Opinion - Editorials   

Cricket and doping

WHEN ONE OF the greatest bowlers the game has ever known fails a doping test, it must qualify as cricket's biggest drug bust. News that Shane Warne has tested positive for diuretics on samples he provided about three weeks ago, a development that has forced him to `opt' out of the World Cup, has shocked cricket lovers all over the world. To many it has seemed like a depressing affirmation of the slipping standards in cricket, which has suffered in recent times due to increasing commercialism, contractual disputes and match-fixing scandals. Leaving aside the disbelief and disappointment, the sad controversy over the Australian leg-spinner raises two specific but very different questions. First, what does it mean for the man Wisden chose as one of the five greatest cricketers of the last century? Second, what does it mean for cricket?

The first question can be fully answered only after the Australian Cricket Board scrutinises Warne's explanation for what happened and after a further test is conducted on another sample taken on the same day. However, since test results of B samples usually do not vary with those conducted on A samples, Warne may have to answer some puzzling questions about his conduct. Going by the leg-spinner's statement, he has two lines of defence. One, that he did not know the tablets contained prohibited substances. Two, that these substances were not performance-enhancing drugs (and therefore had no impact on his performance). Unfortunately, neither argument is compelling. To begin with, ignorance has become an embarrassingly familiar defence against positive dope tests. It has been used so often that it now lacks all credibility, particularly at a time when today's sportsmen are provided with banned substances lists and told over and over again not to take medicines without checking with their doctors.

Warne is correct when he points out that diuretics are not performance-enhancing drugs, but in a way this is beside the point. Diuretics increase the excretion of water and dissolved drugs through the kidneys and the principal reason why they are banned in sports is because they are capable of masking the use of steroids. Given Warne's astonishingly quick recovery from a shoulder injury he suffered on December 15 — one which many feared would end his career — his positive test for a masking agent for steroids is bound to raise serious suspicions. In the absence of extenuating circumstances, the cricketer could have a two-year ban slapped on him — something that would effectively end the career of this extraordinarily talented 33-year-old.

The controversy is bound to force cricket's administrators to take a harder look at dope testing. At the moment, only four Test playing nations have clear and formulated procedures for submitting cricketers to drug tests and the World Cup 2003 is the first international tournament in which the ICC has devised a testing programme. A comprehensive procedure for dope testing is something the ICC must insist on for all member-nations. At the same time, it is important to note that, in comparison with other sports, the risk of doping in cricket is relatively very low. This is because performance-inducing drugs, which generally boost strength and build muscle bulk, are unlikely to have a huge impact on a game that relies largely on hand-eye coordination. However, such drugs can benefit injured cricketers, something that is substantiated by recent test findings. For example, last year, an Australian fast bowler with a back problem was suspended for attempting to heal it by taking an anabolic steroid. In England, most positive findings are for recreational drugs, not performance-enhancing ones. If Warne is in fact guilty, the worst thing he could be guilty of is trying to hasten his recovery through the use of steroids and then attempting to mask this through the use of diuretics. He cannot be accused of attempting to better his performance through the use of drugs. The question is whether the Australian Cricket Board will keep this mitigating factor in mind when it passes judgment on him.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Cricket and doping
• The Bodo settlement
• India and new age alliances
• The U.K. and the U.S.
• Political reforms in the Gulf
• Justice on trial
• Misusing religion
• A different Mrs. Iyer
• The Columbia mystery
• Cleaning Ganga
• Cattle menace

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu