Counterpoint: The Quest for Clean Competition in Sports: Deterrence and the Role of Detection

Can we catch every person violating anti-doping rules through just a random drug test given the current resources? No. The police cannot catch every impaired driver, so should they stop trying? Regulators cannot catch every incidence of insider trading on Wall Street, so should we cease regulation of the finance industry? And should we stop performing Internal Revenue Service audits because some people successfully cheat on their taxes? The fundamental problem with the question posed based on a Bayesian analysis of testing numbers is that it assumes that catching every cheater through random drug testing is the sole purpose of an antidoping program. It is not. But before focusing on the role of drug testing in an antidoping program, why are antidoping rules important? To live together and achieve societal goals, we agree to a set of rules to govern our work and play. We accept rules against impaired driving, for example, because of the potential harm to others. We accept rules that the basketball rim is 3.05 m high and the court is 28 by 15 m to have a level playing field. Violating the rules that the athlete agrees to abide by to have equitable competition has its own name: cheating. When an individual cheats, whether in sport, at work, or on their taxes, it defrauds or takes something away from others. It is ethically and morally wrong, no matter how the individual tries to rationalize it. Cheating by violating antidoping rules is not a victimless crime. Cyclist Scott Mercier was forced to make the choice to quit the sport he loved because he was unwilling to become a fraud and risk his health. Shotputter Adam Nelson recently received his gold medal 9 years after the 2004 Olympic contest because reanalysis of the samples with new technology revealed …