Making Sport, Sport Again: Deliberating The Banning P-Eds In Sports

Making Sport, Sport Again: Liberating the Ban on P-EDs in Sports

Controlling doping in sport has been a growing problem since the issue of doping has risen in the 1960s (3). This is due to the fact that doping activity cannot be tested for because the methods of doping are changing. Cheating in sport is usually deceptive and hidden, this occurs either by the cheating being done in secret or by finding ways to suppress key information (3). Cheating also occurs when someone breaks a rule that gives them an advantage over others (3). The ban on performance enhancing drugs should be lifted because it would decrease the cheating in sport and increase the autonomy of the athlete.
Suits’ believes that games are defined by their rules (3, p. 232).

He believes cheating and winning are logically incompatible, which brings us to the logical incompatibility thesis (3, p. 232). The logical incompatibility thesis states that if one cheats during a game, they cannot win (3, p. 232). Since Suits’ believes games are defined by their rules, if someone is breaking a rule, there is no game happening (3, p. 232). Performance enhancing drugs (P-EDs) are banned in sports by WADA (world anti-doping association). By banning P-EDs, if someone is to use them (which a lot of people do), there would be no game happening. If there is no game happening, according to (early) Suits, Meier, Holt & Holt and Loy, sport would not be happening as well (5, p. 60, 2, p. 101, 4, p. 35).
Brown states that sports have evolved parallel to our technology (1, p. 224). It is not acceptable to ban drugs and not ban training techniques, food, medical care and equipment (1, p. 225). Those aspects of training would give an athlete an advantage over another athlete who does not have those things (1, p. 225). It is not legitimate that those methods are not considered cheating but P-ED use is considered cheating. I agree with Brown when he states that autonomy, honesty and fairness are essential to being human, and thus are present in sports which involve humans (1, p. 225).
Drugs that are used to improve natural potential, or P-EDs, are banned because they claim to destroy the idea of fairness of the victory.

I do not believe that fairness is the only determinant of victory during sport. Sport holds values of teamwork, growth, learning, courage and determination (7). By banning P-EDs because they decide the victor in sport, you are undermining the other values an athlete must hold to be successful. The idea in sport is not for all to come out equally, it is for the individual who has the greatest ability and motivation to succeed. By allowing everyone to use P-EDs, you are putting everyone back on the same playing field. This is written with the assumption that the reader is aware that there are many athletes who are doping that will never be reprimanded.
Athletes make various choices throughout their careers in regards to nutrition and exercise which can ultimately lead to a physiological change in body composition. These choices are a product of the teamwork, growth, learning courage and determination that was previously discussed. The key point is that the athlete should be able to make the choices to change their body composition because choices are a key part of being a strong athlete. If the winner in sport is using P-EDs, then it should be because the athlete made the informed decision to take them, not because somebody else made that decision for them.

(7)
There are aspects of training that athletes are coerced into that are not illegal (9). For example, athletes engage in weight lifting to become stronger (9). They are coerced into it because they must do it to remain competitive with their peers (9). Coercion is deemed unacceptable when it involves a serious or significant health risk (9). It is true that taking P-EDs can be dangerous, but I have yet to see a safe game of NFL football (9). Everything in sport comes with its own risks and it should be up to the athlete to decide which of those risks they would like to accept. If P-EDs were legalized, the risks of doping would be avoidable, but the risks of the sport itself would never be avoidable (10). Some sports can lessen their risks by using proper equipment, following the rules, and having a referee but cannot completely eliminate the risk. P-ED risks are completely avoidable by simply not using them (10).
It can be argued that if doping was allowed, then sports would just turn into a form of “drug race” (7).

This is not true because the drugs are not what is allowing the athlete to excel. The hours of training that this athlete is putting into their event is what is allowing them to win. Sport is not about being slow and boring, people enjoy watching fast-paced movements that they could not reciprocate themselves. People want to be captivated and amazed by the stunts that these athletes are demonstrating, and I believe P-EDs would only help that. Taking P-EDs would not change the sport because the sport would still have the same rules, the same equipment and the same players (7). Taking P-EDs while training is simply another form of training in which all athletes

undergo.
P-EDs are not only taken in sports, but are also being taken during performances by musicians (7). They use beta blockers to control their stage fright (7). Beta blockers lower heart rate and blood pressure, which are the physiological reactions to stress (7). It has been proven that the performances of these musicians are improved while taking beta blockers (7). We do not think any less of a pianist who uses beta blockers, but we would frown upon an athlete doing the same (7). If the crowd feels the performance was better with the drugs, then the musician has made that choice to further their performance by consuming the drug (7). The athlete would not have the same rights to make that decision (7).
It is up to the athlete to make the choice of which (if any) P-ED to take if legalized, and also where to draw the line. The athlete and their team of specialists should be able to differentiate the blurred of line of where performance benefits turn to health risks. This flows nicely with the idea autonomy. If the athlete is able to make safe, healthy and educated choices, they should be allowed to take P-EDs (1, p. 217). Individuals need to make modifications in many regions of their lives in order to be a successful athlete (10). This means that the athlete should be at liberty to make decisions with the knowledge that their actions will have consequences (10).
Overall, if the ban were lifted on performance enhancing drugs, it would still be the qualities of the athletes that would determine the results (8, p. 210). We must not fall into a “hard” paternalist point of view where we always want to be controlling the choices of athletes (1, p. 224). Athletes have the right to autonomy and should not be subject to coercion by coaches or other personnel. Doping is no different when talking about risks as weight lifting, or the dangers within the sport. In conclusion, I believe legalizing P-EDs would decrease the cheating in sports, and increase the autonomy of the athlete.