It could be argued that athletes perform because of drugs (the naturally-occurring type, like serotonin, in their brains). Indeed, what seperates YOu from the sucessful marathon runner is that HE/SHE makes MORE serotonin than you do! You or I would probably quit a 27 mile run…because of the pain and exhaustion (runner friends of mine tell me that you feel HORRIBLE at the end of a marathon). However, the professional runner has a brain that secretes more of the serotonin,which gives him a “runner’s high”, and enables him to keep running despite the pain!
So can us “serotonin-deprived” people leagally take drug supplements? 
What is being lost here slighlty is that most of the banned drugs have unpleasant or even fatal side-effects. For that reason alone, steriods etc should be banned.
Even if a drug was fairly harmless, then athletes would be tempted to overdose on it until it became harmful.
But the real reason that drugs should be banned is that sport is dull, dull, dull. The only interesting bit of most olympics is seeing who has got caught and what excuses they can come up with (honest guv, my wheetos must have been spiked). Ben Johnson is the only bit of the Soeul olympics anyone can remember. Those two greeks athletes today that crashed after running from a drugs test sure livened up the opening ceremony
I would suggest that these things are relatively safe means of increasing performance. The problem with allowing drug use is that it may well be the case that the most reckless wins the gold medal. One could even envisage a particular enhancement which gave you superhuman speed and strength for 10 seconds but killed you immediately thereafter. What kind of competition would such a person be winning, exactly?
This argument reinforces in my my mind that the current regime just does not cut it. I can only see two logical positions:
-
Allow athletes to use drugs. Ensure that they have drug advice from specialist doctors who can construct a prescriptive program that minimises the damage that athletes inflict upon themselves.
-
Maximise the possibility that athletes will not benefit from cheating. Lifetime bans. Contracts that allow litigation by disadvantaged competitors for monies awarded to cheats for or because of successes achieved through drug abuse.
I can see an argument that, with regard to drug abuse, the leniency of current penalties for cheats is an insufficient deterrent and, by implication, it encourages sportsmen to harm themselves.
Drugs that are undetectable today may become detectable tommorow with advancing technology. That is why they now store athletes urine for a few years so they can go back and test it again later with better tests.
-
The main concern, I believe, is in fact drugs that cause damage. It is one thing to say that in order to be competitive with other athletes you must do certain things that will take time or effort, e.g. keeping in shape, buying certain gear, etc. It is another to say that in order to be competitive with other athletes you must do things that will harm your body or mind, even if only in the long term.
-
Many people do believe that sports have gone to far with regard to equipment, etc. Such as those who believe that golf has become a bit of a joke with the gigantic metal woods that are now used. Not everyone believes that you should be able to use any tool at your disposal as part of a sport.
Crossposted from this thread, because frankly it’s more relevant here:
I don’t care whether he (the Greek athlete discussed in the other thread) dopes or not. Adults have decisions that only they can make, and that’s the choice to potentially destroy their bodies for the future for the big payoff now. Fact is, you give me all the THC in the world and I will still run the 100 in no less than 13 seconds and the 400 in no less than a minute. These guys have to be able to do it anyway for the doping to make any difference, and if they want that extra edge so be it. It’s their call.
What are the arguments against it? It’s not fair? It’s not fair that my mother wouldn’t let me play football when I was younger, either, potentially costing me a shot at the NFL. It’s not fair that I can’t run the 100 in 10 seconds. Lots of things aren’t fair. What, it’s against the rules? Pshaw. Change the rules. Most of you would have no problem with weed, so what’s the big deal with dope? What, it takes away from the people who don’t dope? No it doesn’t. They made a choice, and later in life when they still have their health will they regret it? Of course not.
Legalize the damn stuff. Period.
But keep it out of the Olympics.
Set up a separate sporting events for the freak shows that pump themselves full of drugs.
anyone who has played american football at the college level knows that this argument is insufficient. the game itself destroys your body. i don’t just mean in the short term. i work in orthopaedics, and the youngest hip replacement candidates always seem to be ex-football players.
also, if performance-enhancing drugs were permitted, it is likely that there would be more control over the dope used (and more study of it), presumably making it much safer.
this part, i can see. a lot of people want things people do to be comparable across history. they want to know whether record-breaking athletes would be better than the previous record-holder if that person had access to everything they did. in my opinion, they’re fighting a futile battle, and even they, i suspect, would not take issue with an athlete using sports science to maximize his diet and exercise regimen. but i’m not talking about those people, really. there are many more people who seem to have this notion that dope is unfair, but when pressed, can’t justify that belief.