The 2024 Summer Olympics in Paris has arrived. Roughly 10,500 athletes from 206 countries are competing in well over 320 events, providing each with the opportunity to showcase their abilities, represent their country with pride and, for some, be named an Olympic champion.
Yet past drug doping among some athletes casts a dark shadow of uncertainty on the competition, tarnishing the integrity of the event.
Recall that swimmers from China tested positive for a banned substance, trimetazidine, prior to the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo. Despite having been detected, these swimmers were permitted to compete. More concerning, the athletes involved won three gold medals. In a sport like swimming, where a fraction of a second can make the difference between winning and losing, the edge gained with banned substances cannot be ignored.
The International Olympic Committee relies upon the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to ensure that athletes do not compete under the influence of banned substances. This is paramount to keeping the playing field level for all competitors. Of course, each country offers its athletes different levels of training and facilities, which is driven in part by the economics within each country and the priorities they place on international athletic competitions. But banned substances are not considered acceptable to change the nature of the competition and tilt the playing field.
Though the Olympic Committee claims a zero-tolerance policy on doping, its actions in Tokyo suggest otherwise, creating skepticism as to how such a policy is being applied and enforced. Most concerning, WADA knew of the positive tests prior to the Tokyo games yet did not reveal their findings until much later. The Chinese government offered that such banned substances were inadvertently taken by their athletes, with WADA making their decision because they said they believed that no wrongdoing occurred.
No matter what the reason, if there is indeed a zero-tolerance policy in place, banned substances should be grounds for disqualification. If such a policy is not enforced, then the competition is devalued and it becomes unclear what a victory means.
However, there are risks associated with such a zero-tolerance policy.
Suppose that an unsuspecting athlete takes a banned substance (or, worse, is given such a substance) without their knowledge. Such a substance can be added to food by bad actors under the direction of a competing country, clouding what disqualification means. Such sabotage could lead to widespread bans, ultimately shifting heated sentiments from global conflict into sports venues and onto playing fields.
Athletes using banned substances to gain competitive advantages has occurred at several games in the past. In some cases, the athletes were prohibited from competing, or if they did compete, any medals won were later rescinded.
In a world filled with conflicts, the Olympic Games inspire hope and provide a respite from such tensions. Palestinian athletes and athletes from Israel may compete on the same playing fields, even as the conflict in Gaza continues. The same may occur with athletes from Ukraine and Russia (who will compete as individuals, not as representatives of their country). Even a refugee team made up of athletes from home countries like Syria, Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan is competing, demonstrating that political strife can be mitigated through the Olympics.
Indeed, bringing political tensions into the Olympics is a formula for disaster, politicizing an event that should be exempt from such conflicts and remain free of efforts to impose political agendas.
Unfortunately, this has not always been the case. The 1980 Olympics in Moscow were boycotted by numerous western countries, while the 1984 Olympics in Los Angles were similarly boycotted by countries from the then Soviet bloc. But the biggest losers with such boycotts were the athletes, tarnishing the purpose of the games, depriving them of the opportunity to compete and win Olympic medals.
Every precaution must be taken to ensure that performance on the playing field reflects what the athletes are capable of, not what a banned substance makes it possible to achieve.
Given the current state of world conflicts, we all need the Olympic Games, not only for the athletes but to demonstrate that disagreement between countries can be transcended. Indeed, athletes represent the interests of people, and rooting for the athletes can do more to unify a nation than any top-down political directives may be able to achieve.
Sheldon H. Jacobson, Ph.D., is a professor of computer science at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.