Testing for drug abuse

Abstract

On March 25, 1996, the International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) finally cleared Diane Modahl, a British athlete, of all charges of testosterone abuse in sport. That decision followed suspension from competition imposed by the British Athletic Federation (BAF) in August, 1994, on the basis of a doping test in Lisbon, Portugal, conducted in June, 1994; a 4-year ban from athletics after a disciplinary hearing in December, 1994; and her successful appeal before an independent panel of BAF in July, 1995. A urine sample from Modahl showed a 40 to 1 excess of testosterone (T) to epitestosterone (E), and this ratio was said to be proof of testosterone administration. A T/E ratio above six constitutes an offence unless there is evidence that this ratio is due to a physiological or pathological condition. BAF and eventually IAAF dismissed the case because experts for Modahl had convinced them that the analysis of a poorly stored sample was unsatisfactory and the conditions had enabled the generation of testosterone by the action of bacteria on steroids in the sample. The laboratory had refused a further test which, in the opinion of IAAF, would show whether that was the case in Modahl’s sample. Modahl is now seeking compensation for the costs of her defence as well as the loss of earnings. The testing procedures for drug abuse in sport are stringent. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) have decided that the tests will require confirmation whenever possible by gas chromatography and mass spectrometry, which defines several chemical features of an abused drug. Drug testing in sporting events is designed to detect and deter abuse of performanceenhancing drugs by competitors. Accredited laboratories conduct nearly 100 000 drug tests world wide at an estimated annual cost of £20 million ($30 million). Just as athletes are preparing for the 1996 Olympic Games in Atlanta, USA, the IOC requires competitors to agree to a contract which prohibits them taking any action beyond a court of arbitration for sport if they fail a drug test. Outside sport, drug testing has been introduced by various employers and by schools, and has even been entertained among ballroom dancers. The efficiency of these tests is unknown but recent examples of grave injustices resulting from flawed scientific and forensic evidence bring into question other drug-testing procedures. A false-positive result, as in the Modahl case, can have a cruel impact on the life of anyone found guilty and there may be no rights of appeal. What lessons can we learn from the experience of Diane Modahl?