Doping Lance Armstrong Analysis
Stripping Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour de France titles for doping was a harsh blow to athletics.Armstrong’s case was a milestone in the history of sports: it marked the time when society’s worst fears came true . For years, coaches and athletes alike have been finding ways to twist the latest scientific developments for their benefit. Performance-enhancing drugs, particularly those that can slip past drug detection tests, have become prevalent in the world of sports. While some argue that sports cannot move forward without performance-enhancing drugs, the majority views doping as unethical. Without utilizing modern medicine, some argue, sports will never progress. Authors such as Ian Steadman defend the use of performance-enhancing drugs on the grounds that they are the future of sports. Being competitive and trying to outperform others has, and always
…show more content…
will be, the lifeblood of sports. Doping, with this thinking in mind, is simply the next step in competitive sports. Coaches and athletes have already used the latest and greatest scientific and technological advances to create effective training regimens that target every area of an athlete’s life from diet to physical exercise. Performance-enhancing drugs will simply amplify the effects of a strict regimen (548). And although athletes may follow the same routines and train with the same intensity, genetics ultimately dictate who the winners and losers are (550).
Many who are against performance-enhancing drugs claim that doping goes against the spirit of the sport, while those who support the drugs say just the opposite. Caffeine, for instance, was once considered a performance enhancing drug, but is no longer banned because its effects don’t conflict with the nature of sports (Steadman 548). As bioethics professor Julian Savulescu puts it, “‘It has always [been] part of the human spirit to use knowledge to make oneself better and doping has been a part of sport since its beginning’” (Steadman 551). Fellow author Peter Singer also quotes Savulescu’s belief on how doping should be handled: let the athletes dope, as long as it is safe for them to do so. As long as the performance-enhancing drug does not go against the sport, such as tremor reduction in archery or fear removal for boxing, then it should by all means be allowed (Steadman 551).
However, the spirit of the sport is not the only concern. As Reid Forgrave points out in his article, performance-enhancing drugs aren’t harmless and still have a great deal of development to undergo. The tragic story of Taylor Hooton, a baseball player whose steroid use ended in suicide, is just one of many cases used to illustrate this point (555). With doping prevalent in professional sports, high school athletes like Hooton may begin to believe performance-enhancing drugs are safe to use. Unmonitored and uneducated, these athletes put themselves in severe danger. Even if performance-enhancing drugs were deemed safe and acceptable by medical science, a good number still doubt the actual safety of doping. (Forgrave 556).
Doping also carries the stigma of being a cheater. Jonathan Vaughters, a retired professional cyclist, has dedicated himself to managing a dope-free cycling team. When Vaughters was younger, he had high hopes to compete in international races. He trained every day and made countless personal sacrifices in order to start training in Europe. Once he got there, however, his coach prompted him with an extremely difficult decision: dope or don’t compete. Vaughters’ coach explained that too many professional athletes were already using performance-enhancing drugs and managed to slip through drug tests undetected, and if he wanted to be competitive in the slightest, he had to dope (559). Doping would mean lying to his family, friends, and the world about how he achieved his goals (559). But without performance-enhancing drugs, he wouldn’t have a shot at his dream. It crushed Vaughters to know that upcoming athletes couldn’t be honest about their passion anymore, and believes that doping should be a non-decision (560).
Peter Singer, author of “Is Doping Wrong?”, also brings to light that a sense of self-satisfaction is lost when athletes dope. While it may not be such an issue for professional athletes, there is still a mental and emotional benefit behind achieving a goal. Whether the goal is to swim the length of a pool without stopping or to win the World Cup, it’s difficult to have the same sense of satisfaction when performance-enhancing drugs are used (Singer). While Ian Steadman fears spectators will lose interest in sports unless there is always a bigger and better athlete on the field, sports are much more than a spectacle.
For the athletes involved, it’s a lifestyle. For Vaughters’ it’s a passion. Not every athlete is born with the same incredible genetic coding, and that’s what makes the competition beautiful. It’s a combination of “Wow, how do they do it?” and “Look at that dedication!” It’s not a competition of who can obtain the best drugs, as Don Hooton says: “‘Sports is about fair play. It’s honor. It’s integrity. It’s hard work. It’s you and me going up against each other and competing. Not seeing who can get [the] next best drug that’s undetectable’” (Forgrave 556).
Allowing athletes to dope will take the awe away from spectators and crush the dreams of young competitors. It will change sports from a competition of hard work, dedication, and talent into a competition of finances, pharmaceuticals, and personal agendas. Performance-enhancing drugs will simply award the trophy to the highest bidder — and that is definitely against the spirit of
sports.
will be, the lifeblood of sports. Doping, with this thinking in mind, is simply the next step in competitive sports. Coaches and athletes have already used the latest and greatest scientific and technological advances to create effective training regimens that target every area of an athlete’s life from diet to physical exercise. Performance-enhancing drugs will simply amplify the effects of a strict regimen (548). And although athletes may follow the same routines and train with the same intensity, genetics ultimately dictate who the winners and losers are (550).
Many who are against performance-enhancing drugs claim that doping goes against the spirit of the sport, while those who support the drugs say just the opposite. Caffeine, for instance, was once considered a performance enhancing drug, but is no longer banned because its effects don’t conflict with the nature of sports (Steadman 548). As bioethics professor Julian Savulescu puts it, “‘It has always [been] part of the human spirit to use knowledge to make oneself better and doping has been a part of sport since its beginning’” (Steadman 551). Fellow author Peter Singer also quotes Savulescu’s belief on how doping should be handled: let the athletes dope, as long as it is safe for them to do so. As long as the performance-enhancing drug does not go against the sport, such as tremor reduction in archery or fear removal for boxing, then it should by all means be allowed (Steadman 551).
However, the spirit of the sport is not the only concern. As Reid Forgrave points out in his article, performance-enhancing drugs aren’t harmless and still have a great deal of development to undergo. The tragic story of Taylor Hooton, a baseball player whose steroid use ended in suicide, is just one of many cases used to illustrate this point (555). With doping prevalent in professional sports, high school athletes like Hooton may begin to believe performance-enhancing drugs are safe to use. Unmonitored and uneducated, these athletes put themselves in severe danger. Even if performance-enhancing drugs were deemed safe and acceptable by medical science, a good number still doubt the actual safety of doping. (Forgrave 556).
Doping also carries the stigma of being a cheater. Jonathan Vaughters, a retired professional cyclist, has dedicated himself to managing a dope-free cycling team. When Vaughters was younger, he had high hopes to compete in international races. He trained every day and made countless personal sacrifices in order to start training in Europe. Once he got there, however, his coach prompted him with an extremely difficult decision: dope or don’t compete. Vaughters’ coach explained that too many professional athletes were already using performance-enhancing drugs and managed to slip through drug tests undetected, and if he wanted to be competitive in the slightest, he had to dope (559). Doping would mean lying to his family, friends, and the world about how he achieved his goals (559). But without performance-enhancing drugs, he wouldn’t have a shot at his dream. It crushed Vaughters to know that upcoming athletes couldn’t be honest about their passion anymore, and believes that doping should be a non-decision (560).
Peter Singer, author of “Is Doping Wrong?”, also brings to light that a sense of self-satisfaction is lost when athletes dope. While it may not be such an issue for professional athletes, there is still a mental and emotional benefit behind achieving a goal. Whether the goal is to swim the length of a pool without stopping or to win the World Cup, it’s difficult to have the same sense of satisfaction when performance-enhancing drugs are used (Singer). While Ian Steadman fears spectators will lose interest in sports unless there is always a bigger and better athlete on the field, sports are much more than a spectacle.
For the athletes involved, it’s a lifestyle. For Vaughters’ it’s a passion. Not every athlete is born with the same incredible genetic coding, and that’s what makes the competition beautiful. It’s a combination of “Wow, how do they do it?” and “Look at that dedication!” It’s not a competition of who can obtain the best drugs, as Don Hooton says: “‘Sports is about fair play. It’s honor. It’s integrity. It’s hard work. It’s you and me going up against each other and competing. Not seeing who can get [the] next best drug that’s undetectable’” (Forgrave 556).
Allowing athletes to dope will take the awe away from spectators and crush the dreams of young competitors. It will change sports from a competition of hard work, dedication, and talent into a competition of finances, pharmaceuticals, and personal agendas. Performance-enhancing drugs will simply award the trophy to the highest bidder — and that is definitely against the spirit of
sports.