Performance-enhancing drugs have long been an issue in professional sports. For as long as sporting events have existed, people have been trying to make themselves stronger, faster and better than their competition; this is the nature of competition and competitive events. However, the changing face of medical knowledge and technology has made a new type of performance enhancement possible: performance-enhancing drugs. These drugs can take many different forms, most of which are strictly controlled by the various governing bodies for each sport. In some countries, these drugs are not restricted, while in others, they are restricted entirely; for the sake of clarity and argument, this paper will mainly focus on the policies regarding performance-enhancing drugs in the United States.
There is a very real ethical dilemma facing athletes and athletic conferences regarding performance-enhancing drugs. However, before the discussion of ethics can even be considered, it is important to understand the different types of drugs that are commonly tested for in athletics, and why they are banned by different governing bodies.
Essentially, a performance-enhancing drug is anything that an athlete takes to improve his or her performance in an athletic event (Bosch, 2012). The most commonly-known performance-enhancing drugs are anabolic steroids; these are stereotypically used by bodybuilders and other athletes that require a large amount of muscle mass. However, there are a few different categories of performance-enhancing drugs, many of which are banned in most athletic conferences.
The main types of performance-enhancing drugs are lean mass builders, stimulants, painkillers, sedatives, and diuretics (“Should performance enhancing drugs (such as steroids) be accepted in sports?”, 2012). Lean mass builders encompass things like anabolic steroids, xenoandrogens, and human growth hormone (“Should performance enhancing drugs (such as steroids) be accepted in sports?”, 2012). Stimulants may involve drugs like caffeine or even prescription drugs like Adderall, while painkillers may be as mild as aspirin or as powerful as Oxycodone. Sedatives may be things like beta blockers, and are sometimes used in events where a steady hand is important, like archery or shooting. Lastly, diuretics are used when athletes need to cut water weight; wrestlers commonly use these to qualify during their weigh-ins (“Should performance enhancing drugs (such as steroids) be accepted in sports?”, 2012).
Not all of these drugs are banned by all athletic governing bodies, but there are a few that are widely banned. When an individual is drug tested and tests positive for a drug that is banned, it often qualifies that individual for restriction or outright banishment from the athletic conference. Many people involved in athletics believe that using banned substances or even controlled substances counts as cheating in athletic events, but this begs the question of why using performance-enhancing drugs is ethically wrong in the first place.
It has recently come to light that one of the most famous cyclists of all time, Lance Armstrong, was using performance-enhancing drugs when he won his Tour de France titles. The cycling governing body quickly stripped Armstrong of his titles, declaring that he cheated. There is even a federal case pending against him, and many of his sponsors are suing him for money that they gave him while he was racing.
In regards to the Lance Armstrong doping case, Michael Brugmagin asks a variety of tough questions about performance-enhancing drugs. He writes:
Chew on this: If athletes can find ways to circumvent drug policies, either by using cutting edge supplements or masking agents, to up their performance and play at a higher level, what is their reward? What is their consequence?
The reward is easy. Money. Regardless of the sport, the motivation to cheat will almost always be based around money. For a Major League Baseball player in a financial environment that includes large guaranteed contracts, the ideology is simple: up my performance enough to get a bigger contract. (2012).
Whether or not these drugs should be banned relies almost entirely on the question of why they are banned. If, as Brugmagin suggests, they are banned because of political tides within a sport, then the ethics of the ban should be called into question. However, if the drugs are banned because of safety concerns or health hazards, the ethics of the ban have a much more solid foundation.
One commonly-banned drug in most organized competitions is the anabolic steroid. Steroids have long been the quintessential “performance-enhancing drug,” but they were not always banned in competition. It was not until the 1980s that the drug was banned by the Olympic committee and other important athletic organizations (Bosch, 2012). However, even today. anabolic steroids are not only used to stimulate muscle growth; they can be used as a legitimate treatment for medical conditions.
When governing bodies test athletes for drugs, there are often a variety of exceptions that an athlete can utilize to avoid testing positive for things like steroids. Indeed, the most well-connected, richest athletes can see excellent doctors and be prescribed performance-enhancing drugs. When a doctor prescribes these drugs, most athletic governing bodies accept that the drug is necessary for the athlete and allow the existence of the drug in the athlete’s system (Bbc.co.uk, 2012).
Is there a distinction between performance-enhancing drugs and the other ways in which athletes modify and stress their bodies? To justify banning a chemical, ingesting that chemical should be fundamentally different from having laser eye surgery to fix one’s vision, or wearing a different swimsuit to reduce drag. All athletes do things that they hope will give them an edge over their competition-- in what ways are performance-enhancing drugs different from high-end gear, doctor supervision, or even excellent trainers?
Some will say that athletes are meant to compete with the physical gifts that they are given, and that ingesting different chemicals to improve their performance is a way of cheating nature. However, this does not circumvent the previously-stated question: why is better or higher-end training and equipment different from enhancing the body’s abilities internally?
Many people believe that performance-enhancing drugs are wrong, but have difficulty making a true distinction between equipment, training, and performance-enhancing drugs. The best defence for all-natural athletics should stem from the idea that gear or training enhances an athlete’s natural abilities, while performance-enhancing drugs may give them abilities that they would never be able to obtain naturally. It is a fundamentally weak argument, but it is the best one against the parallel between equipment or training and performance-enhancing drugs.
The best argument against performance-enhancing drugs is the idea that many of them are unsafe. Anabolic steroids, for example, can cause major problems with an individual’s hormone levels, causing him or her to go into rages (Pound, 1996). One committee on athletic doping writes. “The Committee takes the view that performance enhancing drugs should be banned because they can potentially damage the health of those taking them, whether they are elite athletes who stand the risk of being detected using them, or the recreational sportsperson who is unlikely ever to be tested” (BBC.co.uk, 2012). However, not all drugs that are banned by these committees are proven to be dangerous: beta-blockers, for instance, have not been shown to be dangerous, and yet they are on the banned drugs list. Similarly, THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, is a banned substance; it seems ridiculous to assume that this drug is a performance-enhancing substance (Pound, 1996).
The Olympic Committee on drug use, for example, states: “.. the use of doping agents in sport is both unhealthy and contrary to the ethics of sport it is necessary to protect the physical and spiritual health of athletes, the values of fair play and competition, the integrity and unity of sport and the rights of those who take part in it at whatever level” (BBC.co.uk, 2012). In this case, the Olympic Committee is making an appeal to the spirit of competition, rather than the fairness of the analogy; drugs, they state, are contrary to what athletics stand for as a whole. While this seems a fair point to make for the Olympic Committee, it is important to remember that Olympic athletes are, by definition, amatuer athletes; for athletes who make a living doing their sport, performance is much more important for their livelihood.
Should certain drugs be banned from athletics? This is a question that has many facets, very few of which have to do with the well-being of the athletes within the sport. The well-being of athletes should be the primary concern of an athletic governing body, and by bringing politics into the mix, these governing bodies are abandoning their responsibility to the athletes under their care.
The question of whether a drug should be banned is simple: if an athlete is under a doctor’s care and consideration, then the athlete should be free to ingest whatever chemical the doctor recommends. This is not a foolproof solution by any means, as there are morally and ethically bankrupt doctors out there, but it is a much better solution than allowing the politics of drug testing and drug use to get in the way of competition.
References
Bbc.co.uk (2010). BBC - Ethics - Sporting Ethics: Body Modification. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/sport/debate/drawingline_1.shtml [Accessed: 26 Feb 2013].
Bosch, T. (2012). Performance-Enhancing Drugs for Sports and for School: What’s More Unethical?. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2012/05/09/comparing_the_ethics_of_performance_enhancing_drug_use_in_school_and_in_sports_.html [Accessed: 26 Feb 2013].
Brugmagin, M. (2013). The Dilemma of Moral Ethics in Sports. [online] Retrieved from: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1309625-performance-enhancing-drugs-the-dilemma-of-moral-ethics-in-sports [Accessed: 26 Feb 2013].
Gould, K. (2012). Women's MMA Responds to Cris Cyborg Positive Steroid Test on Twitter. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/1/7/2689403/womens-mma-responds-to-cris-cyborg-santos-positive-steroid-test-twitter [Accessed: 26 Feb 2013].
Pound, R. (1996). Ethics Surrounding the Use of Performance-Enhancing Drugs. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/544378 [Accessed: 26 Feb 2013].
Sportsanddrugs.procon.org (2012). -Should performance enhancing drugs (such as steroids) be accepted in sports? [online] Retrieved from: http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=1200 [Accessed: 26 Feb 2013].
Wayne, M. (2012). Cristiane 'Cyborg' Santos Stripped Of Title & Suspended After Positive Steroid Test - FightLine.com. [online] Retrieved from: http://www.fightline.com/fl/news/2012/0106/546906/cristiane-cyborg-santos/ [Accessed: 26 Feb 2013].
