The ABP is "definitely a step in the right direction," says Don Catlin of Anti-Doping Research, Inc., in Los Angeles, who serves on the IOC's medical commission. "It is catching on," Catlin says. "But it's complicated." The ABP model, he adds, is a good one, but "having it work worldwide requires considerable dexterity and coordination of analysis."

Whether or not the ABP scheme uncovers any wrongdoing at the 2012 Summer Games, the athletes can be sure that their biological samples have been closely scrutinized. "You can sort of describe it as the most comprehensive screening and testing that's ever been done in the Olympics," Catlin says.

This year the IOC has the unprecedented benefit of a multimillion-dollar sponsorship from a major drug company, GlaxoSmithKline, which is providing a base of operations near London and laboratory services for the anti-doping effort. "I've done three Olympics, and we've always had a huge budget," Catlin says—but nothing like the resources available this year.

He compares the preparation for an Olympic anti-doping campaign to an athlete's training for the games. "It's the same Olympic model going on with the laboratories," he says. "The labs are training vigorously for four years."

—This article includes reporting by Larry Greenemeier.

6 Comments

1. 1. oldvic 11:09 AM 7/30/12

   While I can't abide doping, I think we should be very careful about trampling on the presumption of innocence: it's one of the pillars of the concept of human rights. We ignore it at our own risk.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Jonez 11:38 AM 7/30/12

   Perhaps they should not check at all. It is already a freak show of sorts, have you seen the woman gymnasts?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. BigInScience 12:35 PM 7/30/12

   Interesting article John! I think one PED (performance-enhancing drug) we may be hearing more about are SARMs (selective androgen receptor modulators), also known as "selective steroids." I discussed this in an article over at BigInScience.com "New 'Selective Steroids' To Be Abused By Athletes: Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs)" http://ow.ly/bmU2L
   
   I agree measuring correlates of PEDs- performance enhancing drugs (as opposed to detecting the actual PED) seems a little controversial. I'm curious to learn if PEDs like the "selective steroids" I wrote about alter blood measurements (EPO use is probably easier to infer due to elevated Hematocrit [red blood cells]).
   
   How about 'genetic engineering' or 'gene therapy'? The EU recently recommended for approval the first commercially available gene therapy to treat a rare pancreatic disease. If gene therapies were used to boost athletic performance, it would be extremely difficult to discriminate between innate genes and 'doping.' The 'cat and mouse' game of sports doping will continue for a long time.
   
   BTW, take a look at BigInScience.com if you're interested in innovation in science, medicine, and technology.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. BigInScience 12:38 PM 7/30/12

   Interesting article John! I think one PED (performance-enhancing drug) we may be hearing more about are SARMs (selective androgen receptor modulators), also known as "selective steroids." I discussed this in an article over at BigInScience.com "New 'Selective Steroids' To Be Abused By Athletes: Selective Androgen Receptor Modulators (SARMs)"
   
   I agree measuring correlates of PEDs- performance enhancing drugs (as opposed to detecting the actual PED) seems a little controversial. I'm curious to learn if PEDs like the "selective steroids" I wrote about alter blood measurements (EPO use is probably easier to infer due to elevated Hematocrit [red blood cells]).
   
   How about 'genetic engineering' or 'gene therapy'? The EU recently recommended for approval the first commercially available gene therapy to treat a rare pancreatic disease. If gene therapies were used to boost athletic performance, it would be extremely difficult to discriminate between innate genes and 'doping.' The 'cat and mouse' game of sports doping will continue for a long time.
   
   BTW, take a look at BigInScience.com if you're interested in innovation in science, medicine, and technology.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. julianpenrod 01:54 PM 7/30/12

   To listen to Scientific American's John Horgan in the article, "Should Fans Fret That Olympians Are Fiddling With Their Genes", methods to create unnaturally muscled individuals who are more record braking machines than legitimate athletes couldn't come swiftly enough. Sport used to have an ethic, the idea of personal best, the achievement of an individual; now, the ilk of Horgan and the "fans" he is invoking seem addicted only to seeing record after record broken. And that's it.
   And Horgan's article sheds light on a still existent issue, Lance Armstrong and doping. For those not trying to willfuly hide the truth, or those dully believing what they are told by the New World Orde, it could be considered just too "coincidental" that Armstrong should develop cancer at just the spot where he would regularly inject himself with substances to increase leg muscle growth. Many contested the idea when the only acknowledged mean of tissue growth was steroids. But Horgan himself seems to have spilled the beans, talking about a method of injecting geners from other species to spur unrestrained tissue growth. And unrestrained tissue growth isd cancer! It seems that is what Armstorng was doing, introducing massive amounts of alien genes into his body to artificially increase the rate of muscle growth. As a sidelight, and another piece of evidence, consider swimmer Eric Shanleau, who also tried for this year's Olympics. In a sport that, like cycling, can benefit from more leg muscle, Shanleau has also developed testivular cancer, like Lance Armstrong!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. sparcboy 02:24 PM 7/30/12

   It's just a shame this is an issue on the level it is, but I guess when millions of dollars are at stake....

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this