. There would be plenty of people looking for ways to carry it out without the tell-tale red blotches…. and some of the solutions may well be very ‘dangerous’ . There is no doubt in my mind that those who use cupping do so because it “helps their performance” – but so does eating pasta the evening before an endurance event – so does being well hydrated in almost every sport.
Clearly there is no way that water would ever be banned as a “performance enhancing substance” – even though it is – so that line separating acceptable from unacceptable already exists. At what point does enhancing your performance change from legitimate to cheating. Increasingly sophisticated detection methods have allowed the legislators to expand the banned list – however there is still a sense that the “real” cheats are not always being caught – those who are, and have been, pilloried are those who were careless!!
I’m all for “clean” competition in any sport – I’m far from sure exactly what that means…. apart from “abiding by the rules”…. and, after all, isn’t that what all competition is about – whether or not the rules are “sensible” (or even enforceable!) if you break the rules you will be punished and those who “cheat” should not benefit.
The practice of cupping may remain perfectly legitimate and for those in the paralympics the use of “blades” is acceptable – there are some who will view these two as examples of legalised cheating – are they right?