For those of us in academia (in the northern hemisphere at least), September, rather than January, marks the start of a new year. Students return to university campuses and our summer holiday spent writing gives way to lectures, theses, and university service. Planning out our new semester workloads gives us the chance to look into the future and it also provides a good opportunity to reflect on where we have been. And as seasons change, we are often reminded how much things stay the same.
In fact, we found that the summer of 2012 illustrated how much the doping issue remained the same. Within a span of three months, sporting fans enjoyed Euro 2012, the Tour de France, and the 30th installment of the modern Olympic Games. They also likely came across the now-familiar doping tropes: reports that sport is finally “cleaned up” followed by the sight of contrite athletes thrown out of sporting events after a positive test, officials touting new state-of-the-art testing measures only to have rumors about doping call into question the latest world-record performance, and major newspaper running editorials recycling the same arguments of the ethics of doping bans while rumors circulated whether this would be the first Olympics to witness gene doping. For us, the co-authors, this sameness was brought home by journalists. We both received calls from the media asking us similarly familiar questions. One reporter wanted to know whether the Tour de France was cleaner now than before and was unsatisfied when told that honestly no one really knows. Another reporter asked why Frank Schleck would dope? Perhaps the obvious answer—to go faster—eluded him.
However, amidst all of this sameness, we began asking the each other some challenging questions. What do we really know about doping? What progress have we, as scholars, made in understanding the doping issue? Why do the same questions keep coming up while other answers seem to remain frustratingly elusive? Although it is clear that scholars researching doping and anti-doping have made progress, it also seems that many central questions remain unanswered. Even more troublesome is trying to honestly translate what academics do know about doping to the press and the general public, both of which are often less comfortable with nuance and uncertainty. Indeed, after explaining to a reporter curious about the Tour de France’s current “cleanness” that the various statistical measurements of doping and their various flaws it became clear that we know a lot about doping and at the same time very little. Even the most ardent partisan of a particular position in doping research can likely acknowledge that legitimate disagreement still exists and that we have yet to reach a consensus.
After considering this current situation and asking ourselves what important problems still face scholars attempting to advance the understanding of doping, we felt it necessary to undertake a survey of the current “state of the art” regarding doping research. We felt that such a project naturally lends itself to an academic conference with its open exchange of ideas, opportunities for questions and answers, and informal conversations between colleagues. Thus we decided to dedicate the 2013 INHDR conference to the question: "What do we (really) know about doping?”
The purpose of this conference is to bring together a diverse community of scholars to share, critique, question, and defend the best ways to investigate the doping phenomenon. Such questions include evaluating the role of historical and philosophical studies on doping play in reaching answers to our questions? To what extent can we rely on numbers and figures? Are we even posing the right questions or, like the fabled drunk looking for his keys, are we just looking where the light is? And most importantly, is it possible to reach consensus and if yes, how can that be achieved?
Such questions, we believe are at the heart of what we do. Admittedly, they are big and they are challenging. But we also believe that this network of scholars is best situated to address them. We hope you find these questions as fascinating as we do and we look forward to hearing what you have to share on the topic. In the meantime, please examine the conference announcement and keep on the lookout for the call for papers and a list of confirmed keynote speakers.
While on the topic of conferences, we would also like to announce that the INHDR will be adding additional opportunities for scholars to gather and address doping issues. Such opportunities will include working groups focusing on specific grant projects, writing workshops, and small conferences devoted to specific doping issues. Although we will still find time to organize opportunities for scholars from the network to get together and exchange research as a group, this may mean that our larger conferences are now spread farther apart than the past biannual conference cycle.
At the same time, let us remind you that we need not all be in one place for the network to continue filling its aims. We this time have three commentaries from scholars within our network. Please read them and enjoy hearing what pressing current issues our members are identifying. Also, please feel free to submit your own commentary. These should be between 500-2000 words and focus on creating critical and thoughtful content on current doping issues.
Also, we are continuing to expand our INHDR knowledge base. If you publish or come across any books, articles, essays, editorials, or material of note, please forward it to Ask Vest Christiansen or John Gleaves for inclusion in the knowledge base. Please don’t be shy about sending your own work since we certainly do not have the ability to track down every member’s publications.
This time we have three highly interesting commentaries by Verner Møller, Kathryn Henne and John Gleaves respectively. Although they all address the USADA vs. Armstrong case they tackle the matter from three different approaches and highlight different thought-provoking issues. Henne, for instance, surprisingly reveals how catching Armstrong seems to have been every anti-doping official's wet dream, and further invites us to reflect on what the case tells us about the workings of the anti-doping regime with its structure fashioned to favour punishment while negating opportunities for more responsive regulation. With the special course of the case and possibility for it to lead to precedence for future cases, Verner Møller suggests that maybe it is time to consider if athletes "should be given proper legal protection according to the requirements and legal standards applicable to criminal proceedings and employment matters." John Gleaves, in his piece, reflects on the (un)fairness of giving Armstrong a doping conviction by making a challenging analogy to former times' amateur rules whose object it also was to catch and punish cheaters, but whose effectiveness was just as bad and just as unfair as today's anti-doping system.
In our last newsletter we published a call to WADA, written by Professor Ivan Waddington, in which we request WADA to remove non-performance enhancing recreational drugs, such as marijuana, from its Prohibited List of Substances and to stop testing for such drugs at sporting competitions. The call now has 19 signatories, and will this week be forwarded to WADA Director General David Howman and WADA's media department. Shortly thereafter the call will also be forwarded to various international media and an announcement will be sent out from the newly established INHDR Twitter profile.
Last, we would like to offer a special thanks to Jonas Havelund for his hard work facilitating the network. Without him, many of the network’s projects would hardly get off of the ground. We wish to acknowledge his efforts and thank him for his hard work. Thank you, Jonas.