Golf surpasses cycling and athletics for drug findings

PCX · 30-07-2015 12:51am #1

Apparently of all of the sports that the World Anti-Doping Agency test Golf is the third worst for positive tests according to this Irish Times article- http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/golf/golf-surpasses-cycling-and-athletics-for-drug-findings-1.2301094

It is obvious in some other sports that rely purely on strength, speed or endurance that drugs might give you an edge over other competitors but in golf is there really a benefit? Isn't it a game mostly of skill? Looking at the Pro field now it is not the case that the competitor in the best physical shape wins tournaments necessarily.

Being in good shape does not hurt - but plenty of professionals (I'm picturing John Daly in my head as I type) seem to be able to earn a living while not being super fit.

So the question I have is what is the draw for the the Golfers who have been caught doping and is this something golf as a sport needs to worry about?

Senna · 30-07-2015 1:38am

There are drugs that calm nerves, beta blockers for one, and we can all image how much help they would be for a golfer when the game is 90% in your head.
I'd say the majority of drug use is none physical related and I'd guess recreational drugs are also more common that people would think.

Redzah · 30-07-2015 7:12am

Senna wrote: »

There are drugs that calm nerves, beta blockers for one, and we can all image how much help they would be for a golfer when the game is 90% in your head.
I'd say the majority of drug use is none physical related and I'd guess recreational drugs are also more common that people would think.

I also suspect that with the move towards fitness in golf has come a nativity with sports supplements. I.e pre-workout caffeinated and creatine etc can sometimes lead to failed drug tests. I suspect that golfers are not the most educated on the wada requirements and can inadvertently fail a drugs test due to these circumstances.

rrpc · 30-07-2015 7:19am

From that article:

The drugs of choice for golfers are diuretics and other masking agents as well as Glucocortico-steroids.

Redzah · 30-07-2015 7:32am

rrpc wrote: »

From that article:

Fair enough, didn't get a chance to read it but I suspect there is a naivety to it in golf as opposed to intention in other sports.

boodiebhoy · 30-07-2015 7:38am

Redzah wrote: »

Fair enough, didn't get a chance to read it but I suspect there is a naivety to it in golf as opposed to intention in other sports.

I doubt that. Most pro golfers come across as reasonably intelligent people. But like all pro sports if there is something that might give you an edge there will always be people willing to try it and the rewards in golf are so big compared to athletics and cycling.

Adamocovic · 30-07-2015 7:45am

I saw on the article that Football provided 31'000 samples and Golf roughly 600.

I don't see the point or accuracy of reports and articles like this if they won't stick with the same sample sizes for each category. I know it might be hard as there are way more proffessional footballers than golfers out there but still, the gap in the sample sizes is big.

PARlance · 30-07-2015 7:46am

Redzah wrote: »

I also suspect that with the move towards fitness in golf has come a nativity with sports supplements. I.e pre-workout caffeinated and creatine etc can sometimes lead to failed drug tests. I suspect that golfers are not the most educated on the wada requirements and can inadvertently fail a drugs test due to these circumstances.

They make enough money to have guys to read their cornflakes box if they want...

Redzah · 30-07-2015 7:49am

boodiebhoy wrote: »

I doubt that. Most pro golfers come across as reasonably intelligent people. But like all pro sports if there is something that might give you an edge there will always be people willing to try it and the rewards in golf are so big compared to athletics and cycling.

Well when you compare the focus on diet and performance enhancement substances in other sports such as athletics and cycling, I think it's fair to say that there is not the same focus in golf yet, although it continues to go this way. With an increased focus comes education for its participants. My view is that there would be a naivety in golf that needs to be bridged with increased education for participants.

With regards to your arguement about rewards then in terms of gross prizemoney then yes but I'd argue that the edge that intentional doping in golf could give you over other participants compared to the edge you get in cycling or athletics is so much smaller that it calls into question whether there is really a major incentive there in golf.

Boskowski · 30-07-2015 8:03am

I don't know maybe if you're thinking in terms of classic power enhancing drugs. But I could see drugs that make you more 'awake' or aware, something that keeps you sharp and in the zone being an advantage.

rrpc · 30-07-2015 8:06am

Redzah wrote: »

Fair enough, didn't get a chance to read it but I suspect there is a naivety to it in golf as opposed to intention in other sports.

The use of masking agents would not be a case of naivety, quite the opposite really.

Russman · 30-07-2015 10:03am

To be fair, it would be a bit naïve for anyone to think pro golf is immune to drug cheats. Much as we'd like to think it is, its not always a utopian sport where honour rules above all.
IMO once sport is professional, there will be those who try to gain an advantage. The likes of Gary Player have been saying for years that there's plenty of drugs in golf. Now that its an Olympic sport some light might be shining in some very dark corners.

Redzah · 30-07-2015 12:08pm

Russman wrote: »

To be fair, it would be a bit naïve for anyone to think pro golf is immune to drug cheats. Much as we'd like to think it is, its not always a utopian sport where honour rules above all.
IMO once sport is professional, there will be those who try to gain an advantage. The likes of Gary Player have been saying for years that there's plenty of drugs in golf. Now that its an Olympic sport some light might be shining in some very dark corners.

I don't think it is immune to drug cheats. I am simply giving my belief on the title which refers to drug findings (and not cheats). I believe that for golf to be higher on this list of drug findings than athletics and cycling then I think it comes more down to naiveity than intention. I say this as I believe there is more to gain in terms of performance in athletics and cycling than golf. I also believe there is less education on this subject in golf as it is unclear how one would see the benefits in terms of performance and thus there is less incentive to dope than in other sports. With less education for its participants comes a higher naiveity in terms of unknowingly taking a banned substance.

I have no doubt that there are some in golf that knowingly have taken banned substances but I believe that if these guys could be separated and compared on a like by like basis to other sports then golf would be much further down the list in this report.

Russman · 30-07-2015 12:18pm

Redzah wrote: »

I don't think it is immune to drug cheats. I am simply giving my belief on the title which refers to drug findings (and not cheats). I believe that for golf to be higher on this list of drug findings than athletics and cycling then I think it comes more down to naiveity than intention. I say this as I believe there is more to gain in terms of performance in athletics and cycling than golf. I also believe there is less education on this subject in golf as it is unclear how one would see the benefits in terms of performance and thus there is less incentive to dope than in other sports. With less education for its participants comes a higher naiveity in terms of unknowingly taking a banned substance.

I have no doubt that there are some in golf that knowingly have taken banned substances but I believe that if these guys could be separated and compared on a like by like basis to other sports then golf would be much further down the list in this report.

Agreed. Personally I think its laughable to compare golf with cycling or athletics, I mean its pretty much institutional and a necessity in those sports.

blue note · 30-07-2015 12:22pm

I think they only brought in testing around 2006. It would be weird if someone was unbelievably successful before then and not so much after. I doubt they were doping though. If such a person exists. And used to go to Switzerland to see his doctor even though he played practically all his golf in America.

rrpc · 30-07-2015 12:40pm

Redzah wrote: »

I don't think it is immune to drug cheats. I am simply giving my belief on the title which refers to drug findings (and not cheats). I believe that for golf to be higher on this list of drug findings than athletics and cycling then I think it comes more down to naiveity than intention. I say this as I believe there is more to gain in terms of performance in athletics and cycling than golf. I also believe there is less education on this subject in golf as it is unclear how one would see the benefits in terms of performance and thus there is less incentive to dope than in other sports. With less education for its participants comes a higher naiveity in terms of unknowingly taking a banned substance.

You're ignoring the fact that masking agents were found by the testers. Masking agents are used to hide doping and are unlikely to be used inadvertently. Secondly, drug testing in golf is at a much lower level than other sports which is borne out by the testing numbers and that would indicate that there's a lower possibility of being caught and consequently a better chance of getting away with it.

You are mistaken in believing that performance in a sport is limited to physical performance. All sports have a physical dimension, but each sport will have other attributes that can be assisted by doping. At the Beijing Olympics, a Korean double medal winner in pistol shooting was disqualified after he tested positive for beta blockers. Beta blockers are specifically banned for Golf 'in-competition'.

In addition to beta blockers; stimulants, narcotics, masking agents and diuretics could be used in Golf.

mike12 · 30-07-2015 12:42pm

So we have had 8 guys fail tests. Think when u get to 1000 in the world rankings how u are scraping the bottom of the barrel. So the 600 odd test is a high %.
We can all think of a couple that had a break but they seem to be for having a fun time type of drug.

Rikand · 30-07-2015 12:55pm

And they say Golf isn't a sport....

Redzah · 30-07-2015 8:33pm

rrpc wrote: »

You're ignoring the fact that masking agents were found by the testers. Masking agents are used to hide doping and are unlikely to be used inadvertently. Secondly, drug testing in golf is at a much lower level than other sports which is borne out by the testing numbers and that would indicate that there's a lower possibility of being caught and consequently a better chance of getting away with it.

You are mistaken in believing that performance in a sport is limited to physical performance. All sports have a physical dimension, but each sport will have other attributes that can be assisted by doping. At the Beijing Olympics, a Korean double medal winner in pistol shooting was disqualified after he tested positive for beta blockers. Beta blockers are specifically banned for Golf 'in-competition'.

In addition to beta blockers; stimulants, narcotics, masking agents and diuretics could be used in Golf.

Masking agents aren't exclusively used for sinister reasons, they have medicinal benefits such as regulating blood pressure I believe.

Physical performance is the only way to easily prove an increase in performance levels. The brain and mental side is much more complex where use of performance enhancing drugs could have as much an adverse effect on performance.

By you telling me I am mistaken is not going to change my view on this. You speak as if everything you say is fact but in reality it is a view you hold but you are not in a position to prove a. The intention of the golfer with drugs in his system and b. Proof that the beta blockers and other drugs you've listed have a clear performance improvement in terms of a golfers score (which would be easy to prove for other drugs in other sports such as cycling for example).

Ciaranra · 31-07-2015 8:41am

Il be carefull so this weekend not to mix my red bull with my creatine in case I get the edge over the playing field

ForeRight · 31-07-2015 8:59am

Did someone say golfers on drugs???

rrpc · 31-07-2015 9:12am

Redzah wrote: »

Masking agents aren't exclusively used for sinister reasons, they have medicinal benefits such as regulating blood pressure I believe.

Most drugs used for performance enhancement were developed for medical purposes. Many of the drugs on the Wada banned list such as pseudoephedrine are widely in use for the alleviation of symptoms or chronic illnesses. Diuretics are prescribed for high blood pressure in order to rid the body of excess water and salts through urine. If an otherwise healthy athlete has diuretics in their blood stream, they could quite literally be described as 'taking the piss'

Redzah wrote: »

Physical performance is the only way to easily prove an increase in performance levels. The brain and mental side is much more complex where use of performance enhancing drugs could have as much an adverse effect on performance.

So why are they on the Wada banned list? And why are some of these banned for 'in-competition' use only?

Redzah wrote: »

By you telling me I am mistaken is not going to change my view on this. You speak as if everything you say is fact but in reality it is a view you hold but you are not in a position to prove a. The intention of the golfer with drugs in his system and b. Proof that the beta blockers and other drugs you've listed have a clear performance improvement in terms of a golfers score (which would be easy to prove for other drugs in other sports such as cycling for example).

In answer to (a) There is no requirement for the authorities to prove intention. The fact of a banned substance being found in the athlete's system is proof enough to ban them. It is solely the responsibility of the athlete to ensure they are not taking a banned substance. That's why Wada publish a list.
(b) Improved performance levels can have any number of contributory factors and are not in themselves proof of anything other than improved performance. In some cases, banned drug use can mask what would otherwise be perceived reduced performance levels in competition. Beta blockers are a perfect example of this. They prevent trembling; a condition that Paul Dunne suffered on the final day of the open when he later described how his wedge was shaking so much that he didn't think he'd be able to hit the ball.

Many of the drugs found in cycling were not taken to improve performance but to improve stamina. They took them in order to allow them to ignore their bodies natural 'white flag' which would indicate it's time to stop or slow down and thus go past pain barriers and into the danger zone where death is a real possibility. EPO, amphetamines and cocaine have all been used in cycling for this purpose.

Giruilla · 31-07-2015 11:20am

Drugs are used in Golf for the exact same reasons as they're used in Baseball. And Baseball is riddled..

Redzah · 31-07-2015 11:28am

Giruilla wrote: »

Drugs are used in Golf for the exact same reasons as they're used in Baseball. And Baseball is riddled..

ehh.....I don't think so. Baseball is riddled with Steroid use. I know Monty has the physique of a steroid user but he swears its all natural

Giruilla · 31-07-2015 11:53am

Redzah wrote: »

ehh.....I don't think so. Baseball is riddled with Steroid use. I know Monty has the physique of a steroid user but he swears its all natural

You don't think what... that steroid use isn't prevalent or beneficial in golf? People used to say there was no need in baseball too as it was all hand-eye coordination and technique.

Redzah · 31-07-2015 12:04pm

Giruilla wrote: »

You don't think what... that steroid use isn't prevalent or beneficial in golf? People used to say there was no need in baseball too as it was all hand-eye coordination and technique.

Yes, exactly, I don't think that steroid use is either prevalent or benefical in golf.

Just a quick question from reading your other posts. You seems to be almost exclusively interested in Doping and Performance Enhancing Drugs (e.g. all your comments are around the Salazar scandal, marion bartoli etc).
Do you actually play golf? Are you aware of the body movements required to hit the ball, are you aware of how the biggest weapon in a golfer is his brain?

Steriods would probably be a hindrance in golf as a significant change in muscle mass for a golfer would interfere with a swing.

AGC · 31-07-2015 12:12pm

Gorfield will certainly not be surprised by this thread!

Giruilla · 31-07-2015 12:12pm

Redzah wrote: »

Yes, exactly, I don't think that steroid use is either prevalent or benefical in golf.

Just a quick question from reading your other posts. You seems to be almost exclusively interested in Doping and Performance Enhancing Drugs (e.g. all your comments are around the Salazar scandal, marion bartoli etc).
Do you actually play golf? Are you aware of the body movements required to hit the ball, are you aware of how the biggest weapon in a golfer is his brain?

Steriods would probably be a hindrance in golf as a significant change in muscle mass for a golfer would interfere with a swing.

I've heard your response plenty of times from people, and they've said the same thing about sports like tennis. It's a typical noob response in terms of doping. "Do you play this sport? Do you understand the skill involved?"

If you think increased muscle mass has no benefit in golf why do modern golfers like McIlroy and Woods place such emphasis on gym work?
When a golfer has reached his peak technique-wise in how far he can hit the ball.. there's only really one option left to increase hitting distance by 10/20/30 yards and thats by increasing muscle mass.

Redzah · 31-07-2015 12:27pm

Giruilla wrote: »

I've heard your response plenty of times from people, and they've said the same thing about sports like tennis. It's a typical noob response in terms of doping. "Do you play this sport? Do you understand the skill involved?"

If you think increased muscle mass has no benefit in golf why do modern golfers like McIlroy and Woods place such emphasis on gym work?
When a golfer has reached his peak technique-wise in how far he can hit the ball.. there's only really one option left to increase hitting distance by 10/20/30 yards and thats by increasing muscle mass.

You should do your research, after pure technique, flexibility is more important to a golfer than musclemass. Yes, some musclemass can help but there comes a point when too much is not benefical to a golfer. The musclemass required for a golfer can easily be achieved by a regular fitness and diet regime and I'd argue that there are no marginal benefits after this point to suggest that Steroids would help. Compare this to weightlifting, Baseball and others where it is a more linear pattern of the more muscle mass you have the more benefit you gain as these sports are intrinsically linked to power and strength.

I don't mind having a debate with you on this but I'd prefer if you made a more informed argument starting with knowledge of the game you are discussing.

Giruilla · 31-07-2015 12:34pm

Cool, keep your head in the sand.

rrpc · 31-07-2015 12:43pm

Just to give a more detailed analysis of the findings, the following is where the tests resulting in Adverse Analytical Findings (AAF) were carried out. All of these tests were 'In Competition'.

Testing Authority|Samples|AAF|% AAF
Spain National Anti‐Doping Agency|34|1|2.7%
German National Anti‐Doping Agency|25|1|3.3%
French Anti‐Doping Agency|26|2|7.1%
Italian Ministry of Health Department|23|2|8.7%
International Golf Federation|16|1|4.8%
Korea Anti‐Doping Agency|8|1|5.6%

The breakdown for Golf was as follows:
Diuretics or other masking agents: 5
Glucocortico‐steroids: 5
Beta-blockers: 2

This obviously adds up to more than the eight total findings, but that would be explained by a finding of both a masking agent and a steroid or beta-blocker in the same sample.

There were a further three Atypical Findings (ATF) which are not deemed as serious as an AAF.

Happily there were no adverse findings in Minigolf

For comparison purposes, out of almost 500 tests in 2013, there were 2 AAFs, one of which resulted in disciplinary action.

Giruilla · 31-07-2015 12:55pm

Also, not just on swing power..
Do you think it would be beneficial for a golfer to have almost the same energy levels on the 18th as he does on the 1st?
Do you think it would be beneficial for a golfer to have almost the same concentration levels on the 18th as on the 1st?

EPO and various steroids will improve all of these. Very little reason for a pro golfer earning a living by getting in the money not to take these.

Interesting articles
http://www.golfdigest.com/magazine/2007-10/golftechsteroids
http://sports.espn.go.com/golf/news/story?id=2239115

valoren · 31-07-2015 2:46pm

It could be simply a case of the longevity of a golfer's career.

A professional golfer is only just peaking at an age when most athletes are retired, but age is a funny thing and every little twinge or pain becomes exemplified. Given the repetitive nature of the full swing, then some would begin to develop injuries and niggles over a prolonged period of time. (Remember Vijay and his deer antler spray? He hit his 40's and decided to use it to recover from his gruelling practice regime).

Now when you take some highly competitive players with ageing, creaking bodies and couple it with potentially substantial financial rewards then the attraction of something like deer antler spray becomes greater as you find yourself playing/practicing with an ageing physique.

Redzah · 31-07-2015 2:51pm

valoren wrote: »

It could be simply a case of the longevity of a golfer's career.

A professional golfer is only just peaking at an age when most athletes are retired, but age is a funny thing and every little twinge or pain becomes exemplified. Given the repetitive nature of the full swing, then some would begin to develop injuries and niggles over a prolonged period of time. (Remember Vijay and his deer antler spray? He hit his 40's and decided to use it to recover from his gruelling practice regime).

Now when you take some highly competitive players with ageing, creaking bodies and couple it with potentially substantial financial rewards then the attraction of something like deer antler spray becomes greater as you find yourself playing/practicing with an ageing physique.

Well, I'd take your point and argue that due to the average age being older than other sports that certain drugs in a golfers system would more than likely be for medicinal reasons (e.g. Blood Pressure) as opposed to performance enhancing reasons.

Furthermore, I'm not sure if you are aware but WADA removed Deer Antler Spray from their list of prohibited substances, Vijay was unaware that it was on it in the first place (substantiates my education comments), Vijays ban was overturned and he sued the tour for defamation.

Giruilla · 31-07-2015 3:38pm

I assume you've considered the possibility that Vijay was in fact taking HGH and used 'deer antler spray' as an excuse when caught?
Just saying its a possibility.. this is Vijay Singh notorious for his work ethic and training longer than any player on the tour.

Blaming a substance that contains mild traces of what you were caught for is the default excuse.

Redzah · 31-07-2015 3:59pm

Giruilla wrote: »

I assume you've considered the possibility that Vijay was in fact taking HGH and used 'deer antler spray' as an excuse when caught?
Just saying its a possibility.. this is Vijay Singh notorious for his work ethic and training longer than any player on the tour.

Blaming a substance that contains mild traces of what you were caught for is the default excuse.

Again I would ask that you make educated and informed comments. The Vijay Singh case arose when he admitted in an interview to Sports Illustrated that he used Deer Antler Spray. Subsequent to Vijay Singhs interview, WADA informed the tour that it was on their banned list and the tour took action. WADA subsequently removed it from their banned list as it only had traces of banned substances.

This all arose because Vijay Singh spoke about Deer Antler spray in an interview. He was not under any investigation prior to the interview and thus this was not any get out clause as you are suggesting, he highlighted his use of it. That sceptical mind of yours is working overtime and you would feel much more at home in the conspiracy theories threads.

Giruilla · 31-07-2015 4:12pm

Ok my apologies, I was under the impression he'd actually failed a test, not admitted using it in an interview.
I'd still question his reasoning for using the substance if not for performance enhancing effects.

rrpc · 31-07-2015 4:23pm

Redzah wrote: »

Well, I'd take your point and argue that due to the average age being older than other sports that certain drugs in a golfers system would more than likely be for medicinal reasons (e.g. Blood Pressure) as opposed to performance enhancing reasons.

If an athlete (golfer in this case) is taking a substance for medicinal reasons, they can get what is called a Therapeutic use exemption" (TUE). This is allowed on many of the currently banned substances where there is a genuine illness or injury.

There is absolutely no need for it to come to light in the first instance in a routine test.

Redzah · 31-07-2015 4:51pm

rrpc wrote: »

If an athlete (golfer in this case) is taking a substance for medicinal reasons, they can get what is called a Therapeutic use exemption" (TUE). This is allowed on many of the currently banned substances where there is a genuine illness or injury.

There is absolutely no need for it to come to light in the first instance in a routine test.

Unfortunately its not that simple, you should read the case of Doug Barron, the first guy to be banned for drug use when the PGA brought in their new policy in 2008. He applied to for TUE for a prescribed drug he was on as far back as 1987 and it was refused and then subsequently had traces of this drug in a test under the new policy and he was banned.

Well known golfer Shaun Micheels TUE took a 4 month process for a banned substance he required for medicinal reasons to be granted.

rrpc · 31-07-2015 5:20pm

Redzah wrote: »

Unfortunately its not that simple, you should read the case of Doug Barron, the first guy to be banned for drug use when the PGA brought in their new policy in 2008. He applied to for TUE for a prescribed drug he was on as far back as 1987 and it was refused and then subsequently had traces of this drug in a test under the new policy and he was banned.

Well known golfer Shaun Micheels TUE took a 4 month process for a banned substance he required for medicinal reasons to be granted.

So they were both clear in their minds that they needed a TUE and in one case didn't get one and was banned and in the other it took a long time.

Are you advocating that they shouldn't bother getting TUEs and carry on until banned or what?

Redzah · 31-07-2015 5:57pm

rrpc wrote: »

So they were both clear in their minds that they needed a TUE and in one case didn't get one and was banned and in the other it took a long time.

Are you advocating that they shouldn't bother getting TUEs and carry on until banned or what?

Are you aware of the background and the facts in these cases? If not I don't fancy spending the next few posts answering your queries on them.

I'm not advocating anything, your post about TUEs made the process appear quite simplistic, in reality this is far from the case and I used the above cases to support this argument.

rrpc · 31-07-2015 6:28pm

Redzah wrote: »

Are you aware of the background and the facts in these cases? If not I don't fancy spending the next few posts answering your queries on them.

For somebody who's had to have an article they'd purported to have read explained to them, you sure don't appear to be prepared to extend the same courtesy to others. Take a breath and tone it down a bit please.

I'm not advocating anything, your post about TUEs made the process appear quite simplistic, in reality this is far from the case and I used the above cases to support this argument.

My post made no qualitative arguments one way or the other. I said they could get one; full stop.

Golf surpasses cycling and athletics for drug findings

Comments