Anabolic Steroids In Sports
Evaluate the argument of Julian Savulescu and his co-authors that competitors at the Olympics ought to be allowed to use anabolic steroids.
Nowadays, the world is being bombarded by the issue of Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) utilisation especially at high level sports such as the Olympics level. Doping activities in sports have been a continuous plight towards athlete. Court actions are issued, title stripped off and worst is athletes’ involvements in sports are prevented forever. Dozens of athletes were tested positive for PEDs. Regardless the strict punishments that have been imposed, what drives athletes for doping? The promising glory might be the best answer for this. Performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) is a form of synthetic chemical …show more content…
substances which is consumed in order to improve their performances in sports. There are few types of drugs being used by athletes such as Anabolic Steroids which is the most common drug being used, Human Growth Hormone, and Erythropoietin (EPO). Basically, these drugs improve athlete’s physical characteristics and endurance which make them stronger. For instance, anabolic steroids are normally used by those who involved in heavy sports, weight lifting, boxing, etc. This steroids can increase muscle mass, strength and to improve on muscle recovery. Meanwhile, EPO does a great job in improving the production of haemoglobin and to increase the rate of aerobic respiration.
However, in spite of their overwhelming popularity, the effectiveness is contentious. The utilisation of drugs in sports has raised many issues. The ethics of athletes and sport managements have been argued. If drugs are used for the sake of glory and fame, then what lacks here is the honesty that should be held by each athlete. The biotechnology inventions have demolished the moralities that should lie behind every sport. Another major issue that has been debated is the dangerous effects of these drugs on the health of the users. An international independent agency called World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was established in 1999 to lead the worldwide collaboration campaign and effort in achieving doping-free practice in sports.
Still, there are some arguments saying that PEDs should be legal. According to Julian Savulescu, a professor of applied ethics at the University of Oxford, doping is not against the ethics of sports but he believed that it is part of the spirits of sports. The goal of the sports itself is to find the fastest, strongest and the most endurance athletes in the sports area that they involved in. Spectators are putting high expectations on athletes to give out their best performances. By years, training, coaching, equipment, diets and even medical supervisions are getting better but the world records are getting poorer. It is doubted that world performances will decline one day. Then, how far for the body of normal athletes to reach their maximum ability to break the records? Here comes the question on how to keep the sports interesting in front of the spectator’s eyes. In an interview made with the elite Olympics athletes, about 98% agreed to take PEDs if they were not caught. This is surprising but somehow shows that the athletes are now more ready to take a further step even with a high risk of getting caught or harmful health effects. Furthermore, under supervised amount of drugs used, doping is just another improvement in making training more effective. It does not violate and change the nature of the sports itself. The sports will still be able to be carried on using the same procedures and rules. It is only that the performances are now getting better. The athletes still have to train at their best to compete. However, this is not what is viewed by WADA. Doping would deteriorate the sports value of who would put in the most effort, assurance, discipline and other intrinsic values. Now, this will be more on drugs competition rather than finding the best athletes among those who compete purely based on their ability and talent.
PEDs can also be a level tool in the playing field, promoting fairness among athletes.
Some athletes are just too lucky to be born with a genetic asset which might give a huge advantage in the sports that they master in. For instance, the African American has been seen to monopolise in running due to their well-developed muscle and bone structure. Some might have biologically admirable body metabolism which allow them to be fit and have higher endurance. Sports indirectly set up a race between these genetically gap and this discriminate against those unfit athletes. Therefore, by legalising the PEDs, the genetic inequality can be reduced so those who are unfit can get equal ability and be more competitive and as a result, a more challengeable race among athletes. Therefore, legalising PEDs not only reducing genetic discrimination, but it also helps in reducing economic discrimination among countries. With the advanced technology and equipment nowadays, the more money the countries have, the closer they are to the championships. Rich countries can afford to buy high-technology training equipments such as the hypoxic air machine. Both hypoxic air machine and EPO are a type of enhancer that sparingly has the same effects with those who are improving their blood cell productions. The difference is just the first one is legal while another one is illegal. Obviously, if the price of EPO is much cheaper compared with the high technology equipments, people will be attracted to the …show more content…
cheaper one regardless the risks since that is what is left for them to stay compatible.
However there is still a vague line lies on how far the fairness is fair. If PEDs is made legal, this means that every athlete is allowed to consume drugs. Those who already have advantages in their genetic and physical characteristics might take drugs too and hence becoming better. This motivates other athletes to take more drugs than the others just to stand in line with those who have genetic asset. So, no matter how the supervisions made by the physicians, there will always be athletes who take drugs more than they are allowed to do. In addition, some of the athletes might refuse to take drugs and this will further widened the genetic gap among athletes. Therefore, if drugs are make legal in market, the drugs designer will be attracted to make drugs with better effects and the price will be much more expensive compared to what are already available in the market. In the end, richer countries that can afford better drugs gain more advantages on sports.
Public are opposing PEDs as they believe that the drugs have devastating effects on body. WADA is strongly against PEDs to value the health of athletes, aiming in reducing the dangers that the athletes faces. Legalising doping means putting athlete’s health in greater danger. The effects of anabolic steroid consumption can be so awful including liver damage, change in heart structure and high blood pressure. However, this is contrary to what Julian Savulescu and his co-authors believe. For them, although doping risk athletes’ health, the sports itself is already risky and can be extremely harmful. The sports itself bear risk and can be extremely harmful in such a way, a cyclist may fell from his bike, concussion that lead to brain damage for a boxer and many more. For a normal person, there is a limit to human performances. Normal human body cannot deal with over-stress training and might give implicit reactions for example, depletion in their immune system, multiple organ injuries or unhealthy large body shape. Considering a study by Beals in 2001, about 37% of female athletes were suffering from menstrual dysfunction and stress fracture. There were also studies and researches done in the past few years showing that athletes are getting permanent injury, or even die in some serious cases due to the sports that they involved in. This showed that after all, the effects of over-stress training are similar to the long term effects of drugs, which make no differences between these two performances enhancers.
If WADA really wants to protect athlete’s health, then they should shift their effort and start to monitor athletes’ health conditions instead of busy searching for those who involve in drugs. In addition, monitoring health conditions is much cheaper and easy to be done compare to drugs testing procedures which is more expensive, and some drugs can be hard to be detected. Furthermore, WADA’s focuses on prohibiting PEDs will just endanger the health of the athletes. Julian Savulescu and his co-authors were saying this by comparing the prohibition of Alcohol effects during 1920s in parallel with prohibition of PEDs. Literally, even though the banning of PEDs is believed to reduce the consumption among athletes, the belief is not even close to what the realities really are. Athletes will find alternative access for doping such as through open active black market. This will further harm WADA’s mission in protecting health, and morality of athletes. The drugs available in black market are not supervised under medical outline and the safety is more questionable. Those athletes are administering the PEDs in the amount that they desire without correct doses. If WADA’s wants to continue in prohibiting PEDs, they should improve on their law enforcement by not only testing drugs among athletes, but they need to investigate external environment that has been affecting the athletes to make sure that there is no way for these athletes to have access to the drugs. This seems hard as regulating and monitoring every aspect of problems consumes time, energy and of course much money.
The drug’s testing procedure itself is doubted to be effective or not. If the athletes who undergo the test turned out to be positive for PEDs, the results normally consumes time and even take years to be confirmed. It is not an easy procedure to do since PEDs mimics the natural physiology of normal human body mechanism. By the time they are found guilty, athletes already reaped off the benefit they gained from winning the competition. On some worst case scenario, say an athlete really found guilty and his medal and title are given to other athlete, there is no guarantee that the other athletes are really free from PEDs. This will end up in a cycle that might have no fix end. WADA can argue that by imposing fines and court action, these might give lessons to other athletes. Yet again, the intention to cheat will always lie around the pleasure rewards that these athletes would able to gain from the competition. If this is the real dilemma, then WADA’s mission is wavering.
Other most common issues against legalising doping are its effects on teenagers in amateur sports. We are afraid that the young generations in sports might be influenced by this current issue. If their idols among the Olympics level’s athletes are allowed to take drugs, then why they cannot do the same thing? Here lies the answer; amateur sports are not the same as Olympics sports. They might offer the same events as Olympics’ but the individual aims will never be the same. As for amateur sports, the objectives are more on developing the sportsmanship among the participants and to increase their motivation in sports. While in Olympics, athletes are influenced by the promising fame and money if they manage to be winners. The greediness has masked the pure objectives of sports no matter how WADA tries to come across this problem.
Instead, the focus should be shift around the welfare of young athletes while at the same time legalising doping at Olympics level. This is because, if we believe that children and teenagers should not have fully autonomy in making decisions that can harm them for example doping, then they should know that allowing the youngsters to enter professional sports first already putting them in high risk of injuries which is clearly not good for their future. If they want to be committed with professional sports, they will miss out most of their education and socialisation with friends and even submitted to over-stress training which in return will give harmful effects on their growing body. Despite, there are still some points that need to be considered in regard of this argument. Let’s say that doping is legal, and teenagers are prohibited from entering professional sports such as Olympics, this can discourage teenagers’ interests in sports. In addition, we should remember that sports have been a part of learning moral values among children but doping is seen to go against this role. Besides, legalising doping will reduce the credibility of sports itself in the view of the young generations. Hence, this will further degrade the future of the sports.
As a conclusion, if what Julian Savulescu and his co-authors argue represents the reality, then legalising PEDs might be an evolution to the new era of sports. However, it is a necessity and need for WADA to put a strong supervision in doping. For example, here are few suggestions that can be considered by WADA in improving its effort which are by introducing clear and strict guidelines on the type and dose of the drugs that can be consumed depending on the body type of the athletes, by imposing a firm medical supervision on athletes’, by giving awareness to the athletes or by enforcing severe punishments to those who are against the guidelines. However, since the issue on PEDs have their own advantages and the drawbacks, a more serious debate should be taken into account before a fix but harmony decision can be made.
(2250 words) *
Xanthe Clay. The Telegraph (28 Aug 2012).Drug-taking: think what we’d achieve if we never slept a wink. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9503763/Drug-taking-think-what-wed-achieve-ifwe-never-slept-a-wink.html
* Kirk Mango. Bleacher Report (14 Aug 2012). 2012 Olympics part ll: London Games Bring out ‘Legalize Steroids” – Again!. Retrieved from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1297809-part-ii-olympics-london-games-bring-out-we-should-legalize-steroids-again and http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1297771-part-i-olympics-london-games-bring-out-we-should-legalize-steroids-again
* Spiegel Online International (7 July 2012).
The Ethics of Sports “We need an Open Market for Doping”. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/ethicist-savulescu-believes-doping-in-sports-should-be-allowed-a-844939.html
* Maria Burns Ortiz. Fox News Latino (25 Aug 2012). From Amstrong to Cabrera: The Murky World of Athletic Drug Testing. Retrieved from http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/sports/2012/08/25/from-armstrong-to-cabrera-murky-world-athletic-drug-testing/
* Ian Steadman. Wired (10 Sept 2012). How Sports Would Be Better With Doping. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/09/sports-and-doping/ * Osman Samiuddin. The National (28 Aug 2012). Let’s Level the Playing Field. Retrieved from http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/sport-comment/lets-level-the-playing-field
* Michael Brumagin. Bleacher Report (24 Aug 2012). Performance Enhancing Drugs: The Dilemma of Moral Ethics in Sports. Retrieved from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1309625-performance-enhancing-drugs-the-dilemma-of-moral-ethics-in-sports
* A.J. Perez. Fox Sport (30 Aug 2012). Fox Sport Exclusive Should Pro Leagues Allow PEDs?. Retrieved from
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/should-pro-sports-leagues-end-testing-for-performance-enhancing-drugs-PED-steroids-082912
* Chris Smith. Forbes (24 Aug 2012). Why It’s Time To Legalize Steroids In Professional Sports. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/08/24/why-its-time-to-legalize-steroids-in-professional-sports/2/ and http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/08/24/why-its-time-to-legalize-steroids-in-professional-sports/
* Kirsten Salyer. Bloomberg (18 July 2012). At London Games, a New Record for Doping Tests. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-18/at-london-games-a-new-record-for-doping-tests
* Laura Morgan. Enhancing Performances in Sports: What is Morally Permissible?, Jan Boxill (ed) Sports Ethics Blackwell, 2003 17-22.
* Bennete Foddy & Julian Savulescu. Ethics of Performances Enhancement in Sport: Drugs and Gene Doping. 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 511-519
* J Savulescu., B Foddy., M Clayton. Why We Should Allow Performances Enhancing Drugs in Sport. Br. J. Sports Med. 2004, 38, 666-670. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2003.005249
--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Krushmi Chheda (2012). Hindustan Times
[ 2 ]. B. Foddy & J. Savulescu (2007). John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Nowadays, the world is being bombarded by the issue of Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) utilisation especially at high level sports such as the Olympics level. Doping activities in sports have been a continuous plight towards athlete. Court actions are issued, title stripped off and worst is athletes’ involvements in sports are prevented forever. Dozens of athletes were tested positive for PEDs. Regardless the strict punishments that have been imposed, what drives athletes for doping? The promising glory might be the best answer for this. Performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) is a form of synthetic chemical …show more content…
substances which is consumed in order to improve their performances in sports. There are few types of drugs being used by athletes such as Anabolic Steroids which is the most common drug being used, Human Growth Hormone, and Erythropoietin (EPO). Basically, these drugs improve athlete’s physical characteristics and endurance which make them stronger. For instance, anabolic steroids are normally used by those who involved in heavy sports, weight lifting, boxing, etc. This steroids can increase muscle mass, strength and to improve on muscle recovery. Meanwhile, EPO does a great job in improving the production of haemoglobin and to increase the rate of aerobic respiration.
However, in spite of their overwhelming popularity, the effectiveness is contentious. The utilisation of drugs in sports has raised many issues. The ethics of athletes and sport managements have been argued. If drugs are used for the sake of glory and fame, then what lacks here is the honesty that should be held by each athlete. The biotechnology inventions have demolished the moralities that should lie behind every sport. Another major issue that has been debated is the dangerous effects of these drugs on the health of the users. An international independent agency called World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was established in 1999 to lead the worldwide collaboration campaign and effort in achieving doping-free practice in sports.
Still, there are some arguments saying that PEDs should be legal. According to Julian Savulescu, a professor of applied ethics at the University of Oxford, doping is not against the ethics of sports but he believed that it is part of the spirits of sports. The goal of the sports itself is to find the fastest, strongest and the most endurance athletes in the sports area that they involved in. Spectators are putting high expectations on athletes to give out their best performances. By years, training, coaching, equipment, diets and even medical supervisions are getting better but the world records are getting poorer. It is doubted that world performances will decline one day. Then, how far for the body of normal athletes to reach their maximum ability to break the records? Here comes the question on how to keep the sports interesting in front of the spectator’s eyes. In an interview made with the elite Olympics athletes, about 98% agreed to take PEDs if they were not caught. This is surprising but somehow shows that the athletes are now more ready to take a further step even with a high risk of getting caught or harmful health effects. Furthermore, under supervised amount of drugs used, doping is just another improvement in making training more effective. It does not violate and change the nature of the sports itself. The sports will still be able to be carried on using the same procedures and rules. It is only that the performances are now getting better. The athletes still have to train at their best to compete. However, this is not what is viewed by WADA. Doping would deteriorate the sports value of who would put in the most effort, assurance, discipline and other intrinsic values. Now, this will be more on drugs competition rather than finding the best athletes among those who compete purely based on their ability and talent.
PEDs can also be a level tool in the playing field, promoting fairness among athletes.
Some athletes are just too lucky to be born with a genetic asset which might give a huge advantage in the sports that they master in. For instance, the African American has been seen to monopolise in running due to their well-developed muscle and bone structure. Some might have biologically admirable body metabolism which allow them to be fit and have higher endurance. Sports indirectly set up a race between these genetically gap and this discriminate against those unfit athletes. Therefore, by legalising the PEDs, the genetic inequality can be reduced so those who are unfit can get equal ability and be more competitive and as a result, a more challengeable race among athletes. Therefore, legalising PEDs not only reducing genetic discrimination, but it also helps in reducing economic discrimination among countries. With the advanced technology and equipment nowadays, the more money the countries have, the closer they are to the championships. Rich countries can afford to buy high-technology training equipments such as the hypoxic air machine. Both hypoxic air machine and EPO are a type of enhancer that sparingly has the same effects with those who are improving their blood cell productions. The difference is just the first one is legal while another one is illegal. Obviously, if the price of EPO is much cheaper compared with the high technology equipments, people will be attracted to the …show more content…
cheaper one regardless the risks since that is what is left for them to stay compatible.
However there is still a vague line lies on how far the fairness is fair. If PEDs is made legal, this means that every athlete is allowed to consume drugs. Those who already have advantages in their genetic and physical characteristics might take drugs too and hence becoming better. This motivates other athletes to take more drugs than the others just to stand in line with those who have genetic asset. So, no matter how the supervisions made by the physicians, there will always be athletes who take drugs more than they are allowed to do. In addition, some of the athletes might refuse to take drugs and this will further widened the genetic gap among athletes. Therefore, if drugs are make legal in market, the drugs designer will be attracted to make drugs with better effects and the price will be much more expensive compared to what are already available in the market. In the end, richer countries that can afford better drugs gain more advantages on sports.
Public are opposing PEDs as they believe that the drugs have devastating effects on body. WADA is strongly against PEDs to value the health of athletes, aiming in reducing the dangers that the athletes faces. Legalising doping means putting athlete’s health in greater danger. The effects of anabolic steroid consumption can be so awful including liver damage, change in heart structure and high blood pressure. However, this is contrary to what Julian Savulescu and his co-authors believe. For them, although doping risk athletes’ health, the sports itself is already risky and can be extremely harmful. The sports itself bear risk and can be extremely harmful in such a way, a cyclist may fell from his bike, concussion that lead to brain damage for a boxer and many more. For a normal person, there is a limit to human performances. Normal human body cannot deal with over-stress training and might give implicit reactions for example, depletion in their immune system, multiple organ injuries or unhealthy large body shape. Considering a study by Beals in 2001, about 37% of female athletes were suffering from menstrual dysfunction and stress fracture. There were also studies and researches done in the past few years showing that athletes are getting permanent injury, or even die in some serious cases due to the sports that they involved in. This showed that after all, the effects of over-stress training are similar to the long term effects of drugs, which make no differences between these two performances enhancers.
If WADA really wants to protect athlete’s health, then they should shift their effort and start to monitor athletes’ health conditions instead of busy searching for those who involve in drugs. In addition, monitoring health conditions is much cheaper and easy to be done compare to drugs testing procedures which is more expensive, and some drugs can be hard to be detected. Furthermore, WADA’s focuses on prohibiting PEDs will just endanger the health of the athletes. Julian Savulescu and his co-authors were saying this by comparing the prohibition of Alcohol effects during 1920s in parallel with prohibition of PEDs. Literally, even though the banning of PEDs is believed to reduce the consumption among athletes, the belief is not even close to what the realities really are. Athletes will find alternative access for doping such as through open active black market. This will further harm WADA’s mission in protecting health, and morality of athletes. The drugs available in black market are not supervised under medical outline and the safety is more questionable. Those athletes are administering the PEDs in the amount that they desire without correct doses. If WADA’s wants to continue in prohibiting PEDs, they should improve on their law enforcement by not only testing drugs among athletes, but they need to investigate external environment that has been affecting the athletes to make sure that there is no way for these athletes to have access to the drugs. This seems hard as regulating and monitoring every aspect of problems consumes time, energy and of course much money.
The drug’s testing procedure itself is doubted to be effective or not. If the athletes who undergo the test turned out to be positive for PEDs, the results normally consumes time and even take years to be confirmed. It is not an easy procedure to do since PEDs mimics the natural physiology of normal human body mechanism. By the time they are found guilty, athletes already reaped off the benefit they gained from winning the competition. On some worst case scenario, say an athlete really found guilty and his medal and title are given to other athlete, there is no guarantee that the other athletes are really free from PEDs. This will end up in a cycle that might have no fix end. WADA can argue that by imposing fines and court action, these might give lessons to other athletes. Yet again, the intention to cheat will always lie around the pleasure rewards that these athletes would able to gain from the competition. If this is the real dilemma, then WADA’s mission is wavering.
Other most common issues against legalising doping are its effects on teenagers in amateur sports. We are afraid that the young generations in sports might be influenced by this current issue. If their idols among the Olympics level’s athletes are allowed to take drugs, then why they cannot do the same thing? Here lies the answer; amateur sports are not the same as Olympics sports. They might offer the same events as Olympics’ but the individual aims will never be the same. As for amateur sports, the objectives are more on developing the sportsmanship among the participants and to increase their motivation in sports. While in Olympics, athletes are influenced by the promising fame and money if they manage to be winners. The greediness has masked the pure objectives of sports no matter how WADA tries to come across this problem.
Instead, the focus should be shift around the welfare of young athletes while at the same time legalising doping at Olympics level. This is because, if we believe that children and teenagers should not have fully autonomy in making decisions that can harm them for example doping, then they should know that allowing the youngsters to enter professional sports first already putting them in high risk of injuries which is clearly not good for their future. If they want to be committed with professional sports, they will miss out most of their education and socialisation with friends and even submitted to over-stress training which in return will give harmful effects on their growing body. Despite, there are still some points that need to be considered in regard of this argument. Let’s say that doping is legal, and teenagers are prohibited from entering professional sports such as Olympics, this can discourage teenagers’ interests in sports. In addition, we should remember that sports have been a part of learning moral values among children but doping is seen to go against this role. Besides, legalising doping will reduce the credibility of sports itself in the view of the young generations. Hence, this will further degrade the future of the sports.
As a conclusion, if what Julian Savulescu and his co-authors argue represents the reality, then legalising PEDs might be an evolution to the new era of sports. However, it is a necessity and need for WADA to put a strong supervision in doping. For example, here are few suggestions that can be considered by WADA in improving its effort which are by introducing clear and strict guidelines on the type and dose of the drugs that can be consumed depending on the body type of the athletes, by imposing a firm medical supervision on athletes’, by giving awareness to the athletes or by enforcing severe punishments to those who are against the guidelines. However, since the issue on PEDs have their own advantages and the drawbacks, a more serious debate should be taken into account before a fix but harmony decision can be made.
(2250 words) *
Xanthe Clay. The Telegraph (28 Aug 2012).Drug-taking: think what we’d achieve if we never slept a wink. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/9503763/Drug-taking-think-what-wed-achieve-ifwe-never-slept-a-wink.html
* Kirk Mango. Bleacher Report (14 Aug 2012). 2012 Olympics part ll: London Games Bring out ‘Legalize Steroids” – Again!. Retrieved from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1297809-part-ii-olympics-london-games-bring-out-we-should-legalize-steroids-again and http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1297771-part-i-olympics-london-games-bring-out-we-should-legalize-steroids-again
* Spiegel Online International (7 July 2012).
The Ethics of Sports “We need an Open Market for Doping”. Retrieved from http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/ethicist-savulescu-believes-doping-in-sports-should-be-allowed-a-844939.html
* Maria Burns Ortiz. Fox News Latino (25 Aug 2012). From Amstrong to Cabrera: The Murky World of Athletic Drug Testing. Retrieved from http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/sports/2012/08/25/from-armstrong-to-cabrera-murky-world-athletic-drug-testing/
* Ian Steadman. Wired (10 Sept 2012). How Sports Would Be Better With Doping. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/playbook/2012/09/sports-and-doping/ * Osman Samiuddin. The National (28 Aug 2012). Let’s Level the Playing Field. Retrieved from http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/sport-comment/lets-level-the-playing-field
* Michael Brumagin. Bleacher Report (24 Aug 2012). Performance Enhancing Drugs: The Dilemma of Moral Ethics in Sports. Retrieved from http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1309625-performance-enhancing-drugs-the-dilemma-of-moral-ethics-in-sports
* A.J. Perez. Fox Sport (30 Aug 2012). Fox Sport Exclusive Should Pro Leagues Allow PEDs?. Retrieved from
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/should-pro-sports-leagues-end-testing-for-performance-enhancing-drugs-PED-steroids-082912
* Chris Smith. Forbes (24 Aug 2012). Why It’s Time To Legalize Steroids In Professional Sports. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/08/24/why-its-time-to-legalize-steroids-in-professional-sports/2/ and http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/08/24/why-its-time-to-legalize-steroids-in-professional-sports/
* Kirsten Salyer. Bloomberg (18 July 2012). At London Games, a New Record for Doping Tests. Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-07-18/at-london-games-a-new-record-for-doping-tests
* Laura Morgan. Enhancing Performances in Sports: What is Morally Permissible?, Jan Boxill (ed) Sports Ethics Blackwell, 2003 17-22.
* Bennete Foddy & Julian Savulescu. Ethics of Performances Enhancement in Sport: Drugs and Gene Doping. 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 511-519
* J Savulescu., B Foddy., M Clayton. Why We Should Allow Performances Enhancing Drugs in Sport. Br. J. Sports Med. 2004, 38, 666-670. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2003.005249
--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. Krushmi Chheda (2012). Hindustan Times
[ 2 ]. B. Foddy & J. Savulescu (2007). John Wiley & Sons Ltd