don't do drugs
In the last few days a story has been breaking
about how a doctor in the UK has revealed to an under cover journalist that he
has regularly prescribed performance enhancing drugs to a number of British
athletes including (amongst others) footballers, runners and, perhaps least
surprisingly, cyclists.
No big deal.
This sort of thing has been going on in sport probably since sport was
invented when the world was black and white (i.e. back in the 1950’s I think).
No. The
biggest surprise for me was that the person who blew the whistle on this doctor
was an amateur cyclist. An amateur!
Surely you participate in sport as an amateur
because you love it, right? Not because
it pays you a salary to furnish your bills; or because in order to carry on
competing you have to continuously improve like a professional would to earn a
new contract.
I competed as a racing cyclist at a modest
level and enjoyed some success, but never once was I tempted to take any sort
of performance enhancing drug. But, and get
this, I once went to see a prospective coach who was insistent that I should
take certain drugs to improve my chances of success. What for?
To win a trophy? Certainly I was
at no stage in my life to turn professional or anything like that. Yet his insistence haunted me for years. Perhaps I should have blown the whistle on
him but I didn’t. Hindsight is a
wonderful thing I know.
When I was diagnosed with cancer my consultant
was interested in my life story. When I
told him I was a racing cyclist he asked me straight out whether I had taken any
form of performance enhancing drugs. Why
would any normal person racing on a weekend do that?
Yet some, I know, did; albeit only amphetamines. And were caught and banned. For the sake of winning a few quid or a
silver cup.
Madness.
Winning as an amateur shouldn’t be the reason
why you do something. The joy of doing
it should be enough. And if you need
drugs for that then there’s something seriously wrong with you.
Competitive people HAVE to win, at any cost. No matter what the consequences or reward. I don't get it either.
ReplyDelete