The most common stimulants detected in anti-doping tests include amphetamines, cocaine , ecstasy and methylphenidate Ritalin. The actual effects vary according to the drug and to its method of ingestion—drugs that are snorted or injected will produce more immediate results than those that are taken in pill form. Nicotine and caffeine are also frequently used as stimulants but they are not banned in sports. WADA is observing them in order to detect potential patterns of misuse in sport. The risks of using stimulants vary for each drug, but in general are high. For example, cocaine use can cause panic attacks and paranoia, lead to the loss of smell and problems swallowing, become addictive and, in rare cases, lead to heartattack.
Amphetamines can cause damage to the liver, kidneys and cardiovascular system, and cause hallucinations and violent behaviour, while long term use can change the structures of the brain involved with memory and emotion. Jamaican sprinter and track star Asafa Powell was caught using the banned stimulant oxilofrine in A number of Australian athletes have also been sanctioned GLOSSARY sanctioned a threatened penalty for disobeying a law or rule for use of the stimulant methylhexanamine. The presence of stimulants in the body can be tested by a variety of procedures. Urine is the primary means to test for stimulants, although blood serum can also be tested and, occasionally saliva.
Commonly used tests include chromatography, immunologic assay GLOSSARY immunologic assay an immunoassay may use an antigen to detect for the presence of antibodies, which recognize that antigen, in a solution. Anabolic steroids are drugs derived from testosterone, a hormone which is produced in the testes of males and, to a much lesser extent, in the ovaries of females. Testosterone is partially responsible for the developmental changes that occur during puberty and adolescence and is also involved in controlling the build-up and breakdown of the main biochemical components of all tissues, including muscle.
Exogenous steroids are synthetically created versions of the testosterone hormone. These substances cannot be naturally produced by the body.
Making The Change
Endogenous steroids are naturally occurring substances in the human body that are involved with the metabolic pathways of testosterone. Because testosterone affects muscle growth, raising its levels in the blood can help athletes increase muscle size and strength. Anabolic steroids can be taken in tablet form or injected directly in to the muscle. Some of the most common types of anabolic steroids include:. Athletes who use anabolic steroids claim that as well as increasing muscle mass, they reduce body fat and recovery time after injury.
But the androgenic masculinising side-effects—such as increased body hair and a deepening of the voice—are not always desirable, particularly in women. To counteract these side-effects, scientists developed steroids that retain their anabolic effects but have a lower androgenic effect.
Androstenedione was used by East German Olympic swimmers and other athletes in the s and s to improve their performances. Medical experts see significant dangers in the use—and particularly the gross over-use—of anabolic steroids. Some of the effects are minor or only last while the drug is being taken; others are more serious and long-term. For example, anabolic steroids can cause high blood pressure, acne, abnormalities in liver function, alterations in the menstrual cycle in women, decline in sperm production and impotence in men, kidney failure and heart disease.
They can also make both men and women more aggressive. Testing for anabolic steroids has come a long way since the s, when basic radioimmunoassay GLOSSARY radioimmunoassay RIA is a sensitive method for measuring very small amounts of a substance in the blood.
Radioactive versions of a substance, or isotopes of the substance, are mixed with antibodies and inserted in a sample of the patient's blood. The same non-radioactive substance in the blood takes the place of the isotope in the antibodies, thus leaving the radioactive substance free. The amount of free isotope is then measured to see how much of the original substance was in the blood. Today, anabolic steroids and their by-products can generally be detected quite easily in urine, using mass spectrometry. Testosterone and a related compound, epitestosterone, are eliminated from the body in urine.
There are problems with this test. Today, anti-doping labs use the combined technique of Gas Chromatography GLOSSARY Chromatography a technique for the separation of a mixture by passing it in solution or suspension through a medium in which the components move at different rates. This is an analytical method that combines the features of gas-phase chromatography and mass spectrometry to identify different substances within a test sample, effectively detecting differences in the ratio of carbon isotopes in different compounds.
This technology can distinguish between testosterone produced naturally by the body endogenous and that which is a result of synthetic compounds exogenous. Continuing advancements in the detection of steroids and stimulants are currently being developed.
In the U. S, a research team is working on a detection system that is being touted as a fold improvement on the commonly used mass spectronomy technique. The new technique, named Paired Ion Electrospray Ionisation PIESI makes traces of steroids or amphetamines more visible to current detection equipment by introducing a chemical agent which effectively binds itself to the traces, right down to the parts per trillion. To develop reliable tests, researchers have to know what they are looking for. This is difficult because the development of new 'designer' steroids is an on-going process.
The World Anti-Doping Agency is aware of the problem.
In they were able to develop a test for one of these designer steroids—tetrahydrogestrinone THG —when a syringe full of the drug was given to them. Human growth hormone HGH; also called somatotrophin or somatotrophic hormone is a naturally-occurring hormone produced in the human body. It promotes physical development—particularly the growth of bone—during adolescence.
It stimulates the synthesis of collagen, which is necessary for strengthening cartilage, bones, tendons and ligaments, and also stimulates the liver to produce growth factors. In adults, HGH increases the number of red blood cells, boosts heart function and makes more energy available by stimulating the breakdown of fat. Other effects attributed to HGH include increase in muscle mass and strength as well as tissue-repairing recovery. Still, it is quite easy to see why athletes believe it will enhance their performance.
English Rugby player Terry Newton was suspended in after testing positive for human growth hormone, while Bulgarian sprinter Inna Eftimova was banned from competition in after a returning a positive HGH test. If you believe all the hype—emanating mainly from drug manufacturers—HGH is a wonder drug that will remove wrinkles, reverse the ageing process, restore vitality and improve sleep. Nevertheless, there are some health risks.
For example, too much HGH before or during puberty can lead to gigantism, which is excessive growth in height and other physical attributes. After puberty, inflated levels of HGH can cause acromegaly, a disease characterised by excessive growth of the head, feet and hands. The lips, nose, tongue, jaw and forehead increase in size and the fingers and toes widen and become spade-like. The organs and digestive system may also increase in size, which may eventually cause heart failure. Acromegaly sufferers often die before the age of Excessive use of HGH in adults may also lead to diabetes; muscle, joint and bone pain; osteoarthritis; cardiac limitations; hypertension; and abnormal heightened symptoms of cardiovascular disease.
A full description of the testing method is available on the WADA website. This dual-approach test has been confirmed as robust and scientifically reliable by the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Higher levels of red blood cells in the blood result in more oxygen being transported to the muscles, resulting in increased stamina and performance. There are three main types of blood doping:. Erythropoietin—more commonly known as EPO—has long been the drug of choice for endurance athletes.
- Encyclopedia of Anthropology?
- The Encyclopaedia of Islam: Ned - Sam Vol. 8 (Encyclopaedia of Islam New Edition).
- Números em texto integral;
- Your tax deductible gift can help stop human rights violations and save lives around the world..
Although used in a wide variety of sports, it is most commonly associated with cycling—particularly with the disgraced former champion of the Tour de France—Lance Armstrong. Produced naturally by the kidneys, EPO is also available as a pharmaceutical. EPO stimulates the production of red blood cells in bone marrow and regulates the concentration of red blood cells and haemoglobin in the blood. This is useful for athletes, since red blood cells shuttle oxygen to the cells, including muscle cells, enabling them to operate more effectively. Longer chains of amino acids are called proteins.
By injecting EPO, athletes aim to increase their concentration of red blood cells and, consequently, their aerobic capacity. If EPO levels are too high the body will produce too many red blood cells which can thicken the blood, leading to clotting, heart attack and stroke. In fact, EPO has been implicated in the deaths of numerous athletes, predominantly cyclists. Repeated doses of EPO can also stimulate the development of antibodies directed against EPO, which can result in anaemia.
The long-term health risks of sustained EPO use are still unclear. In , the Eighteenth Amendment to the U. Proponents of the amendment hailed the new law as a cure for myriad social ills. Eliminating alcohol consumption would, they argued, reduce crime and corruption and lower the tax burden created by prisons and poorhouses. Moreover, they contended, Prohibition would improve the health of the American public and prevent the disintegration of families.
Despite these noble intentions, alcohol prohibition was a failure on all fronts. Although alcohol consumption sharply decreased at the beginning of Prohibition, it quickly rebounded. Within a few years, alcohol consumption was between 60 and 70 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. Barred from buying legal alcohol, many former alcohol users switched to substances such as opium, cocaine, and other dangerous drugs. In light of these failures, the Eighteenth Amendment was eventually repealed in Few today would argue that alcohol prohibition was a wise policy. Even those who largely oppose alcohol consumption recognize the failure of the Eighteenth Amendment.
But his words regarding alcohol prohibition are just as relevant today as nearly a century ago. While alcohol prohibition may have been one of the first blanket bans on a substance in the United States, it certainly was not the last. As a result, state and local authorities, the federal government, and even the U.
Today, the War on Drugs is sometimes viewed as benign. With some states legalizing medicinal marijuana, others decriminalizing possession, and four states legalizing recreational marijuana, it is easy to forget that the drug war continues to have serious consequences. In , for example, , people were arrested on drug-related charges in the United States. By , that number had increased to 1,, More than , of these arrests in were related to marijuana. In fact, nearly half of the , people serving time in federal prisons in the United States are incarcerated on drug-related charges.
The penalties for violating U. Approximately 50,—60, students are denied financial aid every year due to past drug convictions. Many employers, both private and public, will not hire individuals with prior drug offenses. This has particularly strong implications for minorities and other historically disadvantaged groups, who are incarcerated more frequently on drug charges. Blacks and Hispanics, for example, are much more likely than their white counterparts to be arrested for drug crimes and raided by police, even though the groups use and sell drugs at similar rates.
The monetary cost of U. Since the War on Drugs began more than 40 years ago, the U. Spending on the war continues to cost U. While the domestic impact of the War on Drugs is profound, its consequences do not stop at the border. American-backed anti-drug operations in Mexico, for example, have resulted in some of the bloodiest years in Mexican history. The U. War on Drugs, like the ill-fated war on alcohol of the early 20th century, is a prime example of disastrous policy, naked self-interest, and repeated ignorance on the part of elected officials and other policymakers.
From its inception, the drug war has repeatedly led to waste, fraud, corruption, violence, and death. In this analysis we review the economics of drug prohibition, a cornerstone of U. Domestically, we focus on how prohibition affects health, crime, corruption, and violence. Internationally, we assess how prohibition affects U. Our purpose is to demonstrate general insights about the economics of prohibition and to illustrate the devastating consequences of ignoring these insights.
The Economics of Prohibition Just as proponents of alcohol prohibition claimed that alcohol causes a variety social ills, advocates of U. Illicit drug use is a public health issue that jeopardizes not only our well-being, but also the progress we have made in strengthening our economy—contributing to addiction, disease, lower student academic performance, crime, unemployment, and lost productivity. In addition, U. Federal agencies and partner nations [in drug interdiction operations] If we take the goals stated by public officials and prohibition proponents as sincere, the question is whether or not current drug policies achieve these goals.
To this end, economic thinking offers valuable insight by examining how drug prohibition alters the incentives faced by individuals on both the supply and demand sides of the illicit drug market. In turn, this analysis allows us to trace the chain of consequences associated with drug prohibition.
Proponents of drug prohibition argue that by banning certain substances, they can reduce or eliminate both the demand and the supply for drugs, thereby significantly reducing or even eradicating the drug market. What these arguments fail to appreciate, however, is that making markets illegal fails to reduce, much less eliminate, the market for drugs. Instead, these mandates mainly push the market for drugs into underground black markets.
Would-be and current drug vendors must now incorporate fines, possible prison time, and the cost of evading capture into their business models. Such a change in the drug market does align with the goals of prohibition. If sellers are pushed out of the market, this limits the supply of drugs and raises prices. Prohibition, Tainted Drugs, Illness, and Overdose The first consequence of drug prohibition is more overdoses and drug-related illness. This is perhaps best illustrated with an example comparing how information is transferred when a drug is legal versus how it is transferred when a drug is illegal.
Consider, for instance, a mislabeled or impure version of a legal, over-the-counter medication. Once a consumer becomes ill or overdoses on this medication, this information is reported, collected, and analyzed by relevant institutions. In addition, information about product quality, or lack thereof, is relayed through other channels, including media outlets, social media, and word of mouth. Consumers can therefore adjust their consumption accordingly. On the supply side, suppliers of a legal medication face the incentive to recall the product and correct the error to retain their customers and prevent legal repercussions.
These quality control mechanisms and information regarding purity are weaker or absent in a black market for drugs. First, underground markets provide less information about products and vendors because transactions occur in secret. Second, consumers in the market avoid reporting defective or impure substances because this might implicate their own law-breaking. Third, consumers of illegal drugs have no legal recourse should they purchase a substance of inferior quality, in contrast to individuals who bought tainted headache medicine or contaminated food in a legal market.
On the supply side, producers and sellers of impure or tainted products face weak incentives to remove these products, knowing that buyers are unlikely to communicate with one another and unlikely to report their problems. Taken together, these factors allow more poor-quality drugs onto the market, which increases the chance of poisoning and overdose. This is not the only way that prohibition can increase overdoses. Likewise, drug dealers will tend to sell more potent versions of all drugs. For instance, someone selling marijuana will likely provide a product with higher concentrations of tetrahydrocannabinol THC , the psychoactive component of marijuana, as they can earn more money per unit.
A similar shift to more potent substances occurs on the demand side. Because prohibition raises drug prices, users seek more bang for their buck. That is, since the overall cost of obtaining drugs is higher, more potent drugs look relatively cheaper than weak drugs.
Drugs and alcohol in the Navy and Marine Corps--some considerations 
If we assume that drug users rationally respond to risk and look to maximize their satisfaction or high from every dollar spent, this has three important implications. First, users will likely switch from lower potency to higher potency within a given type of drug for example, from marijuana with lower to higher concentrations of THC. Second, users may switch from low-potency drugs to harder drugs such as from marijuana to cocaine. Third, users are likely to employ ingestion methods that increase the effectiveness of drugs such as injecting rather than smoking a drug.
Taken together, these information and potency effects mean that prohibition likely increases drug overdoses. Prohibition and Drug-Related Disease By raising drug prices, which pushes people toward harder drugs, prohibition increases disease transmission. As mentioned above, higher prices encourage more intense methods of use, such as injection. In many states, it is illegal to buy and sell needles and syringes without a prescription. These two effects combine to encourage the reuse and sharing of dirty needles.
Repeated use of needles even by the same individual is unsafe. Needles dull with each use and may break off under the skin, thus causing infections or other problems. Prohibition and Violence Proponents of prohibition claim that banning the manufacture, sale, and use of drugs will reduce drug-related violence. This claim rests on the assumption that drug use leads to violence. But violence in drug markets may instead result from the institutional context created by prohibition.
When drugs are illegal, users cannot use formal legal channels to resolve disputes or seek legitimate protection for their business transactions. Neither buyers nor sellers in the illicit drug trade will turn to the police or other legal dispute-resolution mechanisms. Instead, individuals must solve their own problems, which often means they use violence to solve issues as opposed to more peaceful means of legal dispute resolution. In addition to pushing individuals in the drug trade toward violence, prohibition means that those involved in the drug market are automatically criminals. This lowers the cost of committing a subsequent crime, such as assaulting a rival drug dealer, relative to a scenario in which drugs are legal.
Moreover, prohibition may increase the benefits of using violence. By gaining a reputation for using violence, those involved in the drug trade may exert more effective control over the market. One result is that those with a comparative advantage in violence and criminality will be attracted to the market for drugs since these skills are necessary for long-term success. Taken together, the lack of legal channels combined with automatic criminalization lowers the cost of engaging in criminal activity and increases the benefit of using violence.
It follows that the prohibition of drugs may be the primary cause of crime in the drug market, not the physical effects of use. Increased violence in the drug market may generate additional unintended consequences.
As a result of violent drug interactions, police are more likely to adopt more intense techniques and stronger equipment. As these practices become ingrained in everyday policing, citizens outside the illicit drug market will also be affected. Furthermore, prohibition means police are granted increased power over the lives of citizens.
Absent the appropriate checks, these changes may disproportionately impact particular groups. The disproportionate number of black and Hispanic individuals incarcerated in the criminal justice system, for instance, has led to protests and social movements, such as Black Lives Matter. Prohibition and Cartels Proponents of prohibition argue that these policies disrupt and dismantle drug cartels.
In practice, however, prohibition appears to promote cartelization of the drug industry.
Drug Abuse in the Modern World: A Perspective for the Eighties - Google книги
Recall that drug prohibition keeps some suppliers out of the drug market—those unwilling or unable to take the risks associated with operating in an illicit industry. Those individuals and groups that remain are those more comfortable with using violence and engaging in illicit activity. In a legal market for drugs, not only would the costs and benefits of using violence change violence would be less attractive , but new entrants could more easily penetrate the market.
Over time, monopoly power would be eroded as in other competitive markets. As such, cartels would be unlikely to form and would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to maintain. Under prohibition, however, the cost of maintaining a monopoly is reduced, as government policies effectively drive out would-be competitors, making it easier for cartels to form and maintain their dominant market position. Moreover, these effects are self-perpetuating. Under a cartelized market, monopoly power leads to an increase in prices, which further increases the benefits to dominant producers using violence to maintain their market position.
Colombian drug cartels controlled the flow of cocaine into the United States throughout the s and s. Today, Mexican drug cartels provide a variety of drugs—including marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine—to U. In each of these cases, the violence associated with the drug markets has been substantial.
Prohibition and Corruption The cartelization of the drug industry under prohibition helps give rise to yet another unintended consequence: the corruption of public officials and civil servants. The illegal nature of the market, desire to avoid capture, and potentially high profit margins create a strong incentive for those involved in the drug trade to avoid being captured and punished. As a result, these individuals are more likely to attempt to bribe public officials including police officers, military personnel, judges, and other elected officials involved in drug interdiction.
Indeed, we observe that those who refuse to take bribes are often threatened with violence against their families. Consequences of the War on Drugs: Evidence from the United States Until the turn of the 20th century, currently outlawed drugs such as marijuana, heroin, and cocaine were legal under federal and virtually all state laws.
In , Congress implemented the first restrictions on the sale and use of some substances, including cannabis, morphine, cocaine, and heroin, with the Pure Food and Drug Act, labeling many substances as addictive or dangerous. By , more than 25, American doctors had been arraigned on narcotics charges; some 3, served time in prison. The DEA was tasked with enforcing all federal drug laws, as well as coordinating broader drug interdiction activities. Overdose Deaths and Drug-Related Illness in the United States Under prohibition, poor information quality and flow, combined with potency effects on both sides of the market, would predict an increase in drug-related deaths.
This is precisely what we observe. This figure rose to 3. By , there were 12 overdose deaths per , people. These numbers have continued to climb. According to the CDC, more than 47, overdose deaths occurred in the United States in , representing Between and , more people in the United States died from drug overdoses than from car crashes. As economic reasoning predicts, the majority of these deaths are related to consumption of more potent drugs.
In , for instance, 61 percent of all overdose deaths were caused by opioids. The rate of opioid overdoses increased significantly in the first 15 years of the new millennium. Between and , overdose deaths involving synthetic opioids nearly doubled, and the rate of all opioid overdoses has more than tripled since The spread of drug-related disease in the United States has also seen a sharp increase since the launch of the War on Drugs. In , nearly 60 percent of all new hepatitis C infections and 17 percent of hepatitis B infections occurred in drug users.
Nevertheless, there are some health risks. For example, too much HGH before or during puberty can lead to gigantism, which is excessive growth in height and other physical attributes. After puberty, inflated levels of HGH can cause acromegaly, a disease characterised by excessive growth of the head, feet and hands.
The lips, nose, tongue, jaw and forehead increase in size and the fingers and toes widen and become spade-like. The organs and digestive system may also increase in size, which may eventually cause heart failure. Acromegaly sufferers often die before the age of Excessive use of HGH in adults may also lead to diabetes; muscle, joint and bone pain; osteoarthritis; cardiac limitations; hypertension; and abnormal heightened symptoms of cardiovascular disease. A full description of the testing method is available on the WADA website. This dual-approach test has been confirmed as robust and scientifically reliable by the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
Higher levels of red blood cells in the blood result in more oxygen being transported to the muscles, resulting in increased stamina and performance. There are three main types of blood doping:. Erythropoietin—more commonly known as EPO—has long been the drug of choice for endurance athletes. Although used in a wide variety of sports, it is most commonly associated with cycling—particularly with the disgraced former champion of the Tour de France—Lance Armstrong. Produced naturally by the kidneys, EPO is also available as a pharmaceutical. EPO stimulates the production of red blood cells in bone marrow and regulates the concentration of red blood cells and haemoglobin in the blood.
This is useful for athletes, since red blood cells shuttle oxygen to the cells, including muscle cells, enabling them to operate more effectively. Longer chains of amino acids are called proteins. By injecting EPO, athletes aim to increase their concentration of red blood cells and, consequently, their aerobic capacity. If EPO levels are too high the body will produce too many red blood cells which can thicken the blood, leading to clotting, heart attack and stroke. In fact, EPO has been implicated in the deaths of numerous athletes, predominantly cyclists. Repeated doses of EPO can also stimulate the development of antibodies directed against EPO, which can result in anaemia.
The long-term health risks of sustained EPO use are still unclear. The Tour de France hit controversy when the entire Festina team was disqualified after several hundred doses of EPO and other doping products were found in the team car. Methods such as isoelectric focusing, which is the separation of proteins based on their electrical charge, and sodium dodecyl sulfate polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, which is the separation of proteins based on their size, are used to detect EPO. Since , EPO tests in the United States were undertaken using only urine, however, in recent years the joint testing methods, such as direct EPO testing in urine and use of indirect blood tests as part of the Athlete Biological Passport see below , have been used to help identify the use of newly-developed erythropoiesis stimulating agents.
A new testing technique for EPO is also in the pipeline. In essence the new test will look for genetic expressions which prove that EPO has been used. If the new test proves accurate and viable, it will be almost impossible to use EPO without detection. They are still under development and have not been approved for use outside of South Africa and Russia. SOCs were developed for use in crisis situations where blood transfusions are not possible or blood products are not available. There are several different types of SOCs available.
Like red blood cells, they work to deliver this oxygen to the muscles, increasing aerobic capacity and endurance. However, they also have some additional benefits. HBOCs are not only great at tissue oxygenation, they can deliver increases in blood serum iron, ferritin and naturally occurring EPO. SOCs are still under development and testing, and have not yet been proven safe for human use. However, this has not stopped rumours of athletes using them to get an advantage. The health risks associated with using SOCs are similar to those of EPO—increased risk of heart attack, stroke and pulmonary embolism.
A complex four-step test was made available for SOCs in The first step involves the elimination of abundance proteins in blood samples via immunodepletion. Prior to the introduction of synthetic blood doping drugs like EPO, blood transfusions were common practice among endurance athletes.
Even with these drugs available the practice still persists. Blood transfusion is an effective and relatively simple method of allowing athletes to boost the number of red blood cells in their blood, improving their aerobic capacity and endurance. Athletes who choose to use this method generally begin undergoing blood withdrawals several weeks before a competition, building up a supply of blood between millilitres and millilitres.
The plasma is returned to the body during the withdrawal while the corpuscular elements—basically the red blood cells RBCs —are stored. These can then be re-infused in the patient directly before or during a high-endurance event. Blood transfusions were common practice before being banned in The first known case was Kaarlo Maaninka, who transfused two pints of blood prior to winning medals in the Olympics.
By the Olympics, one-third of the US cycle team received transfusions, resulting in nine medals. In Alexander Vinokourov, a rider in the Tour de France, tested positive after winning the 13 th stage of the race. His blood was found to contain two different blood cell populations, which confirmed the use of allogenic transfusions.
Cheating via blood transfusions was initially difficult to catch, especially if athletes re-infused their own blood. The arrival in of a test to detect allogenic blood transfusions meant athletes could no longer use the blood of a donor, however, they could still cheat by re-infusing their own. The development of Athlete Biological Passports see below , has made even this method more detectable, as the passports allow testers to see the indirect markers of blood doping.
The risks of using blood transfusions to increase red blood cells is similar to the risks associated with EPO and SOC use: thickened blood leading to clotting, heart attack and stroke. Another risk relates to the process itself. Because transfusions involve several stages—the withdrawal of blood, its storage and re-use—there are many opportunities for something to go wrong. Contamination of the blood or equipment, infection and improper administration of blood products, all of which could easily lead to drastic health problems, even death.
Beta Blockers work to block the effects of adrenaline. They work to slow the heart rate, thereby reducing blood pressure, anxiety and muscle tremors, and improving the ability to focus. This makes them particularly useful to athletes performing in sports that require a steady hand such as shooting, archery, darts, snooker, even golf.
Beta Blockers are prohibited by several sports darts, racing during competition, but others archery, shooting prohibit their use at all times. There are more than 20 types of beta blockers available. They can be taken orally, via injection or in the treatment of glaucoma as eye drops. Some common beta blockers include:.
When used for a legitimate medical reason, for example to treat a heart condition, high blood pressure anxiety, and under the guidance of a trained professional, beta blockers have a good safety record. When used without a legitimate health reason, side effects can include reduced circulation through the hands and feet, dizziness, fatigue, dry mouth and drowsiness. More serious though rare side-effects can include impotence, asthma attack, memory loss or heart failure. A high-profile case of Beta Blocker use at the elite level was in , when Olympic shooter Kim Jong-su tested positive for Propranolol and was subsequently stripped of his medals.
Diuretics work to promote the production of urine. While putting your hand up for a toilet break may not be deemed professional in modern sport, athletes use diuretics to assist with weight-loss the loss of water through urination leads to an overall loss of body weight. This is particularly useful in sports where weight is critical such as boxing, rowing or horse-racing. The increased urine volume also aids in the dilution of doping agents and their metabolites. Diuretics have been banned in sport since When used to treat legitimate medical conditions such as heart failure, high blood pressure, kidney and liver problems and glaucoma, and under the supervision of a trained doctor, diuretic use is quite safe.
However, because diuretics promote frequent urination, when used without medical supervision they can lead to dehydration, dizziness, muscle cramps and constipation. Other side effects include tiredness, fever, skin rash and loss of appetite.
Related Drug Abuse in the Modern World. A Perspective for the Eighties
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved