Over the past decade, the sports world has been rocked by revelations that world-class athletes have used performance-enhancing drugs. During 2002, major league baseball players Jose Canseco and Ken Caminiti alleged that a large percentage of players used steroids to enhance their performance; since 2003, Barry Bonds, who holds the record from most home runs in a season, has continually been dogged by allegations of having used steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. In 2006 Tour de France winner Floyd Landis was fired from his team after testing positive for the steroid testosterone.
The use of steroids has not been confined to professional athletes. Young athletes have died as a result of steroid use, leading to bans on performance-enhancing drugs in high school and college programs. Nonetheless, doubts remain about the effectiveness of these tests and the fairness of some of the resulting bans. Some people argue that the whole approach is deeply flawed.
PROS
Using performance-enhancing drugs is an issue of free- dom of choice. If athletes wish to take drugs in search of improved performances, let them do so. They harm nobody but themselves and should be treated as adults capable of making rational decisions on the basis of widely available information. We should not forbid them performance-enhancing drugs even if such drugs have long-term adverse effects. We haven’t outlawed tobacco and boxing, which are proven health risks.
What is the distinction between natural and unnatural enhancement? Athletes use all sorts of dietary supple- ments, exercises, equipment, clothing, training regimes, medical treatments, etc., to improve their performance. There is nothing “natural” about taking vitamin pills or wearing whole-body Lycra suits. Diet, medicine, technology, and even coaching already give an artificial advantage to those athletes who can afford the best of all these aids. As there is no clear way to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate artificial aids to performance, they should all be allowed.
Legalizing performance-enhancing drugs levels the play- ing field. Currently, suspicion about drug use surrounds every sport and every successful athlete. Those competi- tors who don’t take performance-enhancing drugs see themselves as (and often are) disadvantaged. There are no tests for some drugs, and, in any case, new medical and chemical advances mean that cheaters will always be ahead of the testers. Legalization would remove this uncertainty and allow everyone to compete openly and fairly.
Legalizing these drugs will provide better entertainment for spectators. Sport has become a branch of the enter-
CONS
Once some people choose to use these drugs, they infringe on the freedom of choice of other athletes. Athletes are very driven individuals who go to great lengths to achieve their goals. To some, the chance of a gold medal in two years time may outweigh the risks of serious long-term health problems. We should protect athletes from themselves and not allow anyone to take performance-enhancing drugs.
Where to draw the line between legitimate and illegiti- mate performance enhancement? Difficult though that may be, we should nonetheless continue to draw a line: first, to protect athletes from harmful drugs; second, to preserve the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings at their peak of natural fitness. Eating a balanced diet and using the best equipment are clearly in a different category from taking steroids and growth hormones. We should continue to make this distinction and aim for genuine drug-free athletic competitions.
Legalization is very bad for athletes. The use of perfor- mance-enhancing drugs leads to serious health problems, including “steroid rage,” the development of male char- acteristics in female athletes, heart attacks, and greatly reduced life expectancy. Some drugs are also addictive.
Spectators enjoy the competition between athletes rather than individual performances; a close race is better than
tainment business, and the public demands “higher, faster, stronger” from athletes. If drug-use allows athletes to continually break records or makes football players bigger and more exciting to watch, why deny the specta- tors what they want, especially if the athletes want to give it to them?
Current rules are very arbitrary and unfair. For example, the Olympics forbids athletes from using cold medi- cines, even in sports where the stimulants in these medi- cines would have minimal effects on performance. There is also the possibility that some positive tests are simply the result of using a combination of legal food supple- ments. Cyclists legally have heart operations to allow increased circulation and thus improve performance, but they would be banned if they were to use performance- enhancing drugs.
In many countries bans on performance-enhancing drugs fail to stand up in court. The legal basis for drug testing and the subsequent barring of transgressors from further participation is open to challenge, both as restraint of trade and invasion of privacy. Sports governing bodies often fight and lose such court cases, wasting vast sums of money.
If drugs were legal, they could be controlled and moni- tored by doctors, making them much safer. Athletes on drugs today often take far more than needed for perfor- mance enhancement because of ignorance and the need for secrecy. Legalization would facilitate the exchange of information on drugs, and open medical supervision will avoid many of the health problems currently associ- ated with performance-enhancing drugs.
a no-contest in a world record time. Similarly, they enjoy displays of skill more than simple raw power. In any case, why should we sacrifice the health of athletes for the sake of public enjoyment?
What about the children? Even if performance-enhanc- ing drugs were legalized only for adults, how would you control the problem among children? Teenage ath- letes train alongside adults and share the same coaches. Many would succumb to the temptation and pressure to use drugs if these were widely available and effectively endorsed by legalization. Young athletes are unable to make fully rational, informed choices about drug taking, and the health impact on their growing bodies would be even worse than for adult users. Legalization of per- formance-enhancing drugs would also send a positive message about drug culture in general, making the use of “recreational drugs” with all their accompanying evils more widespread.
Legalization discriminates against poor nations. Far from creating a level playing field, legalization would tilt it in favor of those athletes from wealthy countries with advanced medical and pharmaceutical industries. Athletes from poorer nations would no longer be able to compete on talent alone.
Reform is preferable to surrender. The current testing regime is not perfect, but better research, testing, and funding, plus sanctions against uncooperative countries and sports could greatly improve the fight against drugs in sports.
PROS CONS
Sample Motions:
This House would legalize the use of performance-enhancing drugs for athletes. This House would win at all costs.
This House believes your pharmacist is your best friend.
Web Link:
• Sports Supplements Danger. <http://www.consumerreports.org/main/detail.jsp?CONTENT<>cnt_id=59279&FOLDER<>folder_ id=18151&bmUID=992904313175> Overview of issues surrounding the use of sports supplements.
Further Reading:
0|The Debatabase Book