Is the current sports drug-testing regime fair?

In contrast to Table 5 which only provides general information of total tests for each sport, the UK, US and Russia all provide comprehensive details about the number of tests conducted on each sport. In the case of Russia, perhaps the best example of data provided of the three agencies, there is also a breakdown of various urine and blood tests for each sport.

And while ASADA stipulated to myself that user-pay figures are subject to confidentiality provisions and are considered commercial-in-confidence, I was amused to read a May 2011 newspaper article which disclosed that ASADA carried out almost 1000 tests on AFL players between November 2009 and October 2010, including for Human Growth Hormone and blood doping.

Simple logic, at least to myself and the few people I have asked, is that all relevant data should be available to scrutinise in regard to the number and type of tests per sport, country, and federation.

To conclude, drug-testing of sport still has some way to go despite massive improvements in recent years.

While it is reported that major pharmaceutical companies are working with anti-doping agencies by alerting them to experimental drugs that could have performance-enhancing side-effects, thus allowing WADA to develop tests before the drug is even on the market, there are already many HGH-releasing peptides on the black market not yet approved by the FDA. There is also the prospect of gene doping, which could mean genetically manipulating cells to produce more EPO or manipulating the cells that regulate muscle mass.

Despite the ongoing catch-up game, and the immense potential of biological passports to catch cheats, it is essential that every measure possible is adopted to ensure that all participating sporting federations and nations act in a similar way. Perhaps they currently still do not.