UNDERSTANDING DOPING IN SPORTS AND THE CASE OF PAUL POGBA

Brief History About Doping??

There are several definitions of doping but according to the Beckamanns Sports Dictionary, doping is defined as the use of performance-increasing substances which would place an athlete in a more superior position than what he would have normally attained. Doping can be done in many ways but the most common is ion injection and diffusion.

In ancient Greece, doping was not prohibited, in fact, agents always encouraged and gave athletes different substances to enhance their physical performance. This was considered normal in sports and there wasn’t any form of limitation to any form of doping. Those who offered different substances for doping were referred to as medical specialists in sports.?

Fast forward, in 1904, at the Saint Louis marathon, Tom Hicks died as a result of doping using a mixture of Cognac and strychnine. There were multiple cases of doping in sports competitions as it was not prohibited by then and in 1928, the International Athletics Federation became the first international sports federation to ban doping in athletic competitions. Anti-doping testing was then introduced 32 years later and the first control of doping in the Olympics took place in 1972 in Munich, for conventional substances, later in 1976, anabolic doping substances were first controlled at the Olympics held in Montreal. Many athletes were disqualified and medals were recalled for doping.?

Due to this, the International Olympic Committee decided to carry out doping tests on all athletes and publicize their results. This made the fight against doping an open fight as athletes were always looking for unlisted substances to use to enhance their physical performance.?

Later in 1989, anti-doping was introduced outside the Olympics, this meant no athlete was supposed to enhance their physical performance using any doping substances outside of the Olympic games.

The most publicized case of doping during that time till date was of famous Canadian 100m athlete Ben Johnson who tested positive for anabolic substance and was suspended for two years. In 1993, he was tested and his samples tested positive again. He was then suspended for life never to compete in any games.?

In 1999, the World Anti-Doping Organization was formed to fight against doping in all kinds of sports. In 2003, the Anti-doping was adopted and fully took effect in 2004.

Over time, doping has continuously proved to be dangerous to athletes’ health and made competing in sports unfair as it is a form of cheating. These are the two major and basic reasons why sports organizations and competitions moved to ban and fight against doping among professional athletes.

?

In Current Times; Paul Pogba’s Case

Since 2004, the World Anti-Doping Organization regularly updates its lists with banned doping substances from investigations and tests done on several substances. One of the most recent substances being investigated is paracetamol as it might have doping effects, it is capable of reducing body temperature among cyclists making them perform better. This means athletes running 500m and above can use the same to reduce the amount of heat being produced in the body. Though there are substances that can be used as dopants if certain amounts are exceeded in their usage, there are also substances that can be used for doping that are not on the lists. Doping substances can be bought from pharmacies and commonly from the black market.

The difference between doping now and doping 50 years ago is that it is now safer than it was then. However, the anti-doping rules haven’t changed, an athlete is found guilty of doping if any of these rules are violated;

- The use or attempt to use prohibited substances listed by the WDO

- Use of prohibited methods?

- Refusal for sampling after receiving an invitation to doping control under anti-doping rules

- Avoiding of sampling

- Fabrication or any attempt to falsify any part of doping control

- Possession of prohibited substances or methods

- Trafficking or attempt to traffick any prohibited substances?

Athletes have been found guilty of doping because they violated any of these rules, however, they are always allowed to challenge the findings of the anti-doping tribunals. A case in point is that of Nigerian World record hurdler Tobi Amusan who was found guilty of doping due to failure to oblige to doping control (missing three tests in 12 months) in July 2023, this meant that she would miss the 2023 Olympics Championship games in Budapest, she appealed the finding and was cleared to compete in the games. Later in September 2023, Athletics Integrity Unity sought to challenge her clearance of the doping allegations and has since filed an appeal at CAS against the appeals tribunal that exonerated her of missing doping tests in 12 months. If the verdict is held in favor of AIU, Tobi Amusan could be banned from competing.

In September 2023, famous French footballer Paul Pogba was suspended from football due to doping. Pogba tested positive for testosterone, a banned substance. The Italian National Anti-Doping Tribunal made this verdict after Pogba’s samples; A and B, tested positive for the substance. This was after the match between Juventus and Udinese for which he was on the bench. Pogba declined a plea bargain with the Italian Anti-Doping Agency, the case was tried, and he was found guilty of doping and handed a four-year ban from football.

Four years is the standard time ban for an athlete found guilty of doping, however, this can be reduced if the athlete appeals his verdict to the Court for Arbitration of Sport (CAS) and the decision is made in his favor, agrees to offer substantial ‘assistance’ with the investigation, prove unintentional use of the substance, if the positive test had contamination.?

In the case of Paul Pogba, he maintained that he didn’t use testosterone and that he was quite surprised that the tribunal handed him a four-year ban from football. He also intends to appeal the decision to CAS. For Pogba to successfully lift the four-year ban slummed at him, he has to prove any of the above defenses to be true in his appeal. This will either have the ban lifted or reduced depending on the defense he proves. An example of such an incident is the recent appeal case of professional female tennis player Simona Halep whose four-year ban from playing tennis was reduced to 9 months after she proved unintentional use of doping substances, she has now been allowed to go back to playing tennis. CAS found her not guilty of doping and reduced the time ban. Paul Pogba may be able to appeal and win the appeal but one wonders if he will still be able to play for Juventus because he will not be allowed to play football until the Appeal at CAS is heard besides the factors of his age and the time left on his contract. Given the nature of football, this may disadvantageously affect Pogba’s footballing career even if he wins the case at CAS. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether he will win his appeal against the Italian Anti-Doping Tribunal which means that besides Pogba’s career being almost irredeemable after the four-year ban, he may have to pay compensation to Juventus depending on the terms of his contract.

A relatable case to such a scenario is that of Adrian Mutu who had to pay Chelsea 14.7m pounds within 30 days of the CAS verdict of his appeal against the FIFA DRC verdict. Adrian Mutu admitted to using cocaine in 2004, a banned substance by the World Anti-Doping Agency, and received a nine-month ban, his use of cocaine was also a breach of contract he had with his football club Chelsea. Adrian Mutu lost the case against Chelsea before the DRC and appealed to CAS and after five years of legal battle at CAS, he was told to pay Chelsea for breach of contract. The same is likely to happen if Pogba’s contract has similar terms to those that were in Adrian Mutu’s contract with Chelsea.

In most cases, doping bans are rarely lifted and can only be lifted if the accused athlete can prove contamination of tests or even false accusation (which is close to impossible) and other rare defenses like these. The rationale behind this is to make sure athletes are aware that any form of doping is prohibited in sports.

Analytical Conclusion?

Paul Pogba’s case is not any different from the many prominent cases of doping, however, depending on what he will plead in the appeal, it could change the course of the norm and compel anti-doping agencies to investigate none dopants that could increase the production of testosterone in the body. Paul Pogba may also consider resigning from football if the verdict from CAS is not in his favor because by the time the ban elapses, he would not be able to get a good club to play with due to his age but also because clubs often want to engage players with clean anti-doping records.

There is a strong fight against doping but anti-doping agencies will always be one step behind manufacturers of substances that are undetectable with similar pharmacological properties to those available in the market. Even though the anti-doping agencies may always be one step behind, the rules and codes, anti-doping procedures, and biological passports make doping harder even with the invention of undetectable substances.?

The anti-doping Agency needs to study and investigate more substances as there are those capable of doping and yet there are prescription medicines such as ibuprofen and diclofenac that are capable of increasing the amount of testosterone in the body. On the other hand, physicians treating athletes have to be careful while prescribing certain medicines and athletes must declare the usage of any of such medicines to avoid facing consequences.

There exist consequences of doping but they are not stringent enough to achieve a minimal breach of anti-doping regulations among athletes. Many athletes don’t even know the regulations against doping which necessitates the need to educate athletes about anti-doping and how they could easily be found guilty of doping.?

In a nutshell, athletes must not attempt doping as it doesn’t only endanger their health but also damages their profession. Anti-doping regulators need to be more stringent with the consequences of doping and invest in more studies and investigations about several unlisted dopants and substances capable of doping.?

?