Why is the name Hans-Gunnar Liljenwall one that every sports fan should know?
Hans-Gunnar Liljenwall was a Pentathlete from Sweden. His name is etched in sporting history as he was the first Olympic athlete to be suspended for using a performance enhancing drug. The 1968 Olympic Games in Mexico were the first at which dope tests were carried out on athletes. Liljenwall was the only athlete to test positive for a banned substance at the 1968 Olympics.
He was stripped of his bronze medal for having “two beers” to steady his nerves! This was apparently quite common in pentathlon in that era before the shooting event. Something the Swedish Olympic Committee argued long and hard about to try and hang on to the bronze medal.
There were many stories in bygone years of batsmen in cricket being given a glass of champagne once they had reached a century. There were even tales in the days of the Gentlemen (amateurs) and players (Professionals) that the gentlemen would often have a Gin and Tonic on the field of play, and the professionals a pint of ale. Certainly players may have had alcohol at lunch during a game as recent as the 1980’s.
This was also a time when opposing teams would often go out together during a match and party long into the night and still turn up and perform the next day. There was a culture of having drinks in the dressing room post game in many sports, be it football, cricket, or rugby.
Oh how times have changed…
There is now an issue that is coming to the fore no one wants to talk about, as sadly those in charge claim that they do not know how to handle it.
As we have seen with performance enhancing drugs in sport, those who are developing the drugs and their masking agents have managed to keep ahead of those doing the testing.
Victor Conte who was the founder and president of Bay Area Laboratory Co-operative (BALCO), which was behind many of the athletes involved in doping at the Sydney 200 Olympic Games, one of whom was American sprinter Marion Jones.
In July 2005 Conte pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute steroids and a second count of laundering a portion of a check. He was sentenced in October of the same year to four months iin a Correctional Institution, with four months on house arrest. Ironically he is now seen as one of the most informed and biggest advocates against the use of performance enhancing drugs. He clearly had an epiphany in those four months inside. He is now helping many of the anti-doping authorities and advising them what to look for.
With the financial rewards at stake in many sports the stars of today are easily tempted. Many will argue that they have to take the drugs in order to be able to compete!
Even the powers that be in this area have been found to be extremely weak in recent times.
The sports themselves appear to not give a damn about the integrity of the sports that they are custodians of. It is far more important to have their big name players continuing to play so that the money keeps rolling in when they do play. Yet history will show that when a player is suspended or disqualified there will always be someone to take their place.
There were many in sport who shook their heads in dismay in February this year when World number one Jannik Sinner accepted an immediate three-month ban from tennis after reaching a settlement with the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) over his two positive drugs tests last year.
Sinner was suspended from 9 February until 4 May 2025. Having won the Australian Open in January this meant that he was eligible to play at the French Open, which was the next Grand Slam tournament of the year!
To be fair WADA had been seeking a ban of up to two years for Sinner, and launched an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) over the 2024 decision by the International Tennis Integrity Agency (ITIA) not to suspend him.
The CAS hearing never took place. The process still had a long way to go with an outcome not expected until the end of this year. Clearly an agreement was made. WADA came out with a statement in which it said it accepted the three-time Grand Slam champion “did not intend to cheat”, and that the drug “did not provide any performance-enhancing benefit” and that this happened “without his knowledge as the result of negligence of members of his entourage.”
Sinner’s lawyers released a statement in which he said: “I have always accepted that I am responsible for my team and realise Wada’s strict rules are an important protection for the sport I love. On that basis I have accepted WADA’s offer to resolve these proceedings on the basis of a three-month sanction.”
Was this a case of the athlete having the sport over a barrel? Did it show how toothless WADA is now? Did it show that the sports themselves are siding with the athletes to keep them playing and the money rolling in?
In Boxing there have been a number of high profile issues which have related to recreational and performance enhancing drugs and again the penalties have ended up being either brushed aside or ignored as promoters and the other hangers-on look to continue to claim and income from the boxer.
In 2015 Tyson Fury beat Wladimir Klitschko to claim the IBF, WBO, IBO, and The Ring heavyweight titles. A rematch was scheduled for July 2016 in Manchester, England. Fury, who has been diagnosed as being bi-polar was going through a great deal of mental anguish at this time and had piled on weight. On the 24th June 2016 it was announced that the fight would have to be postponed due to Fury spraining his ankle in training.
On that same day, Fury was charged by UK Anti-Doping (UKAD) “with presence of a prohibited substance”, namely nandrolone. This was said to have been found in a sample taken 16 months previously in February 2015. Fury strenuously deny” the charge.
On 23 September, Fury again postponed the fight. Then it was reported by ESPN that Fury had failed a drug test for cocaine a day before this second postponement. Fury revealed his problems with depression after the positive test for cocaine.
Fury was clearly in a bad space at this time, and much was written about his mental health, and he had many very concerned about his well-being. On October 2016 he decided to vacate his heavyweight titles; the IBF had stripped Fury of its title ten days after he won it because the contract for the fight against Klitschko included a rematch clause, which stopped Fury from facing the IBF’s mandatory challenger Vyacheslav Glazkov.
In October 2016, the British Boxing Board of Control decided to suspend Fury’s boxing licence.
In December it was announced that Fury would be making a comeback and would fight Deontay Wilder, the WBC World Champion.
The British Boxing Board of Control publicly announced that Fury was still suspended. They also claimed that there had been no contact from Fury or his representatives since the ban started in October 2016.
In November 2017, BBC Sport reported that a National Anti-Doping Panel (NADP) hearing was due to take place in December. However the legal battle that was now taking place in the background between Fury and UKAD was a major issue. It was believed that UKAD could potentially become insolvent, or would certainly need a government bail out if they lost the case. UKAD was reported as having an annual budget of £8 million. The fact that Fury had not fought for two years would have caused them to cover a potential loss of earnings, which was predicted as being over £10 million.
A date for the hearing was set and Fury was facing a four year ban if found guilty.
Following the hearing UKAD stated “Taking into account the delays in results management that meant charges were not brought in respect of the nandrolone findings until June 2016, and the provisional suspensions that Tyson and Hughie Fury have already effectively served, the two year period of ineligibility is backdated to 13 December 2015, and therefore expires at midnight on 12 December 2017.”
Fury’s win over Christian Hammer in February 2015 was disqualified but his Klitschko triumph was not.
Fury blamed the elevated nandrolone levels on eating uncastrated wild boar.
The BBBofC and Fury met on 19 January 2018, where the governing body agreed to re-instate Fury as long as he sent them up-to-date medical records after visiting a psychologist. Fury was free to fight again.
Many have questioned the way that this whole issue was handled, but those closest to the sport are of the feeling that money won the day. The threat of legal action and the impact to those governing the sport was too great. They were forced into a corner that they could not fight their way out of.
Fury meanwhile went on to elevate himself as one of the greats of the sport and a likeable rogue with huge marketability.
Also in Boxing Chris Eubank jnr was due to fight Conor Benn in a bout that was riding on the back of the rivalry between the two boxers fathers in the 1990’s.
Three days before the bout was due to take place it was cancelled due to Benn had failing a drug test. He had tested positive for clomifene. Benn’s promoters released a statement saying, “Benn has not been charged with any rule violation, he is not suspended, and he remains free to fight.” The following day, the BBBofC confirmed that the fight had been postponed.
Initially it was believed that Benn had failed just the one drugs test. Then three days after the fight was supposed to have taken place news broke that he had in fact failed an earlier drug test prior to the one that led to the postponement of the fight. To make matters worse Benn and his promoter it was alleged had known about this result for over a month.
Clomifene can be used to boost testosterone levels in men, and is banned inside and outside competition by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). In boxing circles it is believed to give a boxer greater power, which could be potentially life-threatening to their opponent.
Questions were raised once these findings were revealed in relation to Benn’s previous fight where he, a boxer not known for winning by knockout, had beaten by knock out Chris Algieri a boxer who had never been knocked previously.
In March 2023, the UK Anti-Doping Agency formally charged and provisionally suspended Conor Benn for the alleged use of a prohibited substance.
In July 2023, a ruling made by the NADP (National Anti-Doping Panel) saw his suspension lifted, clearing the way for him to fight again. Not surprisingly UKAD and the BBBofC appealed the NADP ruling and his provisional suspension was reimposed on May 10, 2024.
In November 2024, Benn had his provisional suspension lifted once again after an independent NADP panel ruled it was “not comfortably satisfied” that it had been proved he had committed an anti-doping rule violation.
The BBBofC and UKAD both announced they would not appeal.
On the 26th April 2025 Benn and Eubank Jnr finally climbed into the ring and the promoters had the fight they had wanted. Eubank winning by unanimous decision.
Many have questioned whether there really is a legal argument if someone who flagrantly breaks the rules has a right to claim a loss of earnings. It would appear that you are allowed to cheat and if you are found guilty you can still come out on top, so where is the deterrent?
Of course the usual claim comes out whenever there is a positive test that something the offended ate or drank was “contaminated.” That is enough to scare the powers that be as they then have to prove otherwise. Sadly, it appears that the only thing that is contaminated is sport.
While these tales are of athletes taking drugs to enhance their performance there is a very scary topic that no one wishes to discuss, that is currently a problem sweeping elite sport and teh level just below globally and nothing appears to be being done about it. That is the number of elite athletes taking recreational drugs outside of competition.
As parents have asked surely if their child is part of a professional club or an elite national sporting program those running these organisations must have a duty of care?
VADA is a body that is linked to boxing and those who are serious about trying to clean up the sport have engaged them for the fight cards that they promote. Voluntary Anti-Doping Association (VADA) are gaining great respect in their attempts to stamp out performance enhancing drug cheats.
As they state on their website “When conducted, testing is not comprehensive, rarely unannounced and not a deterrent. Sports regulators do not have the man-power, time and funds to thoroughly carry out the task. VADA will be an opportunity for athletes to demonstrate their commitment to clean sport.”
As they have pointed out the national anti doping regulators and the international bodies do not have the manpower or the money to carry through on their task of trying to clean up drug cheats so they will definitely not have the time to target this problem, athletes using recreational drugs.
As one high performance coach pointed out, athletes today are regularly forced to undergo skinfold tests and Body Mass Indexing so they avoid having a beer as that has the potential to see them put on weight. Unlike sportspeople of yesteryear rather than a beer they will pop a pill or do a line of coke for their after match relaxation.
Several coaches that Not The Footy Show spoke to admitted that the powers that be in these organisations do not wish to tackle the problem, let alone look at measures to stop it.
Just like the professional sports where there are large sums of money to be made off the back of individuals, these organisations do not want to suspend a player or ban them for fear that it could impact their performance and earning capabilities, as well as government funding; which is archaically in many countries still results-based.
Should sport remove the line “in competition” from its rules about drugs? That would be the simplest option. Should the clubs and sporting bodies, like many employers be entitled to test their players? Then if found to test positive sanction them accordingly?
This may not work as two allegations were made – neither of which we could verify – that administrators within two organisations were in fact taking recreational drugs with the players. Thus making it hard to sanction the players and not the administrative staff as well.
Many feel that morally employee testing this must happen.
WADA is unlikely to take out the wording “in-competition” as this will simply make more work for them. Yet the powers that be do not appear to adhere to their own rules on this. (I Don’t Wanna Talk About It)
One of the big questions is when is in competition?
Surely if you are in a sporting environment you are always competing. Competing for selection within a team or to be selected to compete in your individual event, so surely you are always in competition?
Taking cocaine as an example, it is banned by WADA as a performance enhancing drug in competition. The reason being that, “cocaine can produce an intense ‘rush’ with users feeling a sense of alertness, arousal, and increased confidence.” It is also said that use of the cocaine violates the spirit of sport.
So imagine players are vying for selection to make a squad, would taking cocaine prior to those in-house trials benefit them? According to this statement it would, so why are players not tested prior to such a trial?
Amphetamines are banned because they are said to improve endurance. MDMA, it is currently viewed by abusers as a performance-enhancing drug affecting both the mood and physical abilities..Ketamine has a number of effects including increased endurance, feeling stronger,, and pain reduction. With this last drug there are concerns related to tolerance, and cardiovascular strain, so those in the testing space are calling for more comprehensive research.
Cannabis is one of the few recreational drugs that it is claimed does not enhance performance. However it has been claimed that some sports in some countries encourage players travelling regularly after games to take it so that it relaxes their muscles post game on the bus or plane.
These are just some of the risks these young athletes are running not mentioning addiction. So do those responsible for protecting the integrity of teh sport and safeguarding its future and its future athletes need to put in place some form of testing? Do they need to draw a line in teh sand irrespective of how good or popular a player is? You break the rules you lose the privilege of playing for that team.
It should not come as a surprise that this is an issue in top flight sport as after all sport we are constantly told is business and many of our top business people are involved in the recreational drug scene.
One thing is for sure, the punishment that Hans-Gunnar Liljenwall suffered does seem incredibly petty by comparison. Who knows maybe his punishment should be reviewed and his medal re-instated? But can you really judge the situation of over 50 years ago by today’s standards?
Certainly sport and the clubs within need to take responsibility of those under their charge as one can see a major incident on the horizon.
