Ethical Dilemma: Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports

If one had an opportunity to be better at their job by cheating, should they do it? Should one cheat all their co-workers, who work just as hard and work honestly? If one knows getting caught could get them in serious trouble, and their reputation could be ruined, how should they respond to the opportunity? In sports, many athletes are given this opportunity through PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs), and although some come to regret their decision, others have never been identified as PED users. PEDs are a widely controversial topic in sports, as the effects of steroids and other drugs can increase the play of an athlete. Furthermore, controversy again arises in how severe the punishment for a player caught doping should be, and speculation

also occurs over the entire system for PED testing. Despite the belief that sports are more enjoyable with players on PEDs, steroids and doping should be illegal from all sports, in order to keep the athletes safe and the play more authentic.
In David E.

Newton’s handbook, called Steroids and Doping in Sports: A Reference Handbook, Newton analyzes the history of steroids, showing how it has evolved over time. Although steroids have only been used for less than fifty years, understanding and interest for steroids dates all the way back to the fourth millennium B.C., when people first became curious about a possible material animals possess for sexual characteristics. The interest developed from the different behaviors by animals that are castrated versus those that are not castrated. Traits observed included aggressiveness, vocalization, and display. No scientific studies occurred on this topic until 1767. In this year, a widely-known English surgeon and physician named John Hunter performed an experiment on chickens. Using four chickens, Hunter removed the testes of two, and transplanted them onto the abdominal cavity of the two other roosters. Although the two chickens that received the testes had no changes, the two chickens that lost the tissue lost many of their natural male characteristics. When describing these chickens, Hunter stated they “grew fat and lazy” (Newton 11). Although this was the first experiment with demasculinization, that was the not the main point of interest or reasoning for Hunter’s project, as he was more interested in the process of tissue transplantation (Newton

11).
The next major milestone came eight decades later, when a German physiologist performed a similar experiment in 1849. He similarly used chickens, but completely castrated four chickens, and semi-castrated two others. After seeing the changes in attitude, Hunter implanted testes into two of the bird’s abdominal cavities, and found that this caused a re-emergence in male sexual characteristics. He later found that this was through newly developed connections between the testes and the chicken’s circulatory system (Newton 11).
The 1970s brought an increase of anti-steroid regulations for athletic competitions, as well as sophisticated testing programs for banned substances. This, however, was overpowered by the actions of the German Democratic Republic, also known as East Germany. In this decade, competitors often noted the unnatural look of the East German athletes, causing speculation about their integrity. Nothing would come of this until the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, when East Germany’s doping program began to surface to the Western world. Documents quickly poured out about the topic over the years, and the entire world understood what East Germany had done (Newton 93-95). Despite these revelations, the International Olympic Committee refused to change results from the Olympic Games of 1976, 1980, and 1988. In an official statement in 1988, the IOC commented, “There are too many variables involved” (Armour, Babashoff: “Dopers Same as Thieves”) due to the passage of time.
East Germany had snuck past the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and other international sports organizations more advanced rules against anabolic steroids, through both their officials and their athletes. The officials found ways to avoid having their athletes detected of doping, while the athletes became specialists of detection avoidance, for example through the use of synthetic urine. Eventually, many involved were brought to criminal trial, and the German government established a fund of $2.5 million to compensate athletes whose lives were drastically altered because of the doping program. In the ‘70s, the same substances grew in popularity in the sport of cycling, and the 1978 Tour de France winner Michel Pollentier was caught after the race for using an illegal steroid. It was discovered Pollentier used a device with clean urine in his test (Newton 93-95).
In the 1980s, more products became available for athletes, and many became important parts of training schedules. In this decade, other performance-enhancing substances were being used more widely. Two of these were human growth hormone and the system of blood doping. This system enhances the ability of blood to get cells oxygen. One of the most common blood doping techniques is blood transfusions. One of the most notorious instances in which a steroid cheater was caught was the 1988 Olympic Games gold medalist Canadian Ben Johnson, who was disqualified after the substance was found. Finally, the 1990s had multiple steroid scandals, most notably the BALCO scandal. This scandal was associated with the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative, who sold steroids to many famous athletes, for example Barry Bonds and Bill Romanowski (Newton 95-100).
Many have taken steroids, realizing the potential associated risks.

Side effects of steroid use include shrinking of testicles and development of breasts in males. Steroids can be prescribed by doctors, but not for physical gain. They are prescribed to treat illnesses, such as AIDS or testicular cancer. Steroids are also prescribed when one has received a surgery, and requires muscle rebuild. It is very dangerous to take steroids without a doctor’s prescription, as, according to Doctor Gary Wadler, there are “… whole panoply of side effects, even with prescribed doses… the effects can be irreversible or undetected until it’s too late,” (Bjornlund 26, “How Dangerous are Performance-Enhancing Drugs?”). Despite the research done on the effects of steroids, not everyone believes in the negative effects of steroids. One of these people is University of Wisconsin at Madison professor of pediatrics and bioethics, Norman Fost, who stated, “… name an athlete who died, or was diagnosed, with a steroid-related cancer, heart disease, or stroke,” (Newton 105). What Fost is saying is that without any direct deaths from steroids, life-threatening effects cannot be professed (Newton 105, Bjornlund 24-26).

Many arguments have been made for legalization of steroids in sports. One of these arguments is that even with rules making steroids illegal, athletes will not stop trying to get the advantage. Athletes may play their respective sport for the love of the game, but all athletes understand

they need to be the best in order to be secured financially, both by team contracts and through endorsements. The steroid industry is always evolving, and testing will forever be steps behind the users.
One telling example of this is through the $31 million lab built by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) to test half the athletes at a past Olympics. Although the lab did prove some athletes used enhancers, surely not every user was caught. This is especially apparent, considering the Olympic scandal involving East Germany, and now with China and Russia’s scandals. In the Russian scandal, over 1,000 athletes in over 30 sports are involved (Will 2017 be the Year to Defeat Sports Doping?). Along with this, in reexaminations of doping tests from the 2008 and 2012 Olympics, over 100 samples have identified dopers, some being medalists (Clean Athletes in the Doping Era, and Glory Lost). Athletes use designer drugs, drugs synthesized to escape drug tests (Why Sports Should Allow Doping). With this in mind, it is logical for the sports leagues to simply legalize the enhancers, realizing they need to save face. Legalizing enhancers will allow athletes to be more public with their usage. This will help enhancer usage to become more acceptable, to both players and fans.
Arguing that steroids should be legalized because athletes will not stop using them has some major flaws. One reason for this is that players are always searching for that extra edge. Some athletes will search new horizons in order to find new methods of cheating. This is explained perfectly by former MLB MVP Ken Caminiti, who stated “… as many major leaguers were juicing as playing it clean,” (To Cheat or Not to Cheat). The question becomes, what will happen with the new methods? This situation historically parallels that of the Civil War. One of the main arguments as to why the Confederacy must be defeated was to not allow the precedent of seceding to prevail. Unionists realized that this would allow groups to attempt secession anytime they had a disagreement with the government. Luckily, the Union won, and this problem has gone away.
Although it is unlikely steroid usage will ever go away, the comparison to the Civil War allows one to understand that continued perseverance will lead to success. It also shows the dangerous precedent that legalization will bring forth. As for possible new horizons players will look for, the horizons may already be found. In David E. Newton’s Steroids and Doping in Sports: A Reference Handbook, it is explained that gene doping will be the next stage of player enhancements. Gene doping involves injecting DNA into a person, usually for therapeutic purposes, but in this case for athletic enhancement. Although the bans will not stop the ever expanding industry of PEDs, it will assuredly impede the speed of growth.
Those pursuing sports steroid legalization also argue that sports with steroids allow for more entertaining competition than sports without steroids, as well as the economic benefits that athletes want. One major point to this is comparisons of drug use in other sports. Musicians or writers may use alcohol or drugs when they write their pieces of work. Some of the greatest pieces of literature of all time, such as Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein and Robert Louis Stevenson’s Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, have been reportedly written or created through drug usage. The question remains, if drug use is allowed in other areas of entertainment, why should athletes be excluded from the opportunity?
From an entertainment standpoint, it is obvious the best players are usually the biggest and strongest, which can be achieved through steroids. It is clear athletes are undoubtedly getting bigger. A study at Michigan State University showed the average lineman in football has both increased in height and weight (Steroids and Doping in Sports: A Reference Handbook). It is almost unthinkable how much larger PED athletes could be. Steroid usage has proven to revive sports leagues. The MLB saw an increase in popularity, thanks to the “Steroid Era.” In the 9 seasons before steroid testing started (in the Steroid Era), the 60 homerun mark was achieved by players six times. Since the testing started, only nine players have hit 50 homeruns in a season, and none have hit 60 (To Cheat or Not to Cheat.)