The heroes and villains are harder to separate in the history of doping science. Amphetamines were used as much by Allied forces in the Second World War as by their Axis enemies. Steroids were being experimented with in the USA by the 1930s and 1940s. Usage of steroids was not seen as problematic by Dr. John Zeigler, the American weightlifting coach who helped develop the steroid Dianabol with the pharmaceutical company CIBA in the mid-1950s. Around the same time, the legendary ‘hero’ Roger Bannister who would help lead anti-doping in Britain in the 1970s experimented with extra oxygen inhalation for his mile runs. And throughout the post-war period, those professional cyclists who used amphetamines and other drugs for their arduous races remained favorites with the fans who empathized with their need for artificial enhancements. Heroes sometimes need to be recast as villains and vice versa. There is a much greater ambivalence to this history than the dichotomy of good and evil allows. Even the ostensibly ‘good’ side needs to be carefully analyzed. Anti-doping cannot simply be imagined as a ‘crusade’ of heroes fighting selflessly to protect sport and the watching public. Again, the roles and attitudes of scientists as with policymakers need to be set in context. Anti-doping had its flaws – ideological, political, scientific and pragmatic. Individuals were motivated by their subjective opinions as well as opportunities for career advancement. It was not always an especially coherent movement. But we can say that there was a radical change that occurred with the rise in anti-doping in the early 1960s, as campaigners collected their efforts, constructed a language to support these efforts, and developed the scientific, bureaucratic and legalistic mechanisms. This is a process that has been ignored in the historiography of sport and of medicine.
Open Next Page To See more