A Spitz/Phelps perspective

If the results of performance enhancing drugs tests are anything to go by the 2008 Olympics seem, with a few exceptions, pretty "clean" but I couldn't help feeling saddened when a particular Spitz/Phelps comparison struck me the other day.  Mark Spitz record setting performance at the 1972 Munich Olympics earned him instant worldwide acclaim for the superb and dedicated athlete that he was.    Last week, in amongst other headlines about Michael Phelps' growing collection of gold medals was this one: "I'm drug free, says Phelps".
For me it's not about Michael Phelps being asked the question - it's that it needs to be asked at all.
In the multi-billions dollars business of sport the competitive drive to win can be fierce so why am I surprised that the ways of using drugs (and the ways of hiding their use!) are being developed at the same rate as, if not faster than, the methods used to detect them?   Athletes are faced by a mind-boggling array - stimulants, "lean mass builders", diuretics, sedatives, painkillers, masking drugs - for optimal performance, super alertness, to counteract fatigue, increased aggression, increased blood pressure, diuretics for sports with weight limits, painkillers to override injuries athletes but also for an injury free athlete to perform beyond their normal pain threshold and physical limits.   And then there are also the masking drugs used to avoid detection of the others.   All this can surely be extremely tempting to an athlete/sportsperson with a win-at-all-costs mindset and perhaps the real surprise is that there've been so few positive tests at the Beijing Olympics.
It still saddens me, though, that those few cast their murky shadow over the achievements of all the others participants.   It's doubtful that such a headline followed Mark Spitz' 7 gold swims in 1972 but, fast-forwarding to the present, any drug-free athlete setting new standards will not be able to simply savour their success as Mark Spitz was able to - without being asked that question.