Obviously, the assertion according to which all men are born and remain equal in freedom and in rights, which comes from the French and American Revolutions of 1789 and is quoted in the preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, does not contest the reality of physical, psychical and cultural differences within human kind. Equality is not similarity. The concept of sport competition is precisely an illustration of this. Its "motto" is "May the best man win". In most fields, the best man is the strongest, the most resistant, the fastest, the nimblest… Now, such a quality does not only depend on will and determination but also, and, in reality mostly, on physical abilities. The average abilities of a tall and strong Scandinavian man for weight-lifting, shot put, javelin throwing or basketball, are obviously much higher than those of a Pygmy from Central-African Republic; and this statement of the obvious does not question by any means the assertion of all men's equality. In this extreme example of the Swedish giant and the short Black man, the determinism of different abilities, as that of physical characteristics, is of course of genetic origin. It is probable that genes' impact is also at stake in less typical situations. We think, of course, about the domination of Black male and female runners in sprint, about the over-representation of rangy subjects in endurance races… At that level, however, it is obvious that training intensity and techniques, on the one hand, mental strength, on the other, play an important part and interfere with the purely biological determinisms. Nonetheless, at the highest level, with an equal training and motivation, the best athlete is more likely to be the one who has the greatest physical abilities for that particular sport. Thereby, we must admit that sport logics promote the physical inequality of individuals, who are otherwise equal in dignity and in rights. The biological processes which give the individuals their potential abilities in the sport field are related to multiple factors: quickness to respond to a training, superior limit of different parameters (respiratory, cardiovascular, muscular…), endurance, etc… Therefore, it would be illusive to contemplate a research of a single gene covering a general ability for sport practice. However, because of some sports' specificity, we may be able to identify the impact of a particular gene in relation to particular physical abilities. On this basis, a study was published a few years ago stating the importance of gene polymorphism for the practice of mountaineering in very high mountains without instrumental oxygen support. This could be a factor predicting the general resistance to hypoxia and the efficiency of tissues oxygenation mechanisms in extreme conditions, and is thereby of great significance for the practice of certain sports. If that was verified, however, it does not stand to reason that the systematic study of such a gene polymorphism in the perspective of high level athlete selection would be significantly different than taking into account other specificities such as size, heartbeat rate, etc. - with the condition that the nature of the parameter - here, genetic - does not endow it with a sort of mythical quality. At this level in the research, we must admit that the idea of the Best man's Victory, i.e. the most capable, in the absence of any cheating, the icon of sport ethics, could not be the basis of universal ethics! Indeed, one of the grounds for the existence of societies, which claim to have their foundations on the Human Rights, is to compensate the consequences of biological inequalities, in the respect of the equality principle, and not to promote them. The development of the tool and the computer enables to reestablish equality as far as moving, carrying, memorizing are concerned… Plastic surgery tries hard to improve and match the reality of the body with the image that we would like it to have. In this direct line, if a physically disadvantaged athlete uses means to overcome his handicaps, what is entirely against the sport ethics, it does not contradict at all the principals of universal ethics based on equality. Doping, as such, contradictory to the logics of sport itself, cannot be considered as "immoral". It is only the context in which it operates which will enable to match sport ethics and common ethics, in order to reprove such a practice. Indeed, psychological stakes of sport competition, which were in the past of an ideological nature, nowadays more financial, are such that doping will be used by everyone, and thereby bringing back to the initial conditions promoting physical inequalities among an ensemble of doped athletes. Moreover, the impact of doping goes more and more against the individuals' health, that is against the necessity for them to preserve themselves for a better and more fruitful future. When a woman or a man is only considered according to his ability to win, without any concern for the dangers incurred, we are definitely watching a human being being turned into an instrument. When it only responds to a desire for show business profitability or ideological or national promotion of his/her group, the show we are watching recalls very much the gladiators' sacrifice. In other words, the fight against doping happens to find two justifications of different nature. The first one relies on the respect of the sport competition principle, which in itself has nothing to do with universal ethics. The second one is the defense of the individual against a form of constraint which compels him/her to follow immediate goals, denying his/her intrinsic value as human being, as "end in oneself". Motivations and constraints have reached such a level nowadays that all opportunities offered by modern biology techniques are being used precociously, even before they are sufficiently tested and secured. More than often, athletes, rather than sick people, get to experiment new forms of recombining proteins derived from erythropoietin or new psychotropic substances, before these are even allowed on the market. Incredible risks are taken today and show that, as soon as this will be possible, a quick use of gene transfer will be part of the doping practices. Any normal or mutated protein, with an erythropoietic, musculotrophic or cardiotonic activity, can normally be administered through recombining products or through a transfer of gene constructions which enable the synthesis and delivery of the product within the athlete's body tissues. We know as of today, at least experimentally, how to put the expression of such doping genes under the influence of regulation elements which can activate or deactivate them at will, only by taking a simple chemical oral medication. The nature of the doping act is not here any different than other more traditional practices, but the risk is that it may have long term, maybe even everlasting consequences, in addition to being less easy to detect. Finally, as another step into the instrumentalization of the athlete, the fantasy could emerge of a new generation of potential competitors, results of gene, germinal therapy or cloning. Of course, we are still, at the beginning of the 21st century, contemplating that as science-fiction. But time flies, for techniques as for temptations and justifications. In the end, tomorrow, as yesterday and today, the question which will enable everyone to prevent these excesses or, on the contrary, to accept them, while only supervising their evolution, will be to decide whether sport is an activity for human beings, or human beings, merely means to make sport shows successful.
© Copyright 2002 Expertise in Elite sport. 2nd International Days of Sport Sciences, 12.-15. November 2002, INSEP, Paris (France). Veröffentlicht von INSEP. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.