Lance Armstrong

Source: Bigstock

What about socially acceptable drugs? What, for instance, about alcohol? In England, in the hunting field, a nip from the hip flask was known as “€œjumping powder.”€ Recently I read of a jockey being stood down because he failed a breathalyzer, but it’s not long since it was quite common for steeplechase jockeys to have a glass of something to steady the nerves, and I”€™ve known golfers whose putting improved if they took an occasional swig. Performance-enhancing? Perhaps. Illegal? Surely not. There was a World Darts champion whose game went into decline when alcohol was forbidden on the set in televised competitions. Smoking likewise may calm the nerves, and thus, in some sports, improve performance. One remembers a good many golfers who puffed their way round the course, others who got through a good many cans of beer in a round. An Italian footballer recently said he would never go out to play without having downed a couple of double espressos to stimulate him. Fair enough, in my opinion. I rarely write for a couple of hours without descending to the kitchen for a reviving espresso.

That’s by the way, but it is also to the point. We talk of mood-altering substances as freely as we talk of performance-enhancing drugs, and we know”€”and admit if we are honest”€”that the line between either of these things is thin and wavering. Of course, in both society and sport there are rules as to what is permissible, and there have to be rules, but we should recognize that the rules have been, are, and will be flexible. In social life, drugs that were once permitted are now forbidden, or, if not yet forbidden, are subject to disapproval and restriction. The same is true of sport, and what is restricted or forbidden changes. This is partly because the chemists are usually ahead of the authorities, and when the authorities catch up, the chemists devise new means to regain their lead. And the athletes, whether ignorant, deceived, on the ball, or even actively complicit, are victims”€”not always innocent victims, sometimes ambitious ones, but nevertheless victims of the need to win, for glory, however tarnished, or national pride, however absurd.

So these Olympics are tainted, as they have been for years, and will continue to be. Such innocence as there used to be is no longer possible. The worst thing is that we are now rarely, if ever, absolutely sure that X or Y is clean. One would like to hold to the old presumption of innocence till proved guilty, but it is ever more difficult to do so. Even spectators”€”fans”€”are prepared to believe the worst, which is why they booed these two young Russian divers and, incidentally, why I admired them as they nevertheless had the courage to go through their demanding routine. But even as I did so, and hoped they were clean, I couldn”€™t be sure.

This is the pernicious consequence of the doping scandals: the destruction of trust. Watching these Olympics and reading about them, I think of all those who admired Lance Armstrong so fervently and defended him against what they regarded as base allegations, and were betrayed by him. And I wonder which hero or heroine will betray us next, which golden boy or girl will be shown to have been corrupted.