T20 sparks a drug battle

The game must be protected against cheats tempted to use drugs

WITH the power players being paid a premium, and a huge monetary incentive to avoid injuries, there is a fear cricket could suffer the same doping problems as baseball, writes Tim Wigmore

The economist Gary Becker was once late for an appointment. So he chose to park on the street illegally, calculating that the low chance of being caught was worth the risk.

He did not get a ticket and declared that “criminal behaviour is rational” – those who break laws weigh up the risks of an action against the rewards.

Now, consider cricket today. Just as for other athletes, to cricketers doping might seem not a reckless or irresponsible act, but a deeply rational one.

The rewards of doping can be astronomical, and, for many cricketers, the risks of being caught appear minute.

These fears are driven by Twenty20. Already, there are hints of cricket’s new ecosystem opening the sport up to a heightened risk of performance-enhancing drugs.

In 2017, two leading T20 players were banned for doping offences.

Andre Russell, an effervescent all-rounder who had a fair claim to being the world’s most valuable T20 player, failed to file his whereabouts with doping officials three times in a year.

Afghanistan’s Mohammad Shahzad, at the time ranked the seventh best T20 batsman in the world, tested positive for the banned substance clenbuterol in an out-of-competition test.

And this week it was revealed that India’s Yusuf Pathan had failed a drugs test during a domestic T20 competition last year.

His urine sample contained the banned substance terbutaline – a drug which, like clenbuterol, can increase strength and power.

It is common to refer to T20 as not just a different game to the longer formats, but essentially a completely new sport.

And it is one whose dynamics create far more potential benefits for players who dope.

“We know the International Cricket Council and World Anti-Doping Authority view that the power-based skill set required in T20 makes it a sport that fits within a similar profile to baseball,” says Tony Irish, the head of the game’s players’ association.

Just as baseball hitters used drugs – principally steroids – to bulk up, so the fear is that T20 batsmen will do the same.

Where physical strength matters relatively little in Test cricket, T20 leagues pay an exorbitant premium for players who can muscle sixes – and so offer far greater potential benefits from doping.

“T20, being a more athletic and dynamic version, places increased demands on cricketers’ bodies and power outputs,” says Andrea Petroczi, a specialist in doping from Kingston University in London.

“This makes the sport more prone to drugs that promote muscle development and increase lean muscle mass – anabolic steroids and other anabolic agents.”

Paradoxically, cricketers’ increased professionalism has also made the sport more vulnerable. Until a few years ago, few players trained intensely enough to be in a position to benefit from taking steroids.

While batsmen are the most obviously beneficiaries of doping, there are also huge incentives for bowlers, too. By giving players greater strength, doping could help bowlers attain new speeds.

Perhaps most importantly of all, steroids can also help players, especially quick bowlers, who are generally more injury-prone, recover more quickly, allowing them to play in more T20 leagues, and even extend their careers.

Missing a season of the Indian Premier League can cost a player $1 million (£740,000).

Even missing a few matches brings a huge financial cost. In the IPL, for instance, players’ fees are on a per-match basis, with cricketers earning only 50 per cent of their allocated match fee if they are unavailable for a game.

As cricket has become more orientated around domestic T20 leagues the policing of the sport has not kept pace.

The ICC is aware of the challenge to protect the integrity of cricket: it conducted 547 drugs tests in 2016, and introduced blood testing from the Champions Trophy last year.

Yet, as in many other areas, the ICC’s powers are limited. Its remit is restricted to testing current international players — so excludes many of the freelance T20 players who are among the world’s best-paid cricketers.

Within cricket, there is a “clear requirement for a more global approach to player education on integrity issues such as anti-doping,” says Irish.

With a few exceptions, it is also rare for leagues to do blood testing, so players could pass tests even if they are doping: after all, Lance Armstrong passed 250 drugs tests and failed none.

Even in both cricket’s high-profile doping cases last year it is dubious how great the punishment actually was. Russell played on for another 11 months.

Cricket has so far been mercifully free of such doping scandals. Yet keeping the T20 free from drugs cheats will be harder than ever. —