Should Performance Enhancing Drugs Be Banned Persuasive Essay

Stop The Dope
The use of performance enhancing drugs pose several threats to an athletes health, gives athletes an unfair advantage, and can bring a lost of spirit and integrity for the sporting event and athlete. In athletics there is a code for the use of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs referred to as the World Anti-Doping Code. This code is enforced by the World Anti-Doping Agency and reads:
The code bans a substance or procedure if it meets any two of these criteria: 1) it endangers the athlete's health; 2) it "enhances sport performance"; or 3) it "violates the spirit of sport." Things that pose clear health risks—very high hemoglobin levels, for instance—are easy calls. But what about things that don't? If all enhancements were forbidden, the code points out, we'd have to ban training, red meat, and carbohydrate loading. That would be preposterous. But in the next

breath, the code says enhancement through gene transfer "should be prohibited as contrary to the spirit of sport even if it is not harmful.

From the World Anti-Doping Code I reviewed the three areas I believe are most affected by the use of performance enhancing drugs or steroids in athletes. The areas are the criteria of the code include: the endangerment of an athlete’s health, the unfair advantage taking a performance enhancing drug can provide, and the loss of integrity that may come as a result of being exposed while under the influence a performance enhancing drug.
The first criteria is the unfair advantages that are awarded when an athlete uses a performance enhancing drug. By taking these drugs the athletes hope to achieve something more than perfection, “Every athlete knows how to exceed perfection. A steroid here…hormone there…you’ve got the speed, power, or stamina to get the gold.” (Saletan). The athletes that participate in the use of performance enhancing drugs or ‘doping’ to get an advantage are no better than those who cheat their way through school, or those who cheat in anything. An example of doping gone wrong, or in the athlete’s mind, good, is in the 2003 World Championships when after doping a female sprinter won two gold medals. The excuse given for athletes using these drugs is that they train for months and months and sometimes these drugs that the athletes are using are helping them recover from training faster.
Someone arguing that steroids should be allowed could argue that if everyone was allowed to use these performance enhancing drugs, then there could be no arguments made about their consumption providing an unfair advantage. Also, if athletes were allowed to use performance enhancing drugs they could use these drugs in order to be able to train longer and harder, and recover in a shorter amount of time. Another argument that could be made is that by allowing the use of performance enhancing drugs the competition becomes greater. The sport could become more interesting if athletes were allowed to dope up and push their limits. An article talking about the unfair advantages of doping gives a quote from Victor Conte, who used to help athletes dope up, “It makes you like a machine. You just don't get tired…by the fourth quarter there’s a huge edge.”
Another factor going against the use of performance enhancing drugs not only in athletics, but in everyday life is the threat it poses to ones health. Anabolic steroids pose a large threat to the health of the individual who consumes them, the side effects can include, but are not limited to: ““Roid rage,” or uncontrollable aggression, stems from taking anabolic steroids. So do kidney and liver damage…shrunken testicles and enlarged breasts in men and facial hair, a deepened voice, and enlarged clitoris in women.” (Douglas). Side effects such as these seem to be in the extremes and are a warning sign against the drugs perhaps. Any substance that can cause kidney or liver damage is one that should not be allowed to be used in athletics even if others were legal, these are side effects that will leave permanent damage to ones vital organs.
Another type of performance enhancing drug is EPO, otherwise known as erythropoietin. This is a glycoprotein hormone that is in control of erythropoiesis or red blood cell production. The early attempts at using erythropoietin were fatal in many cases. “EPO boosts endurance not only by brining more oxygen to muscles, but also by speeding up removal of metabolic waste, delaying the onset of fatigue.” (Hruby). Though erythropoietin does not appear to be dangerous at a glance, the danger lies in the over production of red blood cells that causes an increase in the blood’s viscosity. In other words, the blood mainly consists of red blood cells and plasma after having used erythropoietin.
Another type of performance enhancing drug that can be used by athletes is known as HGH or human growth hormone. This type of drug has great dangers associated with it, Scott Douglas said, “It can lead to heart failure, arthritis and its outward tell-tale sign: acromegaly, or disfigurement of the jaw, skull, hands and feet.” Two athletes who are known for having used human growth hormone in conjunction with other steroids are Tour de France cyclist, Lance Armstrong, and Olympic track and field athlete, Marion Jones.
The argument that can be used to balance out the issue of health concerns is that by using these drugs an athlete is consenting to the possible effects that can occur. In the earlier days of performance enhancing drug use the effects on health were not so commonly known as they are now. But, now in 2014 we are able to see how devastating these drugs can be to an athletes health. In other words, those who are pro performance enhancing drugs could argue that the athlete is completely aware of all possible outcomes that may occur from the consumption or use of any of these drugs.
The final factor is that of integrity. People look up to athletes, not only children, but adults as well. Though athletes should not be the most looked up to in society, that is often the case. Children grow up watching athletes compete in all kinds of events, from the Olympics to just minor league or major league games. Athletes achieve outstanding feats, winning gold medals or world championships sometimes to only have those moments taken away due to poor decisions. Tim Burns said, “Imagine having those moments tarnished. …fierce competition would still exist without doping and the risk to their livelihood it too great….” Tim is trying to say that sporting events could still be interesting and full of competition if no one was doping and there would be no chance of having a careers worth of achievements taken away. Along with the athletes losing their integrity, doping and being exposed for doping causes the “…spirit of the sport…” (Saletan).
The other side to this argument could be that if doping was allowed then the loss of integrity due to being exposed would not be an issue. If the athletes were legally allowed to utilize the performance enhancing drugs to their extent and not lose their achievements no one would be let down after finding out that their ‘hero’ has used a performance enhancing drug. “these athletes are not “victims of doping” — they are the poster boys.” (Burns). This statement could be made even more true with the legalization of performance enhancing drugs, these athletes could in fact be ‘poster boys’ for doping and nothing could be said negatively towards the athlete for supporting something that would be legal and commonly used.
Going against performance enhancing drugs seems to be the way to go after examining the possible effects of using.

The use of performance enhancing drugs can lead to great health issues, can provide unfair advantages to those who are in the right and not doping up, and can cause the spirit of the sport to be violated and the loss of an athlete’s integrity. Though one could argue against each of these three criteria and have a valid argument, I believe that the dangers to an athletes health are reason enough for the ban on performance enhancing drugs to continue. Using these drugs can have extreme effects on bodily organs and the quality of life an athlete will lead after their use. The dangers that using a performance enhancing drug could bring to one’s health is not the only issue, causing the spirit of the sport to be violated is also an important reason. Many people look up to athletes or love a sport, but their support for the athlete as well as their support for that particular sporting event is in danger when an illegal act is committed within that

sport.
In conclusion, all performance enhancing drugs that meet two or more of the criteria included in the World Anti-Doping code should continue to be prohibited. The performance enhancing drugs should be prohibited due to the possible effects of using. The dangers to an athlete’s health, integrity, and their unfair advantage are reason enough to ban these substances from being used in any and all sporting events.

Works Cited
Burns, Tim. "Doping Undermines the Integrity of Competition." Doping. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Doping: A Fan's Lament." The Yarn. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
Douglas, Scott. “Doping Can Harm Athletes.” Doping. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from “Choose Performance- Enhancing Hugs: The Health Fundamental of Doping.” The Atlantic (22 Jan. 2013). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
Hruby, Patrick. “Doping Provides an Unfair Advantage.” Doping. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from “Why Wouldn't NBA Players Use PEDs?” Sports on Earth. 2013. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.
Saletan, William. "The Rules Against Performance-Enhancing Drugs Are Arbitrary." The Olympics. Ed. Tamara L. Roleff. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2009. At Issue. Rpt. from "Turin Sample: The Nonsense of Olympic Doping Rules." Slate. 2006. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 14 Nov. 2014.