Test Your Knowledge with Our Clinical Case Studies!
Clinical Chemistry 55: 1456-1461, 2009. First published June 25, 2009; 10.1373/clinchem.2009.127837
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
clinchem.2009.127837v1
55/8/1456    most recent
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Bowers, L. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Bowers, L. D.
(Clinical Chemistry. 2009;55:1456-1461.)
© 2009 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Special Report

The International Antidoping System and Why It Works

Larry D. Bowers1

1 United States Anti-Doping Agency, Colorado Springs, CO.

Address correspondence to the author at: United States Anti-Doping Agency, 1330 Quail Lake Loop, Suite 260, Colorado Springs, CO 80906. Fax 719-785-2001; e-mail lbowers@usada.org.

The first 300 words of the full text of this article appear below.

In the days leading up to the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, a number of scientific journals published special issues (1)(2) or critical commentaries and opinion pieces regarding the antidoping movement. For example, an analysis of antidoping policy by Kayser and Smith (3) presented criticisms based on ethical arguments (4). On the other hand, equally persuasive ethical arguments supporting antidoping policies were reported by Murray (5). In addition, the public statements released by the defense team before each of the 2 arbitration hearings for Tour De France winner Floyd Landis, at which he was convicted of committing a doping violation, vehemently attacked the laboratory and the staff that performed the test. These public attacks were by advocates for the defendant, and the antidoping rules prevented a response to these charges. My purpose here is to provide an overview of how the current antidoping rules came into effect, to review some of the science underlying the antidoping rules, and to discuss a few of the cases decided by the Court of Arbitration in Sport (CAS).1

The fight against performance-enhancing substances began in the 1920s, long before there were testing methods for the prohibited substances. For years, the leaders of sport went it alone in this fight. Some critics argued, and continue to argue, that sport leaders have an issue similar to the "fox guarding the henhouse" when it comes to overseeing drug-testing programs. A major shift occurred in 1999, when the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was formed as an independent body to harmonize antidoping practices, and independent national antidoping organizations such as the Australian Sport Drug Agency, the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sport, and the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) began to emerge. WADA was established as a Swiss foundation . . . [Full Text of this Article]