NEURO-DOPING: A Knock on WADA’s Brick-Rigid System

 

In nature nothing is hardwired, everything is livewired, everything is evolvable.

Abhijit Naskar

Introduction

Human life, to which athletes are not foreign, remains prone to the fragility of mortality. This mortality poses leaps of futile that certainly appears as a talk of loss for athletes whose livelihoods rely on the functionality of anatomy. We must not forget that scientists are encouraged by the unraveling possibilities of humanity and produce nature-defying substances. This research and production have broadened the dimension of drugs available for athletes, as today's phenomenon, Neuro-Doping. Doping brings stiff consequences, and being viewed as an 'impure' athlete involves considerable socio-cultural costs. Athletes who contravene anti-doping regulations incur an imposition of a ban from the event in question, and they stay frequently barred from competing in the future tournaments for an extended period of time. In the context of doping in sports, at first sight, an athlete's performance emerges to be doped with the demand of'growing perfectionism.' Yet, This race of ultimately achieving'perfection'has a downer to it, wherein they have to face physical and mental wear-outs during tournaments or training in one form or another. The reasons are manifold such that they do not constitute part of our discussion, but the very reasons compel competing athletes to take recourse to drugs. Not every drug is legal to consume. The earliest records of doping in sports come from the Ancient Olympics games when athletes, as per reports, were known to have taken figs to improve their performance. With the advent of Modern Pharmacology in the 19th century, many athletes began to test with cocktails of drugs to improve strength and overcome fatigue.1 The advancement of technology has yielded another technique, dubbed Neuro-doping, associated with neuro-science that revives electronic stimulants in the brain to push the performance of athletes a step further. It's worth noting that the effect of the neuro-science technique is similar to prevalently used Amantadine, modafinil, and amphetamine-like stimulants, also called 'performance and image-enhancing drugs, those targets the central nervous system and even join the list of prohibited drugs under the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). How these drugs differ in techniques and have the same effect could be answered in simpler terms, the drugs boost the brain cells building better attention span, cognitive abilities, and even memory. Moreover, unlike many conventional forms of doping, neuro-doping techniques are currently not prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA). It won't be wrong to say that Neuro-doping strategies spawn new concerns about old issues related to morality of doping in sports.

WADA’s call against Doping

Over centuries the idea of'Sports' have` transformed hugely from a usual recreational activity to a more serious endeavor. At the same time, players must play by rules and not take undue advantage of circumstances anyway for victory. In simple words, they must not 'cheat.'

Traditional Doping

Doping has been identified in WADC as ‘circumstances and conduct’ that infringe the code (A. 1 of WADC). When athletes employ extrinsic means such as superficial substances to enhance biological reactions being snowed under burdening expectations, on that occasion, enacting principles of equity, conscience, and justice becomes elemental to maintaining the spirit of sport. Thus, against this background, WADA, a foundation, sets intense regulations to bar athletes from pursuing that path. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was initiated in 1999 by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) with more than 650 signatories to WADC, its anti-doping code. The jurisdiction of the code spans National Doping Agencies and IPC. Whether consumption of a particular drug bears prohibition or permission, and if prohibited, then within what interval it remains prohibited are some questions answered by WADA through its comprehensive documents that list the prohibition of drugs and methods in sports. It is worth noting that in drug related proceedings, to stay on the safe map, an athlete must establish how the drug came into his body, which initially necessitates him to produce a medical prescription to prove the presence of the drug as a cause of medical treatment. An athlete cannot hide behind a Medical practitioner’s veil of error, if the prescription does not justify use of a particular drug.

The ISF Case

Back in 2004 several Games were organized worldwide, and at the same time, FIS Alpine World Cup Downhill Competition was scheduled at Lake Louise in Canada. Meanwhile, during the competition, the officials followed the usual procedure and collected urine samples, one of which was from an Austrian Skier, Hans Knauss. After analysis of the sample, the laboratory authority reported to the International Skiing Federation about finding a prohibited drug in the collected specimen called Norandrosterone. The appellant contended to be unaware of its presence since the label of the product did not contain the same. Like some other drugs, It has been more than 30 years since the WADA critically perceived it as a threat to the spirit of the sport listed under Section S1 in Analobic Agents. In the case of Hans Knauss, the panel, while concluding, considered various parameters and observed the intention that WADA pursues against doping.

The adjudicators cited in the present case that the purpose of introducing the WADC was to harmonize at the time a plethora of doping sanctions to the greatest extent possible and to un-couple them from both the athlete’s personal circumstances (amateur or professional, old or young athlete, etc.) as well as from circumstances relating to the specific type of sport (individual sport or team sport, etc. 

Besides certain principles, WADA accentuates following specific norms, and to validate the consumption of a drug, it must qualify three essentials:

1) The drug does not have the potential or enhances sport performance.

2) The drug does not pose any potential or actual risk to the athlete.

3) It does not violate the spirit of sport. It is the essence of Olympism, It is how we play true. The spirit of sport is the celebration of the ethical conduct of the human Spirit in sport. Strikingly, it is not a condition precedent for an athlete to show enhancement of performance, any of these three essentials shall attract ban alone .

Neuro-Doping

a) Apart from Traditional Doping:

Indeed, A lot has been written about physical enhancement tactics and physical sports. But, any talk has barely been broken on neurological enhancement, its impacts on the athletes, and safeguards against the same. Before understanding the contemporary scenario of neuro-doping in sports, we ought to figure out the actuality of it. tDCS is a kind of non-invasive neurostimulation wherein electrodes are implanted on the human scalp to induce specific brain processes . What actually happens in the process is multiple waves of low currents are briefly communicated through the skull to adjust cortical activity in the brain, which is dependent on the direction of current flow through the target neurons. There is a growing body of research that indicates that tDCS is safe and beneficial when used for therapeutic reasons. There is no clear distinction between neuro-doping and non-neuro-doping because traditional doping (e.g., anabolic steroid use) can affect mental capacities while neuro-doping could perhaps also affect physical 'endurance and muscle strength'. Provided the crossover, the extent to which neuro-doping can improve cognitive processing and/or physical capacities for a particular sport is only a matter of proportion, though methods aimed at cognitive improvement are more likely to result in cognitive rather than physical enhancement.

b) Choice & Concerns of Neuro-Techniques:

The choice of Neuro-techniques, like tDCS, is concerning and reasonably understandable due to three reasons.

First, Neuro-Doping has shown its potential to impact physical and cognitive sports. It accounts for potential enhancement in physical sports like Basketball, Shooting, and Golf putting. Whereas, In Mental Sports, It has led to sharp mental capacities such as better memory, numerical processing, strong attention span, etc.

Second, Neuro-techniques are not unimplemented, rather companies of similar nature as Halo Neuroscience have been dedicatedly marketing, distributing, and commercializing tDCS devices.

In addition to the market, Halo neuroscience publishes its own biased report that indicates professional Olympics are already under the wrap of these techniques. Athletes may come to associate tDCS devices with psychological wellbeing, convenience, and affordability as a result of these campaigns. As the coordinator of anti-doping continued attempts, it is therefore incumbent on WADA to address the several problems surrounding WADC, which impede proper and effective growth of anti-doping regulations amidst mounting concerns about tDCS usage in sports, as soon as possible.

Thirdly, the literature on Neuro-techniques could be found in abundance. Although ethical debates on cognitive enhancement in general are abundant, these have so far been mainly focused on its use in academia or by military personnel, leading to Petersen’s claim that the ‘ethical analysis on the use or possible use of neuro-doping in sport is a neglected subject. The concern here is that the current ethical principle of spirit in sports has an issue standing on its own and is consequently challenged and eroded when viewed in the context of tDCS. Several reports related to the Tokyo Olympics 2020 suggest that 20% - 40% athletes may have cheated at the Olympic Games. The statistics hint us about an aggressive winning culture that de facto prevails over the spirit of sports.

c) Question of Liability:

It shall not be of doubt whether tDCS  enhanced the performance or not, but if carries the potential to do so would attract liability as per WADA's assertions. To consider the Independent Anti-Doping Tribunal of the International Tennis Federation (ITF) view in a particular case, the nature of Neuro techniques might not bunk the sanction. It is, in fact, the nature of doping that has been considered a Strict Liability. It does not matter whether the prohibited substance enhanced the player’s performance or not or whether it was by nature apt or likely to do so. The issue relates to the player’s state of mind when he ingested the prohibited substance. Plus, as per the code, proof of enhancement is not sine qua non to incur a ban.

However, hurrying up to a conclusion on a few relative terms may be undesirable since tDCS vide electronic interventions provide a different view on ethical principles set by the World Anti-Doping Agency.

d) Issue of Over-Inclusivity:

Presently, the list of Prohibited Substances, compiled in accordance with Article 4.3 of WADC, has been classified based on dual criterion: consumption of smaller category of substances prohibited 12 hours before the competition and substances prohibited both in and out of competition and substances applicable to certain precision sports only. It raises the issue to Over-Inclusivity, or in other words, failure of distinction between sports. It is pertinent to argue that the issue of commitment towards division based on the nature of sports should have an appreciative view by WADA because the question of cognitive enhancement could easily be attributed to the sports requiring higher cognitive efforts than the sports that depend highly on physical efforts. This list of sports includes disciplines that require creativity and problem-solving skills, such as chess, bridge and Esports. However, being appreciative to the divide does not mean that physical enhancement should be annulled in mental sports in toto, or cognitive elements do not play any role in physical sports. For example, a gymnast needs to proceed in a sequenced manner based on the process of the brain to land perfectly.

This approach is important since it develops a linkage between doping and enhanced performance.

e) Issue of Linkage:

Firstly, Besides the divide between sports, another issue posed is difficulty in establishing a source or origin of unfair cognitive enhancement in a player’s performance. While establishing this link in the physical domain is often easier, the analogy does not apply to cognitive enhancement. In the case of EPO, for example, the link between oxygen carrying capacity and aerobic capacity is closely connected, but the same link does not hold for cognitive enhancement, which is hard to identify one precise cause - effect link — is it the result of a shift in neuroplasticity, a chemical reaction, or both?. Therefore, no wonder why the more mechanical sports in nature exhibit higher doping cases, such as athletics and weightlifting, accounting for 68% medals stripped out of 57 olympic medal still 2012.

Secondly, as far as “How” is irrelevant with respect to Doping in the perspective of WADA due to the essence of Strict Liability, the “What” comes into picture and makes it much more clear. Subsequently, the nature of sport and efficacy of substance to enhance performance in that particular sport answers the “What” which could be an essential detriment to establish liability. Nevertheless, WADA seems to lack a calculated approach in sentencing players. Since the onset of the Code of Doping, the attention is highly weighed in respect of banning players for physical enhancement in physical sports with less or no heed given to cognitive enhancement in mental sports. This is evident by recent publication regarding UK Athletics 4*100m team being stripped of their medal in Tokyo Olympics 2020. Conversely, no chess player has ever faced the same fate as UK Athletes in violation of PLIS, till date.

Conclusion

Drugs, like Ritalin, that enhance cognitive ability, but not all similar technological stimulants. In other words, the anti-doping armor in sports, the World Anti-Doping Agency, does not embrace a framework for “All the ways an athlete may achieve unfair advantage through cognitive enhancement. The contemporary brick-rigid system shows a regulatory vacuum. In a period of swift technological advancement, we must embrace the modifications and the advantages they offer. It does not imply that we should accept them thoughtlessly; rather, parameters for their effective implementation must be established. As a result, the time has come for WADA to do the same for tDCS, and like neuro-doping techniques. Evidently, in order to retain legitimacy, any reasonable regulatory system must be ethically and philosophically rational.

Written by

Akriti Singh

LinkedIn