From Chivalrous ‘Brothers-in-Arms’ to the Eligible Athlete

Abstract

Through an examination of the challenges to the original, fundamental principles of the Olympic Movement during the post-Second World War era, and the eventual abandonment of those principles, this study poses questions concerning the legitimacy of the IOC’s current bannedsubstance list and policies. Using primary and secondary historical evidence, this article establishes the original, fundamental principles upon which Pierre de Coubertin revived the Olympic Games, and then traces the events which, in 1974 — the year the athlete eligibility code was significantly revised in the Olympic Charter — overturned those principles and ushered in the current era of commercialized and professionalized, world class, high performance sport. Significant events in elite sportduring the ‘cold war’ years from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s created a growing emphasis onperformance and performance enhancement such that substance use — steroids in particular — became common in the East and the West. It is argued that while substance prohibition was consistent with de Coubertin’s original principles, the 1974 change to Rule 26 of the Olympic Charter, and the reasons for that change, removed the central principles upon which the list of banned substances could be founded and justified, thereby legitimately opening the banned substance list to question. Inpresenting this history, the article presents a strong case for a thorough, non-partisan review of the IOC’s policy on performance-enhancing substances in world class, high performance sport.