There has been a dramatic reduction in drug use among college athletes who are subject to mandatory drug testing. Why, then, are so many people opposed to drug testing? Many athletes contend that testing is a violation of their civil rights. If drugs were not undermining the fabric of this country and giving many athletics a competition edge, this would be an acceptable excuse. .
The issue of drugs in sports began with Ben Johnson, the Canadian sprinter, stripped of his gold medal in 1988 after testing positive for anabolic steroids. But Johnson's drug bust surprised few in the athletic community, where it was widely believed that the vast majority of Olympic athletes had been using banned substances for years. "I hear all the time from athletes that you can't compete internationally unless you use performance-enhancing drugs,"" says Dr. Robert Voy former chief medical officer of the United States Olympic Committee. 1989 became the year of the steroid with an explosion of interest and coverage with stories from all sports and society. Interest included debate of other stars, including women such as Florence Griffith Joyner, and whether they used steroids. In Canada, a government investigation commonly named after its chairman as the "Dubin Inquiry- was launched. Johnson's coach Charlie Francis admitted Johnson's steroid use but unfairly painted the whole sport as suffering from it. He also alleged malpractice in the testing area. Athlete's bodies became implicated and their role as impartial testing authorities questioned.
In 1961 the International Olympic Committed (IOC) created the Medical Commission in order to deal with the increasing problem of doping in the sports world. The initial goal of putting in place an anti-doping structure was rapidly widened to encompass the following three fundamental principals as stated on the (IOC) Web page: "(1) Protection of health of athletes, (2) Respect for both medical and sport ethics, and (3) Equality for all competing athletes.