Geir Helgemo is from time to time called “the horrific boy of the bridge.” And, to be fair to the smiley forty nine-year-antique Norwegian, he does live up to his billing, seeming personally invested in bringing drama to a recreation where the average age of players (at the least inside the US, in which they have got checked) is 71. Now Helgemo, the world’s pinnacle-ranked participant, is involved in clean controversy: this past week he turned into discovered guilty of doping and been banned for a year.
The natural response to this news is: “Whaaa … pills … bridge?” But the information is these: Helgemo changed into observed with synthetic testosterone and clomifene in his system while he became gambling at the World Bridge Series in Orlando in September 2018. He has admitted the violation, though otherwise has remained tight‑lipped (perhaps he’s looking ahead to the call from Oprah). The thought is the medication have been leisure, now not performance-improving, although testosterone has been shown to enhance cognitive function in some research. Clomifene, greater usually utilized infertility treatments, is thought to accelerate testosterone secretion.
World’s No 1 bridge player suspended after failing a capsules test
It is a peculiar case, absolute confidence, but a touch digging shows it is not that odd that either Helgemo or bridge is embroiled in something murky. Helgemo has a popularity for preternatural skill and vertical thinking: he has won titles all around the globe and in 2008 he and his companion, Tor Helness, had been recruited via a Swiss-born, Monaco-based totally actual-estate multimillionaire to play for the Monégasque national crew. They earned properly, lived luxuriously however forgot to pay tax again home in Norway. In 2017 this oversight caught up with them; they had been fined and sentenced to a jail period (Helgemo was given 14 months, reduced to six on enchantment).
The sport of bridge, meanwhile, has a long history of foul play. There was James Bond’s excessive‑stakes game in opposition to Hugo Drax in Ian Fleming’s 1955 novel Moonraker, wherein 007 suavely outmaneuvers the arch-villain (the use of a deck of stacked cards) and wins £15,000. But the actual game is even greater nefarious. There are endless examples of unlawful hand signals between partners, gambling footsie below the table and even the weird 2013 case of the “coughing docs,” a couple of German physicians who were judged to be communicating with each different via clearing their throats. They denied the fee – it changed into allergies, one spluttered – but had never been allowed to partner once more.
One of the best scandals erupted in 2015 and involved Fulvio Fantoni and Claudio Nunes, Italian players who had been teammates of Helgemo inside the all-star Monaco lineup. (The New Yorker compared the multi-pronged affair to “the harm that Lance Armstrong did.”) Helgemo isn’t always even the first bridge participant to be busted for doping: Iceland’s Disa Eythorsdottir needed to hand again the silver medal she won at the 2002 world championships in Montreal after refusing to take a drug test.
Bridge tournaments may be attritional, occasionally lasting more than weeks. Prize cash and bonuses can run to six figures. The marvel indeed isn’t always that Helgemo cheated but that every person is amazed that he did. He isn’t the first and will genuinely no longer be the ultimate.
The records of doping are sort of as long as the records of recreation. Early efforts had been regularly ham-fisted, which include the American marathon runner Thomas Hicks who became given a cocktail of brandy, egg whites and strychnine (AKA rat poison) on the 1904 Olympics. Admirably, Hicks won, though wildly hallucinating, he had to be carried across the line.
Even in modern times, the efficacy of different tablets can be hard to verify. In January Dutch pétanque gamers went public with the claim that their Belgian rivals took cocaine mid-game to improve their overall performance. “They visit the restroom and do not throw an incorrect ball when they arrive back,” huffed Edward Vinke. “They definitely feel just like the king.”
It can be challenging to get too riled using such malfeasance. It is straightforward to record it inside the novelty, the what-the-hell-had been-they-thinking category of the Russian curler, Aleksandr Krushelnitckii, who needed to give up his bronze gained within the combined-doubles opposition at the Winter Olympics in 2018 after checking out superb for the blood glide-boosting drug medium. Curiously, Krushelnitckii’s teammate and wife, Anastasia Bryzgalova, had no strains of the banned substance.
But what these semi-comedian reviews sincerely inform is simply how giant dishonest is. It is going on in every game. It exists anyplace there may be prestige and money to be received.
Fernando Ricksen: ‘I like residing an excessive amount of, I’m no longer prepared to move.’
One of the few humans to get exercised through Helgemo’s offense turned into Michael Rasmussen, the Danish bicycle owner. He is aware of a factor or seven about doping: from 1998 to 2010, he used EPO, boom hormone, testosterone, cortisone, insulin, DHEA and had blood transfusions. On Twitter Rasmussen wrote: “1 (one) 12 months ban for testing tremendously for clomifene and testosterone isn’t actually in sync with different bans for similar doping offenses. By the manner he’s Norwegian, and they don’t cheat. At the maximum, they’re asthmatic… #6000doses #PyeonChang.”
There is probably a Denmark-Norway dig going over my head here however the hashtags check with the tale that the Norwegian Olympic delegation took greater than 6,000 doses of allergies medication for his or her 109 athletes competing at the 2018 Games in South Korea.
Meanwhile more incontrovertible doping tales continue to make headlines. This past week in Austria five skiers had been arrested at the Nordic skiing international championships: each from the host nation and Estonia, one from Kazakhstan. One Austrian, Max Hauke, who awkwardly takes place to be a police cadet, changed into caught inside the raid mid-transfusion, a needle in his arm.
On the Science(ish) podcast the University of Essex’s Professor Chris Cooper, creator of Run, Swim, Throw, Cheat, changed into requested if doping might ever be removed from sport. He was certain it might no longer. Trying to forestall it’s far like trying to banish crime from society. “If there’s a massive enough praise,” he stated, “a few humans will usually try to cheat.”
And if we need evidence of that announcement, we need only observe the recent records now not best of athletics and cycling but also of bridge and pétanque. Perhaps, with the countrywide singles title developing for rivalry in April, all eyes must be on tiddlywinks.
We made a preference…
… and we need to inform you approximately it. We made a choice which means that our journalism now reaches record numbers round the sector and greater than 1,000,000 human beings have supported our reporting. We continue to stand financial challenges but, not like many news firms, we’ve got chosen no longer to place up a paywall. We need our journalism to remain accessible to all, no matter where they stay or what they could find the money for.
This is The Guardian’s model for open, impartial journalism: to be had for all people, funded by way of our readers. We depend on contributions from our readers. Will you support our desire?
Readers’ support powers our paintings, safeguarding our vital editorial independence. This method the responsibility of protecting unbiased journalism is shared, enabling us all to sense empowered to result in actual exchange in the world. Your aid gives Guardian reporters the time, space and freedom to record with tenacity and rigour, to shed light in which others received’t. It emboldens us to assignment authority and question the status quo. And via keeping all of our journalism loose and open to all, we will foster inclusivity, range, make space for debate, inspire verbal exchange – so greater people have get admission to to correct facts with integrity at its heart.
Guardian journalism is rooted in statistics with a revolutionary perspective on the sector. We are editorially independent, meaning we set our own agenda. Our journalism is loose from business bias and no longer prompted through billionaire owners, politicians or shareholders. No one steers our opinion. At a time while there are so few sources of records you could truely accept as true with, this is important as it allows us to give a voice to those much less heard, task the effective and keep them to account. Your help manner we will hold investigating and exploring the crucial troubles of our time.
Our model permits human beings to help us in a way that works for them. Every time a reader such as you makes a contribution to The Guardian, no matter how big or small, it goes without delay into funding our journalism. But we want to build on this support for the years in advance.