Why are performance enhancing drugs illegal?
As a society we have an obligation to maintain public safety.
In our lifetime we often make decisions where we must identify risks and assess risks. If something has the potential to cause you harm, you should be aware of the risks.
If an athlete is clearly made aware of the risks, should they have the right to use substances created in the laboratory to enhance their performance?
But that's not fair!
As a society do we have an obligation to maintain fairness? Isn't science and technology already creating a competitive edge for those who can afford it?
What about the athletes that have armies of scientists, nutritionists, coaches, and physical therapists choreographing their every move?
Sports medicine has progressed so much in recent years, but does every athlete have the same access to these advancements?
Does a third world athlete have access to the same nutritionists, the same scientists, as someone from a more developed nation?
What about the families that mortgage their future, put their lives in hock to give their child athletes access to world class trainers who are known for developing world class athletes?
Is it fair? Do you care that it is fair?
Should performance enhancing drugs be accepted in sports?
The following quote is from the section on Sports and Drugs from the website ProCon.org. Sharon Ryan, PhD, Chair of the Department of Philosophy at West Virginia University, poses some interesting questions in the following August 2008 article titled "What's So Bad About Performance Enhancing Drugs?," published in Philosophy and Football:
"It would be interesting to know the effects of PEDs under legalized and carefully monitored conditions. Athletes are buying drugs from people like Victor Conte, who has no pharmaceutical or sports medicine credentials, and they are shooting up in locker room stalls. If PEDs were used properly and developed in reputable labs by top scientists, perhaps the risks of PEDs would be much lower. Perhaps PEDs could be developed that have very little risk and enormous benefits. These are serious questions for the scientists to figure out..."
Better living through science?
To those who say that athletes should have to rely on their natural abilities, where do you draw the lines?
Athletes use oxygen tents to simulate altitude, should that be allowed?
Metal plates and assorted other medical hardware are used to repair broken limbs to a better than natural state, should that be allowed?
Should any drug or procedure that allows the healing process to happen more quickly be allowed?
What about pain killers, or shooting up an injured limb to dull the pain, does that give the athlete a better chance to perform beyond their natural abilities?
Sports as entertainment
If you look at sports in the light of being entertainment, then why should the athletes be any different than other entertainers?
Repeated enhancements of various body parts have been known to cause medical problems, even death. So why don't we make it illegal for our actors and actresses to have false body parts, tummy tucks, hair plugs, and assorted other forms of cosmetic surgery?
The world of entertainment is full of false heroes, doped up intimation stars, made believe idiots. Why would you think sports be any different?
Links to read more: