There’s Nothing to Winning, Really

Abstract

“There’s nothing to winning, really,” said Alfred Hitchcock. “That is, if you happen to be blessed with a keen eye, an agile mind, and no scruples whatsoever” (1). W.C. Fields put it a different way, “A thing worth having is a thing worth cheating for” (2). Another Olympic year is here. Although neither of the aforementioned was referring specifically to the Olympic Games, one need not look far to find athletes, trainers, coaches, and sports executives who subscribe to a win-at-all-costs philosophy (3). As in the past, the idealism of this year’s Olympics will likely be diminished by disqualifications and revocations of medals for the use of prohibited substances and practices (4). For more than a century, the modern Olympic Games have fueled a quest for excellence through a quadrennial pageant of athletics and nationalism, providing the world a transient common focus while turning the victorious into enduring heroes. Winning is no longer the domain of discipline, effort, desire, and innate ability—it also takes science. Scientifically driven improvements in training, facilities, equipment, and nutrition have such an impact on performance that world records now seem to have a shorter half-life than many RIA laboratory isotopes. Unfortunately, science is also the basis for doping and for activities designed to thwart its detection. Well might the Olympic motto “Citius, Altius, Fortius” (swifter, higher, stronger) apply to doping activists (5). After a highly publicized doping scandal in cycling in the summer of 1998, the International Olympic Committee convened the World Conference on Doping in Sport. An outcome of this conference was the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)1 in 1999, a foundation operated with the support and participation of the Olympic Movement, public authorities, governments, and other …