By Andrew A. Skolnick

Special To The Post-Dispatch



DATE: JUNE 15, 2000



Just three months before the 2000 Olympic Games in Sydney Australia, the U.S. Olympic Committee's drug chief has resigned - accusing the organization of not doing enough to stop athletes from using drugs to cheat.

Citing interference with his drug-control efforts and political pressure from his bosses, Dr. Wade Exum, the chief of the committee's drug-control program, quit in protest after nine years in the job.
The committee's actions can only be "interpreted as encouraging the doping of athletes without considering the consequences to their health," Exum said.

Exum, 51, resigned on June 5, after months of internal battles. "The increasingly hostile, racist, threatening, jeopardy-laden and intolerable conditions imposed by this organization has made it unbearable for me to remain," Exum wrote to colleagues in an e-mail last week.

Exum is one of the U.S. Olympic Committee's highest-ranking black staff members.

In a statement released Wednesday, the U.S. Olympic Committee denied Exum's accusations and called them "patently false." Committee officials said they would not comment further until they review Exum's resignation and performance.

However, his resignation may not mean much to the long-term future of the Olympic committee's drug-control efforts, because his responsibilities were going to be taken over on Oct. 1 by a new organization, the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

Following a series of scandals involving athletes caught using performance boosting drugs, both the U.S. Olympic Committee and the International Olympic Committee have taken steps to restore confidence in their efforts to prevent doping by their athletes. Both Olympic committees have established what they say are independent agencies to administer their drug-control programs.

The new U.S. agency will create a system that athletes and the public can trust to provide "clean" athletes a level playing field, U.S. Olympic officials say.

But Exum calls the relationship between the new agency and the Olympic committee "incestuous" and at least some other anti-doping authorities are questioning whether the new agency will be truly independent.




By Andrew A. Skolnick
Special To The Post-Dispatch

DATE: July 23, 2000

In less than three months, the U.S. Olympic Committee will pass the baton of drug control to a newly established organization called the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

Yet, anti-doping experts are raising questions about whether the new agency is independent enough to restore the confidence of both the public and the athletes, who often must choose between a chance at winning or staying clean.

On Oct. 1, the new agency will toe the starting line in hopes of overtaking athletes who cheat. There is a lot of ground to be covered.

For more than three decades, athletes who use performance-enhancing substances have kept far ahead of the anti-doping efforts of sports governing bodies, officials admit.

Among the challenges the new agency faces: a crisis of confidence that has grown over years of drug scandals in sports.

The Tour de France cycling scandal in 1998 left little doubt that well-oiled, international doping operations remain in the sports world. In that incident, customs agents at the French-Belgian border discovered a trunkload of oxygen-boosting drugs, growth hormones, steroids, amphetamines and other drugs in a car driven by a trainer for the Festina team.

That team included French superstar Richard Virenque; world champion Laurent Brochard; and Alex Zulle, twice winner of the Tour of Spain.

This and other scandals have led to the widespread perception that the Olympic Committee and other sports governing bodies have done too little, too late to stop what health experts say is an epidemic of dangerous drug abuse.

This epidemic is threatening the health and lives of athletes from the Olympic Games to grade-school sports, said Robert Housman, assistant director for strategic planning at the White House Drug Policy Office. The latest national survey shows overall illicit drug use by eighth-, 10th- and 12th-graders went down 13 percent between 1997 and 1998, while steroid use jumped 15 percent.

"Young people are watching star athletes and following in their footsteps," Housman said. "They're being taught that no matter what sport they pick, their pharmacist can help them.

"We don't even know the full extent of the problem. In some sports, l ike cycling, weight lifting and swimming, it's epidemic. Virtually every single race has one or more cheaters. But we don't know how widespread it is in sports like archery and shooting because we haven't focused on them."

Additional confusion stems from the lack of agreement between sports governing bodies about what should be banned and what should be done to those who cheat. For example, Major League Baseball rules allowed Cardinals home-run champion Mark McGwire to build himself up with the steroid-like substance androstenedione even though it is banned in the Olympics.

The harmful effects of steroids and other illicit drugs span a spectrum from growing coarse hair on a woman's face and body, to enlarged breasts and smaller testicles in men, to psychiatric disturbances and even sudden death.

Doping with one of the most popular new drugs -- erythropoietin (EPO) -- is believed to have caused the deaths of at least 18 elite European cyclists and a dozen other athletes, according to the White House Drug Policy Office.

And the number of cardiac arrests caused by ephedrine and other stimulants taken to boost performance or lose weight continues to mount, says the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Crisis of confidence

With the 2000 Olympic Games less than eight weeks away, both sports-medicine experts and athletes say disagreements and deficiencies in drug testing will threaten the credibility of any winning performance requiring strength, endurance or speed. Some are predicting that the Sydney Games will be known as the "Hormone Olympics," because testing will not be done for two drugs of choice -- human growth hormone and EPO.

Anti-dopers such as Australian swimming federation president Terry Gathercole are complaining that the absence of tests for these drugs will allow drug cheats to compete -- and possibly win -- at the Sydney Games.

Charles Yesalis, a professor at Pennsylvania State University who is an anti-doping expert, predicts, "The Sydney Games will be the most drug-laden Olympics to date."

Not helping restore confidence is the lawsuit Dr. Wade Exum filed Monday in federal court in Denver against the U.S. Olympic Committee and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

In his suit, Exum, who resigned last month as chief of the Olympic Com mittee's drug-control program, accuses his former supervisors of covering up for many athletes caught using performance-enhancing drugs -- including some medal winners.

Exum also disputes that the new agency is truly independent. He notes that it was created and its board members appointed by an Olympic Committee task force. That task force also appointed Terry Madden, chief of staff to the Olympic Committee's president, to head the agency.

Exum is not the only one voicing concern over what he calls an "incestuous" relationship between the Olympic Committee and the new drug-control agency.

Also skeptical is John Hoberman, professor of Germanic languages at the University of Texas in Austin and an authority on doping in sports. The Olympic Committee's "history of looking the other way lends credibility to Dr. Exum's charges," he said. "Where is the evidence that the USOC has ever been interested in doping control except in regard to public relations?"

For children's sake

Madden, chief executive of the new anti-doping agency, does not share such skepticism.

He says he is taking his new job catching and prosecuting doping cheats seriously for the sake of his three young children. "When my 11-year-old son asked me, 'What's a steroid?' that question brought the seriousness of the problem home to me."

Added Madden, a lawyer and former prosecutor: "We're going to protect the health of athletes, and we're going to protect the innocent. But we're going to catch and prosecute the cheaters."

The agency also plans to take the responsibility of prosecuting athletes out of the hands of the national governing bodies of sports -- a change that those inside and outside of sports have sought.

Sports governing bodies receive more money when their athletes win more medals. No matter what people's intentions were, the old system had an inherent conflict-of-interest that jeopardized the effectiveness and efficiency of anti-doping efforts, Madden said.

The anti-doping agency will tighten up testing protocols as well as prosecution of athletes who test positive, he said. It also will work with the nations of the world to make sanctions more consistent.

The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency also plans to double the percentage of drug tests conducted without notice. "Our goal is to have 50 percent of all tests unannounced," Madden said.

The agency has few staff members and has yet to appoint a medical director. But Madden expects that it will be able to conduct more than 5,000 tests next year and eventually increase the annual number to between 6,000 and 8,000.

He also plans another symbolic change: to move the anti-doping agency's office from the U.S. Olympic Committee's campus in Colorado Springs to separate facilities elsewhere in town.

Twice the budget

The new agency's budget for its first year is $6.7 million -- double this year's allotment for the Olympic Committee's anti-doping efforts. Half of that money comes from the White House Drug Policy Office, $2 million of which is earmarked for research to develop new tests for detecting performance-enhancing drugs.

Madden expects that the agency's new programs will be effective enough to assure that the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City will be totally clean for U.S. athletes.

The only hope in controlling doping is to create a climate of doubt and fear among athletes thinking of cheating, says Olympic gold-medal marathoner Frank Shorter, chairman of the new agency's board of directors.

"In my view, most athletes want a level playing field where they don't have to take drugs to have a chance at winning," said Shorter, an outspoken critic of doping in sports.

Among the new policies he expects the new anti-doping agency to implement will be the storage of athletes' urine samples for future testing, when better tests become available. He also is opposed to any statute of limitation for those who test positive.

"Athletes who cheat should fear that one day they may wake up to a knock on their door and have their medals taken away," Shorter said. "We are at the point where this cheating has to end."

Suit alleges interference

At the U.S. Olympic Committee's campus in Colorado Springs, sculptures and displays explain the history and spirit of the modern Olympic movement, which was founded by Baron Pierre de Coubertin more than a century ago.

In the visitors center, one such sculpture proudly proclaims "Higher, faster, stronger," the Olympic motto de Coubertin dreamed up -- a dream that was to be achieved by talent, hard work and determination.

Yet many now believe that dream can no longer be achieved without dangerous drugs.

"Athletes who use performance enhancing drugs do not earn medals -- they steal them," retired Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, director of the White House Drug Policy Office, told an International Olympic Committee conference last year in Switzerland.

In testimony before Congress, McCaffrey also has said that doping is threatening the safety of the athletes and the trust in organized sports.

"Drug-using athletes verge on creating records that honest human performance cannot best," he said. "We seriously risk the creation of a chemically engineered class of athletic gladiators."

In his suit, Exum, who served at director of the U.S. Olympic Committee's anti-doping program for nine years, accuses the committee of throwing "roadblocks" in the path of his drug-control efforts.

"In recent years, absolutely no sanction has been imposed on roughly half of all the American athletes who have tested positive for prohibited substances," his suit alleges. The suit also accuses the committee of racial discrimination.

Exum's complaint cites allegations of various acts of interference from superiors who had no medical backgrounds, including Jim Page, a former head of the U.S. Nordic team who had been banned from the sport for authorizing the blood doping of a team member.

The Olympic Committee is "running a controlled-doping program rather than a doping-control program," Exum said in an interview last month. So far, he has not made public any evidence for his assertions.

On Friday, Exum held a news conference in Denver to answer questions concerning his lawsuit. Shortly after, the U.S. Olympic Committee held a news teleconference, during which it categorically denied all of Exum's charges. Richard Young, an attorney hired by the Olympic Committee to investigate some of those charges, said he found no evidence of any cover-up or other impropriety.

"When I asked Dr. Exum for specifics, he could not provide one single case of a cover-up," added lawyer Scott Blackmun, senior managing director for sport resources. "What we have here are opinions rather than allegations."

Blackmun, who was Exum's boss, also categorically denied his charges of racial discrimination.

Dr. Robert Voy, who as Exum's predecessor headed the U.S. Olympic Committee's anti-doping programs for six years, shares some of Exum's skepticism on whether the new agency is going to be truly independent or effective.

"From the list of committee members, I don't see much of a change in attitude, philosophy or ingenuity of approach, at least at this point," he said. "Until there is a truly independent program that can be trusted, token anti-doping programs will perpetuate use of drugs in sports rather than stopping it."

But not every authority is pessimistic. Housman at the White House Drug Policy Office agrees that the record will be a burden to overcome, but he calls the establishment of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency an "enormous step forward." Removing the responsibility of prosecuting and disciplining athletes from the national governing bodies is a major advance, he said.

While his office is providing half of the new agency's budget this year, whether it continues to fund the agency will depend in part on how well the agency does. Housman says he is confident that the agency will be able to restore the trust of both athletes and the public.

Nevertheless, he agrees with critics who say it's too soon to judge whether the U.S. Olympics anti-doping program is on the road to recovery. "We will have to judge what is done, not what is said," he said.



National sports governing bodies have been responsible for overseeing drug controls at the Olympics.

Those same bodies get more federal money when their athletes return home with medals.

Performance- enhancing substances become more prevalent as more athletes do what they think they have to in order to bring home the gold.


Prosecution will be transferred from national sports governing bodies to the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

Testing protocols will be tightened.

Athletes who test positive will face tougher penalties.

The agency will work inter- nationally to make sanctions consistent.

The percentage of drug tests conducted without notice will be doubled.



By Andrew A. Skolnick
Special To The Post-Dispatch

DATE: July 23, 2000

As the science of drug testing becomes more sophisticated, so does the cheating.

The doper's method of not getting caught may be as crude as substituting "clean" urine for his or her own during a drug test. Because the urine collection must be observed by an official, some athletes resort to hiding a bag of "clean" urine in their rectum or vagina. Some even risk dangerous infection by filling their own bladder with another person's urine through a catheter.

Among the more sophisticated strategies is the use of other drugs that interfere with the effectiveness of urine tests. That practice led to the addition of these masking drugs to the growing list of banned substances.

Another strategy requires athletes to carefully medicate themselves while periodically testing their urine to make sure that the level of banned substance in their urine stays below the limit.

The official limits for some drugs such as muscle building testosterone are high enough to allow many athletes to build themselves up without getting caught, anti-doping experts say.

Indeed, the relatively few athletes who get caught are "careless or stupid people," said doping expert Charles Yesalis, a professor at Pennsylvania State University.

It's so easy to get away with doping, it's surprising when someone does get caught, Yesalis said.

The old method of "blood doping" - in which the athlete stores his or her own blood and then reinfuses it before competition - is hard to detect. And so is the latest method of blood doping using the drug erythropoietin (EPO).

Many elite athletes have been taking this blood cell growth factor to increase their endurance by packing their blood with oxygen-carrying red blood cells. Because EPO is normally found in blood and urine, developing a reliable test has been difficult.

While several tests have been developed, and one is already being used to eliminate possible cheaters at the almost-completed Tour de France (three suspect cyclists were sent home during the qualifying race), the International Olympic Committee is reluctant to approve their use. The International Committee still hasn't agreed to use EPO testing in Sydney in September.

Human growth hormone (hGH) is another new, naturally occurring doping agent. Because no test is even on the horizon to catch athletes who are pumping themselves up with this drug, it has become a popular, but expensive, doping agent.

"Athletes are a walking laboratory, and the Olympics have become a proving ground for scientists, chemists and unethical doctors," said Dr. Robert Voy, director of the U.S. Olympic Committee's anti-doping program from 1983 to 1989. "The testers know that the drug gurus are smarter than they are. They know how to get in under the radar."

The doping industry has become a big business, which caters to athletes from Olympians down to grade-schoolers. Said Yesalis: "Experts are being paid to make sure that athletes don't get caught."

This industry employs black-market manufacturers and suppliers of steroids, human growth hormone, EPO and other banned substances, and physicians willing to provide them. It also employs researchers who continue to develop chemical variations of banned substances that still will boost performance but not be prohibited - at least until their use becomes a recognized problem.

And, of course, there are the many coaches, lawyers and others who work to defend the athletes who get caught.

Last year, Texas legislators enacted a law making it illegal for grade-school coaches or other school employees to sell or provide performance- enhancing drugs or supplements to schoolchildren.

The law doesn't apply to college athletes. "My university buys [the body building food supplement] creatinine by the tub load for its athletes," said John Hoberman, professor of Germanic studies at the University of Texas at Austin and an authority on sports doping.

And now, thanks to the power of genetic engineering, the specter of Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" - where superathletes are conceived in test tubes - is looming on the horizon. Many experts say we are losing this drug war and that sports as we've known them are not going to survive.

"Doping is a cancer for all sports," says Dr. Don Catlin, who runs the drug-testing lab at the University of California at Los Angeles - one of the two U.S. testing labs approved by the International Olympic Committee. "However, I'm convinced that science can develop the means to defeat it."



By Andrew A. Skolnick
Special To The Post-Dispatch

PUBLICATION: St. Louis Post-Dispatch
DATE: July 23, 2000

Even competitive athletes who have no intention of using performance-boosting drugs to cheat need to know what substances are forbidden in their sport.

So says Dr. Lyn R. Frumkin, a physician crew chief for the U.S. Olympic Committee who supervises urine testing of athletes.

Whether or not their exposure to a prohibited drug was inadvertent, athletes who test positive for banned substances risk discipline and disgrace. The innocent use of the wrong over-the-counter cold remedy or an herbal tea can land an athlete in hot water.

Athletes therefore need to be familiar with the most up-to-date information on substances that are prohibited by their sport's governing body, Frumkin says.

The classes of substances banned by U.S. and International Olympic committees and most sports governing bodies include stimulants (such as amphetamines, ritalin, cocaine, ephedrine and even large amounts of caffeine); narcotic pain killers (such as morphine); anabolic steroids (such as testosterone, nandrolone, androstenedione and dehydroepiandrosterone); diuretics; and certain hormones and growth factors (such as human growth hormone and erythropoietin).

Several other classes of medications are restricted to varying degrees, including alcohol, corticosteroids, local anesthetics, beta-blockers and asthma medications.

Athletes must pay careful attention to the exact name of the medication because many banned products have almost the same name as those that are permitted. For example, Dristan 12-hour Nasal Spray is allowed, but Dristan Nasal Spray, which contains the banned substance phenylephrine, is not.

Some sports governing bodies ban different substances, which adds to the confusion.

Drugs that slow pulse rates or reduce tremors may be allowed for weight lifters and most other athletes, but they are forbidden for archers and target shooters, whose performance they could enhance.

Athletes also must be cautious when using products from health food stores. Many herbal remedies and nutritional supplements contain banned substances.

Athletes especially must be cautious with any product promoted as an energy booster or performance enhancer, Frumkin said. Because these products are unregulated by the Food and Drug Administration, the ingredients label on these products cannot be trusted.