How Genes Help (Some) Athletes Cheat

by Lou Schuler on Apr 30, 2008 9:25 AM EDT in News

File this news under "life is unfair":

The 55 men in a drug doping study in Sweden were normal and healthy. And all agreed, for the sake of science, to be injected with testosterone and then undergo the standard urine test to screen for doping with the hormone.

The results were unambiguous: the test worked for most of the men, showing that they had taken the drug. But 17 of the men tested negative. Their urine seemed fine, with no excess testosterone even though the men clearly had taken the drug.

It was, researchers say, a striking demonstration of a genetic discovery. Those 17 men can build muscles with testosterone, they respond normally to the hormone, but they are missing both copies of a gene used to convert the testosterone into a form that dissolves in urine. The result is that they may be able to take testosterone with impunity. ...

Dr. Schulze learned from an earlier study that about two-thirds of Asian men are missing both copies of the gene, as are nearly 10 percent of Caucasians. The prevalence in other groups is not known.

The New York Times story by Gina Kolata notes that the missing genes aren't the only way athletes might get away with doping:

There may be more than a dozen testosterone-metabolizing enzymes, said Dr. Shalender Bhasin, a testosterone researcher at Boston University School of Medicine, and it may be necessary to examine all of them to see if gene variations affect test results. He added that there may be differences in the way men and women metabolize testosterone, so a separate study on women would be necessary to determine whether the gene deletion affects their testosterone tests the same way.

The reasonable response to news like this, I think, is to hope that the official anti-doping agencies find ways to use it to make the playing field as even as possible. That said, we all know that sports, like life, will never be completely fair. There's always someone who will get away with something, and there will always be innocent people who get swept up and cast off because of someone else's mistakes. Life sucks, shit happens, get a shovel, dig out, move on.

But, of course, there's always someone who draws the wrong conclusions from new information about doping. Today, that role is played by two Bloomberg sportswriters, who break out the specious comparison of doping to Lasik eye surgery:

Golfer Tiger Woods enhanced his vision to 20/15 with laser eye surgery. Football wide receiver Terrell Owens recovered more quickly from injuries by sleeping in a high-pressure chamber. And Olympic distance running hopeful Dan Browne extended his stamina by living in an altitude house that increased his oxygen-carrying red blood cells.

While athletes including the sprinter Marion Jones have lost gold medals, championships and eligibility for taking drugs, neither Woods nor Owens nor Browne was investigated by Congress or labeled a cheat by any U.S. sporting group. Their training and medical treatments are permitted under current rules.

Does anybody reading this really believe that Tiger Woods dominates golf because of his vision?

I just looked up some of his stats this morning: Woods ranks 54th on the PGA Tour in driving distance, 102nd in "total driving," first in "greens in regulation" (hitting the green with your tee shot on a par 3, with your second shot on a par 4, and your third shot on a par 5), 41st in putts per round, 10th in putting average.

Can anyone explain to me which of those stats has been affected by his laser eye surgery?

0 recs | Comment 2 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

LASIK/performance and AAS/performance

Vision is very important to any sport that involves hitting a ball.

Do I think Tiger is an elite golfer because he had LASIK? NO.

No more than I think ANY ATHLETE is an elite athlete because of anabolic steroids.

AAS may improve performance by a few percentage points. Enhanced vision (via LASIK) may similarly improve performance.

by millardbaker on Apr 30, 2008 1:03 PM EDT 0 recs

LASIK Maybe = Performance?

Hrm: #1 in Greens in Regulations and top 10 in putting. Possibly effected by Lasik.

But, consider a different sport. Baseball. Are you going to suggest that the difference between 20/20 vision and 20/10 vision is nothing? Clearly, this isn't the case, as most MLB players have better than 20/20 vision. See the seams rotate on a fastball or curveball. At least Ted Williams (who also tied fishing flies with his naked eye) claimed he could tell the difference between pitches by looking at the movement of the seams on a small sphere coming from 66.6 feet away at a speed varying between 70 and 95 mph. No, no advantage to having good vision.

Which brings us back to Tiger. Why would Mr. Woods get regular vision corrected to better than the standard for great vision if he didn't think it would produce a competitive advantage. You have to figure, aside from hair bleaching, very few athletes do anything while playing that doesn't involve a belief in competitive advantage. Magnetic necklaces (Sheffield and others), hyperbaric chambers (TO), Vegan diet (Prince Fielder), and yes, all kinds of eye training.

It's funny. You (and many others) make the steroid debate about the gap between being average guy and an elite athlete. That's clearly not the case, and is rightly dismissed. But, the effect is probably on the margin, the bubble guy from out to in, the good guy from B to B+ and the greats from great to legendary (Barry Bonds). If we think of these games as games of inches, where inches and hundredth of seconds make the difference, then clearly, there is room for AAS, LASIK, and whatever else to change the outcome.

by maxlharris on May 1, 2008 10:21 AM EDT 0 recs