Sport: Let's advise more and persecute less

CLOSE OBSERVERS of England's abortive quest for victory against Poland in Warsaw on Wednesday might have noticed a strip of sticking plaster stretched across the bridge of Robbie Fowler's nose. On such a night of despair this may have been taken as an indication of how a lack of accuracy can spread to a man's razor but the plaster has long been a fixture above Fowler's nostrils and is one of the last manifestations of a performance-enhancing brainwave that failed to catch on.

The idea was that when the plaster was placed tightly across the right spot on the nose it would cause the nasal passages to open wider and therefore enable the bearer to breathe easier. Apart from helping sportsmen to take in extra oxygen, it was also claimed that the strip could reduce snoring, for which reason I was handed a generous supply. I regret to say that, for me, it was not a success in the nocturnal noise department.

How effective it is in improving an athlete's intake of air I can't say, but the use of the strips did not grow in popularity and one is aware only of Fowler, plus the odd rugby player, still wearing them. This is in no way intended as a criticism of Fowler or anyone else who uses the strips. If they work for them, fine.

But when they were first introduced about five years ago I found it ironic because at that time ephedrine was the banned drug of the moment. (Have you noticed how drugs are like pop songs? Nandrolone is the present No 1.) It so happens that the main property of ephedrine, which is used to relieve asthma among other respiratory ailments, is to widen the air passages, and it can be found as an ingredient in many cold and cough cures.

On the one hand, we had officials salivating with outrage and handing out life bans when traces of ephedrine were discovered in an athlete's sample and, on the other, no one so much as sniffed disapprovingly when these miracle nasal strips were launched. I don't have the scientific background to know if the two can be even remotely compared in effect but they are both covered by the same principle.

The only relevant question to be asked about any substance, device or service used by sportsmen or women should concern its ability to deliver an unfair advantage. Yet the question is asked only of pharmaceutical products. There's been a distinct lack of the same moral zeal when considering altitude training, using pacemakers, jetting off to train in the sun while less fortunate rivals shiver at home, the use of sports laboratories, nutritionists, psychologists... all liable to create unfair advantages, some even more so than many of the drugs on the banned list.

The paradox, of course, is that in sport it is impossible to get a level playing field, to coin a phrase, because of the inherent unfairnesses that arise from origin, background, physical size, available facilities and opportunities. Like life, we don't all start from scratch. Neither is it in the nature of most sportsmen, especially professionals, to miss a chance of gaining an advantage; unfair, illegal or otherwise.

It is surely time to attempt to bring sense and stability to a situation that gathers fresh inconsistencies by the day. Alas, any reassessment would be too late to avoid the new darkness that seems destined to engulf athletics if the International Amateur Athletics Federation challenge last week's verdict of UK Athletics, which cleared Linford Christie of drugs charges on the grounds that it could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the nandrolone present in his sample came from a prohibited source.

UK Athletics made the same decision regarding the presence of the same drug in Dougie Walker's sample and since the IAAF are challenging that they are extremely likely to dispute Christie's case as well. David Moorcroft, chief executive of UKA, accused the world body of jumping to conclusions. "The system should be about protecting innocent athletes," he said. "It is in danger of becoming about protecting an imperfect system." Brave words, and since there have been 20 failed tests involving nandrolone recently - including the 39-year-old Jamaican sprinter Merlene Ottey - there brews a serious conflict.

While all this was bubbling along, the name of another old favourite crept into the headlines. Creatine is a natural substance which helps to build muscle by helping you to work harder and recover quicker in much the same way as the infamous steroids. The tennis star Mary Pierce is an eager and bulging convert. Boat race teams have used it, so have the England football team, and so have many rugby players, including South Africa's World Cup winning captain, Francois Pienaar, who last week owned up to some drug- taking in his early days.

But creatine got a bad press on Wednesday when John McEnroe claimed that its widespread use in tennis was causing cramps and pulled muscles. He is worried that players are encouraged to take the stuff and that it is getting out of hand. "It's all in the pursuit of power," he said. The same pursuit has also caused muscle problems in footballers who use creatine and it is a shame that governing bodies who so relentlessly root out drugs have failed to give any advice on the use of other substances.

One thing is certain, athletes are not going to stop trying to improve themselves. What they deserve is more guidance and less harrying. What's the difference between substances such as nandrolone, and creatine and the other legal food supplements? The list of banned drugs is in urgent need of revision and a more detailed identification made of the really dangerous substances. Obviously, there has to be some control but if we worked more on fact and less on myth it might be easier to apply.

A climate has been created in which no one admits to a drug offence no matter how red-handed their capture. Then they let the lawyers fight it out in expensive courtroom battles which could be the ruination of some sports.

Let's have less vengeful hysteria from the authorities and some clearer guidelines. And let's also be realistic. If there's a substance responsible for the way Merlene Ottey looks it would be in immediate danger of becoming a world-wide sell-out.

NOTHING MUCH has changed in the fortunes of the England football team over the past 25 years or so. They may have pushed the boundaries of under- achievement a little wider but the pattern is unaltered. They consistently fail to do justice to themselves and the English game. I'm only grateful to be no longer a football correspondent faced with delving into the reason why.

I doubt if the question has an answer. We tend to blame the individuals concerned, the manager and/or the players, but it is strange how the same shortcomings keep repeating themselves from generation to generation. The Poles don't help. They always seem to be involved in the worst of the degradations and need only a point in Sweden next month to complete England's misery.

If the Swedes win, England can still go through to the European Championship play-offs. I doubt if the clubs will cheer if that happens. While England flounder, the clubs are the saviours of the nation's pleasure and pride and one day will rule the world. Meanwhile, they have to release their stars for England calls and are increasingly and understandably reluctant to do.

Not only do they have to run the risk of them coming back injured, but demoralised, emotional wrecks to boot.