Effect Of Drugs On Athletes
"THREE years ago the American A Medical Association appointed a committee to investigate allegations of widespread use of amphetamine substances by coaches, trainers and athletes to improve athletic performances. The committee could not find any evidence to support the allegations. nor could it find any substantial evidence that any improvement could be expected as a result of the administration of these drugs. Harvard University later investigated the whole problem and the findings were published in the journal of the American Medical Association. The medical correspondent of “The Times,” in reviewing the reports, says that although of primary interest to athletes and those responsible for their training, the implications cover a much wider field. Investigation “The investigation covered swimming, track running, weightthrowing, and shot putting, and the effects of two drugs were studied—amphetamine sulphate (benzedrine) and a barbiturate,” says “The Times.” “The latter was included because it has been
suggested that, in toe correct dosage, barbiturates may have a beneficial action by reducing tension and nervousness.
“The results show unequivocally that toe performances of highly-trained athletes, such as those studied, can be significantly improved in some 75 per cent, of cases by toe administration of amphetamine. Eighty-five per cent, of the weight-throwers, 73 per cent, of the runners, and 67 to 93 per cent, of the swimmers performed better under the influence of amphetamine than that of a placebo capsule containing an inert substance.
“The variation in the response of swimmers was associated with whether or not they were swimming under rested conditions. Thus, 14 out of 15 swimmers (93 per cent.) were helped by amphetamine when swimming under rested conditions, whereas only 67 per cent, were helped when swimming under fatigued conditions—that is, a second 100 or 200 yards 15 minutes after they had already swum one or other of these distances.
“The greatest improvement was obtained by the weight-throwers (3 to 4 per cent.), the runners showed an improvement of 1.5 per cent., while again, the swimmers varied, their degree of improvement ranging from 0.59 to 1.16 per cent. As an example of the actual results obtained, the figures for the weightthrowers may be quoted. In maximum distance scores, the six 351 b weight-throwers obtained an average improvement score of 2ift. The comparable figure for the four 161 b shot-putters was 1.48 ft.
“The administration of the barbiturate resulted in a slight, but not statistically significant, improvement in toe performance of the swimmers, and a Slight improvement in toe case of the weight-throwers. In the case of toe runners, two groups showed slight impairment and one showed slight improvement. “Although there was thus no doubt about the effects of amphetamine and the barbiturates upon physical performance, an analysis of the athletes’ reactions produced a very different picture. Such an analysis of toe subjective effects of the two drugs was possible, as they and toe placebo were given in identical capsules, and no athlete had any idea of what was in the capsule he received on any given day. All that he was told was that he was being given a ‘pep’ drug. “The results of this analysis showed that 59 per cent, of toe athletes considered they had received some help , from amphetamine, 19 per cent, noticed no difference, and 7 per cent, considered they had done better on the days they received toe placebo. Yet, in actual fact, 77 per cent, had performed better on amphetamine than on the placebo, and 23 per cent, had done worse.”
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19601116.2.100
Bibliographic details
Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29363, 16 November 1960, Page 15
Word Count
584Effect Of Drugs On Athletes Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29363, 16 November 1960, Page 15
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Press. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.
Acknowledgements
This newspaper was digitised in partnership with Christchurch City Libraries.