The Background:

One of the UK''s greatest athletes Linford Christie has been suspended by the sport's national governing body after failing a drugs test.

Christie, the former holder of the 100 metres Olympic gold medal, says that throughout his long and celebrated career he has campaigned against drugs in sport - and will fight to clear his name.

While the sprinter will be defending himself at an official inquiry, the sport's authorities are under intense scrutiny after a similar case against another British athlete, Dougie Walker, recently collapsed.

The medical director of UK Athletics has called for more research into testing for Nandrolone, the steroid found in both Christie's and Walker's blood.

Fellow competitors are defending the former champion sprinter, saying that they fear they will be the next victim of what they say is inaccurate science.

Has drug testing gone too far? Are the careers of innocent athletes being ruined? Is it time that sport thinks again about the whole issue of drugs? Tell us what you think.

Background ¦ Your reaction

Your Reaction:

It's time to test all finalist of all world events don't you think???
Sue Blowers, UK

I think drugs should be allowed. Reason. The human body is currently being exploited to it's maximum potential. The fastest 100m is about 9.8secs, and the margin of improvement is very small. I want to see a sub 5 second 100 m dash before I die, there's no way a human can do this without drugs. I say make a level playing field for all the athletes, and have them neck some speed on the blocks. If speed was allowed, I would book my seat for every future Olympic game right now.
Neil Woods, Currently Germany

The assumption that drug tests must be incorrect, because "innocent" athletes are caught, is ridiculous. Positive results are always questioned, giving all sorts of strange explanations. Those athletes tested positive are all professional sportsmen, who earn millions by winning a major title, including money from their sponsors. Strangely enough, it's mainly sprinters who get caught, i.e. the ones who benefit most from the use of anabolic steroids (for which there is good evidence, including detailed documentation of its use in former East Germany).
Asking to stop testing for Nandrolone is like allowing its extensive use without any control, and I'm sure we could expect dozens of new world records. I also think that the improved drug testing (without notice to the athlete) is still insufficient. Michael Johnson apparently had not been tested once during a training period, before he won his two Olympic gold medals in Atlanta. This is scandalous, but probably nothing that concerns sponsors, organisers of Olympic games, or anybody who participates in the money from the sale of TV rights. We need more and more independent testing, or at least more honesty.
DR G. Gammelin, UK

Some people take drugs to have an advantage over those who don't. If everyone took drugs, there'd be no advantage. Thus, a level playing field. But if you want a level playing field, let's ban drug use and the negative side effects. Seems to me that the issue always reduces to morality. GIVEN an agreed upon standard, who dishonestly breaks rules, and why? That is the moral issue.
M. Katzko, Netherlands

I would love to watch a sporting event knowing that all the athletes were on drugs. What would be even better is if the audience were allowed to use drugs of their choice as well. Who would care who won?
Gideon Stargrave, USA

I don't think that test results which prove positive can now be trusted 100%. OK, a number of well publicised cheats have been found out but is there a chemistry in the human body that, in the right conditions, can produce these steroids in the volumes required to produce a positive test for innocent people?
Simon Skelton, UK

Whenever this issue comes up there always seems to be far too many people uneducated in the field who try to force their opinions. Lets contemplate the science for one minute shall we. In the vast majority of cases, drugs tests do *NOT* detect drugs themselves, they detect metabolic (breakdown) products. This is necessary because the human body is remarkably good at getting rid of xenobiotic compounds. The problem is thus being able to prove that the athlete has consumed a banned substance. There is therefore a problem, other compounds (which have not been banned) can possible be processed by the body to produce the same metabolites as those of banned substances......but this proves nothing. The other worry is that 'health supplements' which many athletes take often contain compounds similar in structure to banned substances, but which are not specifically banned themselves. These compounds will produce very similar metabolites. So before everyone starts to proclaim guilt for Christie and others, please member that he should be considered innocent until proven guilty. A 'positive' drugs test is not 100% positive....it is the equivalent to being arrested by the police, there is a long way to go for the prosecution to prove beyond doubt consumption of a banned substance took place!
Dave Ashcroft, Edinburgh, Scotland

Stop Drug Testing. If a person can do better with drugs then so be it. They will suffer any consequences later.
Geoff Ward, Australia

The problem is not drug use, the problem is the lack of honesty. The tests should be developed more accurately. The second "possibility" of the free use of all kind of drugs, is absurd. The fight must go on!
Jaana Kusnetsov, Finland

To take away drugs testing to "level the field" seems like an unfair solution. For people like myself who wish to compete at the highest level of competition and not take drugs (since after all they can have serious side effects)we will be left behind this "level field". Would you want to watch the 100m mens sprint if you knew that everyone in the race was taking drugs? The performance in the race has little to do with that athletes ability, and more to do with the effect the drugs taken have had. The reason we admire athletes is for their skill, performance and dedication not for the result of the effects of drug use.
Elaine Manner, UK

It's hard to accept it when your heroes are caught cheating, but I've had my suspicions about Linford (and indeed most sprinters, male or female) for a long time. Here in Ireland, we've had to get to grips with the fact that Michelle de Brun cheated at the Atlanta Olympics. I suggest that people in Britian do the same thing -I'm fed up with British people constantly arguing that British athletes are queaky clean. Wake up -sports has gone drugs-mad, and no one is immune from temptation
Pamela Weaver, Ireland

Testing procedures are finding cheats, despite the rare case like Walker. Even he was borderline. Christie has tested positive more than once and has created difficulties for those testing him. The levels this time are not marginal but very high. Its time to call a halt to all abuse.
Geaorge H.G. Mitchell CBE.,JP, UK

I find it ironic that when a British athlete tests positive there should be a 'rethink of the testing procedures' whereas when a nasty foreigner is caught it is 'proof that testing works'. We had to see our naivety and admit that Michelle Smith had a 'winning formula'. You may have to recognise that some of your icons have feet of clay. also, why is Linford now referred to as "Jamaican born" all of a sudden. I don't remember those word's being used when he 'won gold for Britain'.
Paul B, Ireland

Within every sport and indeed all circles of life there will be those whom deliberately cheat and those who are unfortunate or naive to be reckless. What needs to be learned by all this is what constitutes as intended foul play and "accidental" involvement. Obviously this is easier said than done thus it is the rules that require clear definition. Governing bodies across the entire sporting spectrum must define clear unambiguous rules in accordance with contemporary medication. Effectively this should determine unintentional exposure to banned substances, and deliberate cheating. Also would it not be a good idea if every sports star was instructed to declare what medication they were using before every major event? Surely if this was strictly imposed it would help eliminate both the embarrassment of genuine athletes and many so-called scandals.
John, Strathaven UK

We create the sports world by our relentless adulation of 'heroes', so what are we complaining about? Sport isn't sport anymore, and you and I are to blame, and the drug taking athletes are products of our obsession...testing hasn't gone too far, we have.
kemunto Bosire, USA ( Kenyan)

The only way to stop this "innocent" drug taking is for all products to include on the label the following warning: "Not to be taken by professional athletes, unless they want banning." At least then, the athletes can show the testers the wrappers and say "This is what I took. It's not on the list."
Jackie Wilson, Japan

It is definitely time to think. Since drugs are very harmful I am against them, but to ban brilliant athletes just for testing positive for substances that can be found naturally in all people, or are used in sun cream or even cough syrup is ridiculous... Much more effective methods are going to have to be developed to stop athletes from pumping themselves with unidentified substances.
Vivien Cooksley, Austria

Some months ago, I did a tour of the new Reebok Football stadium at Bolton. On the tour we were taken into the dressing rooms. On the wall was a list of drugs that the players can take and a list they could not. On the list of cannots was the cold remedy, Lemsip. This is widely available over any counter. So this could explain why athletes do take banned substances, unaware of what is in them. Problem is, all athletes should know this. The Bolton players, see the club doctor who prescribes the drugs for them, they cannot go to the local chemist. My guess is the top athletes have to do the same. So I don't think the testers are at fault.
Brian Lee, England

Serves him right. Too often we find a sportsman in this country who does well for a short while and then acts like they are some sort of god. Linford was one of them. I hope his name is dragged through the mud.
Matt Sargeant, UK

I would like to throw a couple of points into the debate. Firstly, what does Linford Christie have to gain from taking drugs at this stage in his career? The answer - NONE.
Secondly, if he were taking drugs why would he REQUEST to stay on the testing register and risk getting caught?
Finally, Linford Christie was among the best in the world for a number of years, throughout which he was never 'caught' taking drugs. In a sport which probably testing it's athletes more than any other throughout the year this would suggest either a very lucky/clever drug taker, or someone who does not and never has taken drugs. I for one believe Linford Christie falls into the later category.
Gemma, UK

I agree that the drug testing system needs reviewing, but it is pathetic and typically British that this only now comes up when a Brit is caught.....He's British so the test must have been wrong. Grow up.
Martijn Brons, UK

Most of the legal substances have the exact same effects on athletes as illegal drugs have. Where do we draw the line of whom to punish for using either? Is it more ethical/fair to use the one but not the other? The whole thing is a joke.
Pete Michael, USA

Why whenever steroids are mentioned are all the old myths dragged out. In your report you say that one of the effects of steroid use is increased testosterone production, in fact the opposite is true, steroids shut down the natural production of testosterone. Another case of the same is the doctors reference book, in it all steroids are given the same side effects even though some of the drugs have a better safety record than aspirin. At the end of the day a lot of research, if you bother to look, shows that the USE of steroids is as safe as many non-prescription drugs and problems come when they are ABUSED, just like any other drug.
Gary, England

Removing testing altogether is an interesting suggestion, to "level the playing field". However, this would effectively change the focus of sport from athlete to chemist. In addition to this, de-restricting the use of drugs may have serious health implications for the athletes themselves.
Take pro cyclists as an example. A lot of them have admitted to taking EPO to increase red blood cell count, but this can 'thicken' the blood to dangerous levels. We need reliable methods for testing for drug use, and we need these methods to be properly applied. Possibly above all, we need funding to reduce the time lag between drug discovery and the development of a reliable detection procedure.
Tony Brooks, UK

As long as there is competitive sport there will always be the implication of drugs. To be the best you have to beat the best and if that means bending the rules then people will do it. I am no authority on the application of anabolic steroids but I do know that as testing methods improve, so do the masking agents available to athletes. It stands to reason that IF Linford were using nandrolone with a masking agent during his competitive career, he would feel no need to use the agent during retirement. Although he may continue to partake in the use of steroids to maintain his levels of fitness and power as he ages.
Adi, England

Drawing a parallel between athletics and cycling, I would guess that a shockingly high percentage of athletes are using performance-enhancing drugs but we only hear about the ones who are unfortunate enough to get caught. With the development of drugs like EPO, that are extremely difficult to detect, I think every athlete is forced to use drugs if they want to stay competitive. It's an extremely unfair situation on those who want to train and compete without the aid of drugs, but I think we have to live with the greed and immorality of 90s society.
N Grant, UK

I just do not believe that Linford would take drugs. As far as I am concerned he is innocent and still the greatest British athlete of all time.
Peter Walsh, England

Could not agree more with Justin of Australia. Just because it is Linford people are starting to question the system but do not have any comment when other athletes are caught taking drugs. Linford has been caught and I think people should wake up to the fact and stop defending him.
Suki, UK

Let's just forget drug testing. Let all athletes take them if they wish. There would then be a level playing field. Tests seem unreliable so I think this is the best alternative.
Barry Tregear, England

The solution to the drug testing problem seems quite easy to explain. If a person does not wish to be caught testing positive for drugs then do NOT take drugs. It is the participants responsibility and no one else's. Whether it should be allowed or not is not relevant If the authority figure says NO, that means NO!
Dale Abbott, US

There is just too much at stake in sports today. By and large it's money either directly to the athlete or in the form of promotional endorsements. Dangle millions in front of a young person and they might be willing to risk everything to get it. In this day and age, sport for the sake of sport is rare. Anything that provides and "edge" over the competition will be tried by many. No, it isn't right, and it is dangerous but how many who read this would be willing to use a drug just to get a large pile of cash? Too many of us, and that is the problem.
George N. Wells, USA

Farmers routinely feed steroids to their livestock to increase their size and therefore their value. Why is it OK to feed steroids to a cow, which we then eat, but not OK to take the same steroids directly?
Stephen Turk, USA

I don't think there's much difference between the strict diets top athletes take, where each food is comprehensively analysed for nutrition and taking 'drugs' to enhance performance. In the end, it is still the same human body which is competing. Let athletes eat or take anything they want to improve performance and don't stigmatise people who try to open a debate on this issue, like when the IOC president tied to last year.
Jon Bielby, UK

Why not have a "Chemical Games" for all-comers, who may use and abuse whatever means they need to win? I think that in the era of big-time prize money, corrupt committees (i.e. the IOC) athletes should be allowed to do "whatever it takes". How is different from "carbo loading" or other steps that athletes take to enhance themselves.
I think it is time to rethink the idea that we can apply naive ideals to what is really a business.
Duncan Napier, Canada

Yes, it's time for a complete rethink. I propose "Glaxolympics": stop all testing and allow all manner of bioengineering in competition. We'd have genetically engineered runners that are only legs and torso (no unnecessary weight taken up by head and arms), and power lifters that are only 2 feet tall (so they don't have to lift the bar a few inches). It might not be natural, but was it ever? (As a general rule primates in the wild do not pole vault or shot-put or decorate the fastest of their species with metal trinkets.) Glaxolypics should make for a great show on TV! Let the games begin...
Jan Schnupp, UK

Molecular signatures similar to illegal drugs can appear in the blood of exceptional athletes. What if somebody had a genetic mutation which created a hormone imbalance which looked like an artificial imbalance caused by drug use?
Scientists would have to look at the DNA in order to find out whether the abnormal reading came from a natural aberration or from chemicals. Also, illegal drug use is a morality question, not a sportsmanship question. Cocaine/etc. does not improve sports performance, and therefore should not have a bearing upon eligibility for winning titles/etc.
Reed Phipps, USA

Why does the general public find it so shocking that athletes take performance enhancing drugs? Drugs have been rife in most sports for a long time so every now and again somebody will be foolish enough to fail a test. Now that the tests for growth hormone are getting better perhaps there will be a few more positives. Everybody is quick to point a finger at the Chinese these days why aren't they just as objective with "our " sports stars.
Nick Parfitt, England

There are lots of issues at play here. Firstly though, it needs to be stressed that no drug is a wonder solution. You cannot pop a pill or inject some liquid and suddenly perform like a god. The drugs that people are railing against help the athlete train at higher intensities for longer - allowing them to experience more pain for more time. They are not quick fixes and they don't make second-rate athletes into Olympians.
Sport at the highest levels is such a big thing that it's not surprise that competitors are looking for the smallest advantage that could make the crucial difference. In a race when the difference between gold and last is a fraction of a second, tiny percentages are all important.
When gold medallists and champions are rewarded with untold riches and huge fame, is it any wonder that they look for help?
Chris Harrison, UK

Was I dreaming or was Doug Walker cleared of exactly the same offence last week. Nandrolone does occur naturally in the body and the authorities' failure to recognise this highlights gross incompetence (it is also present in avocado). Having said that, I find it disgusting how other athletes have jumped on the support bandwagon of Christie, an old man now who has retired at least three times and ignored Doug Walker who is still Britain's brightest hope of a world class athlete.
Nathan Hamer, Wales

I think Linford is innocent. He's retired, he's 39, why would he even bother? He would have nothing to gain. In addition this drug allegation is from a race in Feb 99. Why has it taken so long for the results to be announced? After previous results the organisation has come up with you have to question their methods and knowledge of what banned substances are in legal substances.
Antom Mccoy, UK

For over 30 years performance-enhancing drugs have been taken by some of the world's top athletes. There are ways of beating the testing regimes. I have always believed most top athletes cheat. Most just don't get caught. Sport is a multi-billion dollar business. Too many people have interests to protect. It's not just a gold medal they aspire to any more, they want gold too.
Graham Porter, Wales

Why is it that with alcohol someone is reported to have "twice the legal limit" yet with athletes and drugs no indication is ever given of how much is detected, or the accuracy/sensitivity of the test used?
Malcolm Gray, UK

Would my fellow Brits complain so much if the person caught was say American, and had beaten Linford several times? No I suspect not, the opinion would be to throw the book at him.
A Smith, UK

I suspect that the testers cannot win - there will always be new drugs and ways to hide the fact that they're being taken. Sport is obviously devalued if it's just a competition between rival drugs and coaches - the athlete just becomes a vehicle, like a Formula One car. Maybe that's how we should view them, and stop putting them on pedestals. I'm disappointed if Linford Christie really has taken steroids - if he's not clean, is anyone?
Mike Horner, UK

It seems that if anyone testing positive protests long enough, loud enough and with an expensive team of lawyers, he will get away with it. Ben Johnson gets branded a cheat because he was stupid enough to confess, while "our" Linford is considered a victim.
David Bradbury, UK

Can't the authorities at least wait until the second or third test confirms guilt before they ban a potentially innocent athlete?
Jill Forrest, Scotland

Why does everyone in this country automatically assume that whenever a British athlete tests positive they are innocent? I would imagine that some of our athletes do have the desire to compete at a higher level at any cost (cricket team excepted), even if this does mean taking their chances with the testers.
Chris Jones, England

Do other countries always suspend their top athletes when 'dubious' drug tests are failed? I think some of the chemicals found in athletes could be produced naturally by the body in certain circumstances. Otherwise, these drug tests clearly do not work. Scientists can only prove the presence of a substance in the body and not whether the person actually took it.
Daren, UK

Obviously the process should be reviewed to ensure that the tests are as accurate as possible, but there is little question that some athletes in all sports use performance enhancing drugs. The main problem is that the public is swayed by which athletes are "caught". Why is the uproar greater for the Christie positive test than it was for the unproven accusations of Lance Armstrong? The press and the public shouldn't play favourites when it comes to drug testing.
Imullin, USA

I think athletes should take drugs to enhance their performance if they wish. Why not? - It seems natural to me. It's the competitive aspect that's to blame for any ill feeling, and the money of course.
Oliver, England

Drug-testing: Time to think again?

Final Votes:

100% 0%			>		>
			Yes: <% =percentyes %>%		No: <% =percentno %>%

Advanced options | Search tips