# Why are performance enhancing drugs considered cheating **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 5, 2004, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-performance-enhancing-drugs-considered-cheating/253610 "2004-07-05T05:58:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 4\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-performance-enhancing-drugs-considered-cheating/253610/21 "2004-07-06T07:35:01Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > An analogy does not have to be identical in _every_ way in order to make the point. If it were exactly identical in every way, it wouldn’t be an analogy, it would be the _exact_ matter of discussion. I don’t think anyone is more acutely aware of that than me, given my past failure at using analogies in debate. An analogy should bear _some_ semblance to the matter of discussion though. > [@](#): > > My point, quite simply, was that it is not necessary to correct _every_ evil in order to correct one evil I tried this tack in the marijuana/political compass thread last week and had my ass handed to me. > [@](#): > > It seems perfectly logical to me to try to prevent _one_ thing that can be injurious to health, without necessarily having to prevent _every_ thing that can be injurious to health. Merely finding a _similarity_ between two issues does not make them the same issue. People take performance enhacing drugs for the same reasons that they also train intensively; with the same desired result (to win); it would be hypocritical for a sports governing body to state (something to the effect) “We do not permit the use of performance-enhancing drugs because they are harmful and because we do not permit things which enhance performance at the expense of health”, when in fact the harm that can be caused by intensive training _is_ permitted. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-performance-enhancing-drugs-considered-cheating/253610/22 "2004-07-06T13:27:33Z")
I think the rationale for banning performance-enhancing drugs is that it raises the opportunity cost of competing. Assuming for the sake of the discussion that PED have adverse side effects, consider an athlete. He has the right genetics, trains to the limits of his recovery ability, and enters a competition. He does not use PED. Everyone else in his division does, and 10% of them will die an early death as a result. But the drugs they use increase their performance levels by 1%. At the elite level, 1% can be the difference between the gold medal and an early shower. Therefore, our theoretical athlete has the choice between taking a 10% risk of death, and being an also-ran. If you ban the drugs, you eliminate the necessity of the choice. Thus those who take a long-term view of their health are no longer at a disadvantage over everyone else. I don’t believe that anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancers are either the deadly poisons, or the ticket to elite performance, that athletes believe. There are downsides to their use, as well as some effect on training. There are fads in athletic training as there are fads everywhere else, where dessicated liver, or blood doping, or carbohydrate-loading, or whatever, is the latest rage, and a sure road to the top. It rarely works out that way. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-performance-enhancing-drugs-considered-cheating/253610/23 "2004-07-06T13:55:55Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Well, i sort of understand the reasoning behind banning certain drugs and steroids, but for simplicity’s sake i think i’d be quite happy for sports officials to just throw their hands up and say, “OK, you can use whatever the hell you want.” Would we then build precompetition doping facilities for the atheletes? A pharmacy in every locker room? Would rapid performance enhancers like methamphetamines be allowed? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [July 6, 2004, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-performance-enhancing-drugs-considered-cheating/253610/24 "2004-07-06T17:42:21Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I tried this tack in the marijuana/political compass thread last week and had my ass handed to me. Well then you didn’t hang in there long enough. Just because some bozo tried to shout you down doesn’t mean you were wrong > [@](#): > > People take performance enhacing drugs for the same reasons that they also train intensively; with the same desired result (to win); it would be hypocritical for a sports governing body to state (something to the effect) “We do not permit the use of performance-enhancing drugs because they are harmful and because we do not permit things which enhance performance at the expense of health”, when in fact the harm that can be caused by intensive training _is_ permitted. Well, no, it would be inconsistent to say “We don’t permit ANYTHING that could in any way EVER be harmful to health”, and then not ban everything that’s harmful to health. But that argument is predicated on making that exact statement, which of course nobody has to do. The Olympic Committee can simply ban x because it’s harmful; there is no law that says they then HAVE to ban y. One does not have to pledge to correct _all_ evils before committing to correct _one_ evil. But then we’re just repeating ourselves, aren’t we? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-performance-enhancing-drugs-considered-cheating/253610.md?page=1)