BBC BLOGS - Gordon Farquhar
« Previous | Main | Next »

Newton case should give cheats sleepless nights

Post categories:

Gordon Farquhar | 11:13 UK time, Tuesday, 23 February 2010

The scientists at Kings College Drug Control Centre in London don't seem an emotional lot, but I reckon there was more than a frisson of excitement when, for the first time anywhere in the world, a test for Human Growth Hormone showed up positive.

The drug testers strove for years to come up with a test that works, is reliable and legally watertight. Just before the Athens Olympics in 2004, such a test was signed off and brought into play.

It had limitations. Still does. Its effectiveness is fairly limited over time. Not quite as bad as having to take the sample when the needle's just come out of the skin, but not far off.

To catch someone, you'd have to test them within a couple of days of them taking HGH. That meant those abusing it could calculate the odds. Anyway, up until 24 November last year, everyone who's taken it has got away with it, apart from those stupid enough to be caught with it in the pockets of their tracksuit bottoms.

Terry NewtonSuper League player Terry Newton has been banned for two years after testing positive for HGH

HGH does what it says on the tin. It works in a similar way to steroids, promoting muscular growth, speeding up recovery from injury, short-cutting a way to bulk and strength. Unlike most steroids, it's not easy to detect. The human body naturally produces the hormone, while telling the synthetic versions apart from their genuine cousins has been a proper scientific challenge.

The blood test which caught out former Great Britain rugby league star Terry Newton last November has changed things. Now athletes who've been assuming the testers are bluffing have been called. The World Anti-Doping Agency cannot contain its delight. It understands the importance of the first analytical positive.

"It sends a strong message to those athletes who take the risk to misuse HGH that we will ultimately catch them," said David Howman, Wada's director general. "I suggest to cheaters to keep in mind that the Wada code makes it possible to open a disciplinary proceeding within eight years from the date an anti-doping rule violation occurred, and that stored samples can be reanalysed."

Andy Parkinson, head of UK Anti-Doping, told me that target testing and better use of intelligence was helping them narrow down and focus their testing programmes on those thought most likely to be cheating.

"It's tremendously important both domestically and internationally," he said: "It shows we can do it. We always said we wanted to be an intelligence-led organisation. This finding was the result of good intelligence generated internally, and great robust co-operation with the scientific community. Our international colleagues can have confidence they can continue to take blood and they'll get a positive test out of it, if an athlete's been taking HGH."

The policy makers and anti-doping professionals have had a good day. So have the scientists at the Drugs Control Centre at Kings College. After rigorously testing thousands of samples, finally a breakthrough that underlines the importance of their work and their dedication to the task in hand.

"The detection of substances that are virtually identical to our natural hormones has always represented a challenge," said Professor David Cowan, the centre's director. "This shows how science has closed an important gap and further enhances our ability to deter the cheating athlete to ensure the integrity of sport and promote healthy competition."

It would be wrong in conclusion to suggest that cheats are flushing HGH down lavatories all over the world right now, but the downfall of Newton ought to make them think more than twice now about whether they'll get away with it if they carry on.


  • Comment number 1.


  • Comment number 2.

    Sadly though, blood testing is quite rare, even in Rugby League (one of the most forward-thinking sports in regard to beating the drugs cheats), and urine testing only catches the cruder substances. Sports like Tennis and Rugby Union carry out very very few blood tests, making it highly likely that an individual can currently go through his/her whole career without being asked for a blood sample.

    This test works - now let's role it out on a much much bigger scale.

  • Comment number 3.

    Increasing the chances of catching those who cheat is definitely a good thing. However, retrospectively testing samples that are up to 8 years old surely ceates as many problems as it solves. What if results show that high profile athelets across a number of sports were taking HGH? Would we ever hear about it or would it be conveniently covered up? The risk is that sporting records and results lose credibility which could be very damaging.

    I think that the news will act as a deterrant to some. Ultimately there will always be those who decide to cheat and the odds are very much in their favour as it seems the testers are still one step behind.

  • Comment number 4.

    Clearly, this advance is a good thing for fair play and detering cheating.

    However, it clearly is an expensive process to run and develop an infrastructure of this nature designed to catch doping cheats.

    Ethical arguments aside, what is the motivation for authorities in catching cheats? Where do they draw down their funds for developing new doping techniques such as this?

    Are they able to demand better sponsorship for sports that are seen as "clean"?

  • Comment number 5.

    Cycling has got it's bad share of publicity about doping BUT it appears to me to be the only sport that is really going properly after the dope cheats. The biological passports that have been implemented help target suspects and I think that this should be rolled out to all sports.

  • Comment number 6.

    ya know many people paise the ballsio, but lately i feel i ned more attention, balsios muscles bulge like a fire with all the oxygen it needs to burn with fury, you have just been classic ballsioed

  • Comment number 7.

    Does anybody else see the endless mistakes in each new story on the BBC rugby league section. It makes RL look laughable, sports writing is their profession, yet they can't write. BBC should stop getting the PA feed and write them up themselves.

  • Comment number 8.

    For a long time I've thought a good deterrent would be to hold a 'retention' on all prize money / earnings for all athletes / sportsman. This can be held in an escrow account to be released a fixed period AFTER retirement from sport. If at any time before the release date they are found to be cheating they forfeit the 'retention' which then goes to the governing body to help subsidise the drug programme.

  • Comment number 9.

    #8 - doesn't sound like a bad idea but you're probably going to find that this affects their 'human rights' blah blah...


BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.