Pro Doping in Sports Debate

Health Risk "If each of us ought to be free to assume risks that we think are worth taking, shouldn't athletes have the same freedom as anyone else? In particular, if athletes prefer the gains in performance allegedly provided by the use of steroids, along with the increased risk of harm to the alternative of less risk and worse performance, what gives anyone the right to interfere with their choice? After all, if we should not forbid smokers from risking their health by smoking, why should we prohibit track stars or weightlifters from taking risks with their health in pursuit of their goals?" -Robert Simon, PhD Professor of Philosophy at Hamilton College Fair Play: The Ethics of Sport 2003 Seeking an ‘Unfair’ Advantage "There is no coherent argument to support the view that enhancing performance is unfair; if it were, we would ban coaching and training. Competition can be unfair if there is unequal access to particular enhancements, but equal access can be achieved more predictably by deregulation than by prohibition." -Norman Fost, MD, MPH Professor and Director of the Medical Ethics Program at the University of Wisconsin "Steroid Hysteria: Unpacking the Claims," American Medical Association Journal of Ethics Nov. 2005 Drugs vs. Technology "Sport is for enjoyment and competition, and usually aims to improve; but what is the difference between increasing skill and performance by training, and taking drugs? If it is the use of personal effort rather than outside help, then what of ropes, crampons and oxygen for climbing? What of advanced training by teams of sports physiologists who wire athletes to equipment monitoring heart, muscle, brain and nerves to optimize activity; or teams of sports psychologists improving your responses and neutralizing those observed in competitors? What of dietitians tampering with foods and additives - drugs by any other name - to improve performance?

What is more 'fair' - the use of a team of sports specialists or a simple pill?