How the IAAF Can Solve Track and Field's Doping Problem

Sunday's fresh allegations, initially reported by ARD and the Sunday Times, revealing more potential doping improprieties on a massive scale within track and field have reinforced the urgency among track's fanbase to implement radical reform.

And with the retirement of track and field's top boss, Lamine Diack, and the World Outdoor Track and Field Championships both coming later this month, it couldn't have happened at a worse—or better—time.

On August 19, either Sebastian Coe or Sergey Bubka will assume the duties of president of the International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF), track and field's international governing body. The new president will immediately be confronted with a vast to-do list, starting with the stifling specter of illegal drugs in his sport.

Track and field's doping problem is not so much about finding answers. The answer has been right under our noses, in plain sight for years. The problem is more about finding the guts to implement the answer: a lifetime ban for anyone caught cheating.

And while the topic of intestinal fortitude is on the table, consider at some point having to make those lifetime bans retroactive, pending the outcome of ongoing scientific research. That kind of revolutionary decision-making is a very real possibility for the next IAAF president.

At its core, the resistance to this kind of radical reform has been twofold: 1) PEDs (performance-enhancing drugs) appear to be so prevalent within track and field that permanently eliminating all violators would bring irreparable harm to the sport; and 2) the concept of rehabilitation (a second chance) is so woven into the fabric of society that its exclusion would be considered extreme and inhumane.

Both of these arguments have an element of validity and can be used ad infinitum to defend track's status quo, if that's what we're content to live with. But in the interest of furthering the notion of clean sport, let's explore the issue a little deeper.

Why Retroactive?

Most track fans are familiar with the University of Oslo's research findings under the direction of Dr. Kristian Gundersen. His team of scientists found that muscle tissue in mice that had been altered by anabolic steroids retained its artificially enhanced potential long after the drug had been withdrawn. According to Tom Fordyce's 2014 BBC report, Gundersen "is convinced both that the same mechanism is at work in human muscles and that other performance-enhancing drugs would have similar long-term benefits."

Gunderson projected that in humans, an anabolic steroid's effects could lie latent for decades, possibly for life.

But until human testing can scientifically corroborate Gundersen's findings with mice, there will be no movement toward widespread lifetime bans, which is unfortunate because less severe two- to four-year bans haven't provided the impetus to even slow the apparent doping problem. In fact, the drug cheats have learned to stay one step ahead of the testers.

But think of the implications if the Oslo research can prove that certain PEDs' effects are irreversible in humans. It should, by all logic and reason, mandate the extreme consequences and increased incentive that only a retroactive lifetime ban would provide.

After all, how, in the name of a level playing field, could any former, current or future drug violator be allowed to participate in any sanctioned competition knowing that a viable, artificial assist is permanently etched in the muscle memory of that athlete's cells?

If should be only a matter of time until the study confirms what Gundersen senses is a certainty. Then, it should be the attitude of the next IAAF president that this proof can't come soon enough.

Gundersen told Fordyce:

"

I would be very surprised if there were any major differences between humans and mice in this context. The fundamental biology of muscle growth is similar in humans and in mice, and in principle any drug that builds muscle mass could trigger this mechanism.

I was excited by the clarity of the findings. It's very rare, at least in my experience, that the data are so clear cut; there is usually some disturbing factor. But in this case it was extremely clear. If you exercise, or take anabolic steroids, you get more nuclei and you get bigger muscles. If you take away the steroids, you lose the muscle mass, but the nuclei remain inside the muscle fibres. They are like temporarily closed factories, ready to start producing protein again when you start exercising again.

"

However, until Gundersen's speculation is proven through robust scientific evidence, it carries no more weight than a hunch. Former drug violators who are still actively competing are off the hook until then. But if that proof ever sees the light of day, it will be decision day at the IAAF's luxurious Monaco digs.

Fast-Track the Research

There will be no easy way to introduce a retroactive lifetime ban. It would be revolutionary and could set the sport back in terms of the public spotlight (namely, the Olympics) for possibly a decade. Nevertheless, the relentless doping headlines have already reduced the sport to a "life support" status outside the hardcore track and field circle.

A cosmetic makeover won't do. It's time for major surgery and a positive finding in the science from Oslo might provide a bit of an anesthetic—if not some political cover— for the next IAAF president in his decision-making.

Gundersen's research should be a priority with the IAAF. And since the doping culture seems to have permeated all of sport, the International Olympic Committee should also get involved. Apparently, the research team could use all the help it can get. In personal communications with me, Dr. Gundersen expressed some frustration caused by permitting delays and monetary shortfalls.

"We have no real news. ... What we have gotten permission to do is a [less than desirable] training study. Muscle memory is probably involved also in effects of strength exercise."

Then he added, "[a grant rejected because of unacceptable strings attached] has delayed us since we were short of funding. A recent grant from the Norwegian Research Council makes the situation better now."

The Oslo project has been working on a shoestring budget, scraping together various grants and permits along the way. Even so, according to Doug Gillon of the Herald newspaper in Scotland, Gundersen recently rejected a WADA research grant because the agency reportedly "wanted the right to amend his research data."

The Gillon piece goes on to allege a previous attempt of "blocking publication" by WADA that implies an attempt to understate the overall drug problem in sports. This only reinforces the underlying stench of cover-ups, bribes and general corruption implicit in Sunday's latest allegations.

Both Coe and Bubka have promised to address the doping problem and defend the clean athlete. A good start would be to consider forming a brand-new anti-drug agency, dedicated and answerable exclusively to the IAAF. Then, invest resources into Gundersen's important research, institute lifetime bans immediately and be ready to make them retroactive if/when scientific proof supports it.

Athletic competition ideally should work on the honor system. Unfortunately, because of dishonorable athletes, it has devolved into a system of verification. Even then, persistent cheaters have found ways to slip through the cracks.

Perhaps the threat of a career-ending punishment (after only one strike) will be enough to stop the next athlete who might be pondering a shortcut to nowhere.

Quotes obtained firsthand unless otherwise specified.

Follow Red on Twitter.