Sab 634: A Short Note On Ethics In Sports
UNITED STATES SPORTS ACADEMY
ARE ETHICS PREVENTING ATHLETES FROM BECOMING THEIR BEST? ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE BAN ON STEROIDS.
A Class Paper Submitted for
SAB 634
Ethics in Sports
Professor: Dr. Ogden
By:
Michael Baptiste
Daphne, Alabama
January, 2015
Table of Contents
Title Page…………………………………………………………………………………….i
Section I. Introduction to the problem…………………………………………………1 Intention of the paper………………………………………………………..1
Section II. Review of Literature………………………………………………………...2 What are ergogenic aids……………………….…………………………….2 Argument #1 Steroids don’t work……………..…………………………….2 Argument #2 Steroids are dangerous………………………………….…….3 Steroid use ethically compared to tobacco………………….………..3 Steroid use ethically …show more content…
compared to alcohol……………………….…...4 The dangers with abuse………………………………………………5 Steroid use ethically compared to fast food………………………….6 Risk factors with steroid use…………………………………………6 Argument #3 Social Cohesion American freedoms vs. communism…………………………………7 Argument #4 Steroids create an undo risk of harm………………….............7 Is the game killing the players?..............................................................8 Argument #5 Steroids create an uneven playing field………………………8 A professors view against steroid use………………………………...8 A professors view for steroid use……………………………………..9
Section III. Summary and Conclusions…………………………………………………10 Ethical considerations for steroid use ………………………………………10 hypocrisy in sport…………………………………………………………...11 References…………………………………………………………………………………..12
What exactly are sports ethics and how do they relate to professional sports in regards to steroid use? Sports ethics are a set of principles of right conduct in relation to a system of moral values created by man. The same ethics that apply to everyday life are not necessarily the same ethics that are applied to professional sports. Likewise, what might be an unethical act in professional sports may be quite ethical and acceptable by the general public. The practice and evolution of ethics has created many fiercely debated topics within sports. One topic in particular is the use of steroids by professional athletes as a means of helping them attain a higher level of play. This paper will explore the moral and ethical considerations about steroid use and tackle several of the most popular arguments against their use. This paper is not intended to be an informative guide or history on the use of steroids, but an in-depth look at the ethical considerations and concerns about steroid use by professional athletes. It is the intention of the author to leave the reader questioning their moral and ethical stance on the issue and further the debate. In spite of the controversy surrounding steroids and the negative attention given to them, it will be argued that the positives out way the negatives. Furthermore, this paper will show both sides of the issue allowing the reader the ability to conclude if steroid use in sports is unethical and cheating or on the contrary the act of banning steroids is unethical and denies a person the rights given to them by god to reach their highest potential.
What do these names have in common? Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens, Rafael Palmero, Alex Rodriguez, Jose Canseco, and Manny Ramirez. If you said they all have taken steroids or are widely believed to have taken steroids, you are correct. If you also answered that they are some of the most exciting players of the last 25 years, you 'd also be correct (Tartamella, 2012). What exactly are steroids and what do they do besides arguably turn ordinary men into gods on the baseball diamond? Steroids are a type of ergogenic aid which helps improve an athlete’s performance. Ergogenic aids are not just steroids or supplements that enhance muscle growth and recovery. Conversely, ergogenic aids can be classified in to three areas: mechanical, psychological, and physiological. Mechanical ergogenic aids refer to those external devices that help the athlete improve their athletic abilities. Examples of mechanical aids would be specially designed shoes, types of bats, training equipment, and facilities. Mechanical aids are only limited by the athlete in respect to his commitment and dedication to training as well as his ability to be able to afford them. Furthermore, psychological aids would refer to motivational speeches, self-talk, and hypnosis to name a few. There are several physiological aids besides steroids for athletes, including massage, acupuncture, sports drinks, sauna, herbal medicines, and wide variety of protein powders and creatine to name a few.
Additionally, many forms of ergogenic aids are regularly incorporated into the training of an athlete. Such methods may be as harmless as friends cheering on the sideline to boost self-esteem or weight training to increase strength when on the field. Less conventional methods include nutritional aids like high-protein diets, physiological aids like sports drinks to replace lost electrolytes and mechanical aids like weighted vests (Ergogenic, 2014).
Several reasons are stated that individuals and organizations give in support of their anti-steroid position. The first reason to ban steroids is that they do not work and therefore, there is no reason to do them. This argument against is near impossible to prove conclusively on a scientific level due to the medical ethics involved in giving potentially fatal mega-doses of steroids to subjects over a prolonged period. Moreover, this argument contradicts its self. If steroids do not work, then why ban them? Should we propose banning and making it illegal to jump off your roof and fly? Since we know people cannot fly, it would be ridiculous to create a law forbidding it. Nevertheless, opponents of steroid use in sports will continue to use this argument with no medical references to back it up.
Equally important, a second argument against steroid use is that they are dangerous and to protect the safety of the athletes, they should be illegal. The use of steroids can have serious health repercussions, including affected liver, endocrine and reproductive function, tumors of the liver and kidneys, heart conditions, and psychiatric symptoms (Ashby, 2010). The question every athlete should be able to answer for themselves is to what cost to their own health are they willing to endure to realize the anticipated gains that taking steroids would produce? Unfortunately, the media has demonized steroids with their ignorant reporting on steroids in an attempt to destroy and to demoralize individuals. Steroid users are often portrayed as cheaters, out- of-control maniacs, and drug dealers. No wonder the public has misconceptions about steroids and the athletes that use them. The uneducated public does not know that some steroids have positive effects on the body and if used properly can be very effective.
Regardless of opinions, what business is it of any individual or professional organization to dictate what any person can put in their body? Unlike second hand smoke which according to Americans for non-smokers rights kills an estimated 53,800 people every year, no one external to the user is harmed from steroid use, yet it is ruled a schedule three banned substance while tobacco is sold on every street corner, killing thousands daily (Americans, 2014). These same tobacco using moralists that place their ethics on others and make judgments as to what is right and wrong are the same people that smoke in the car while their kids sit in the backseat. Any adult smoker that attempts to claim they are not aware of any risk factors to their children breathing in second hand smoke should be arrested.
Steroid users, on the other hand, are aware of the potential risks or side effects and make an informed decision. The key point is that they make the decision themselves whether or not to take the drugs. It should be their decision on what they believe is best for them, and not on some ethical standards placed on them by society or some governing body. Individuals that deem it necessary to place their ethical values on everyone else forget to take in to account that the Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrongs of the world did nothing to negatively impact them. If these moral “high rollers” are so concerned about the health and welfare of people, their time might be better served tackling more important social and health issues facing Americans like the fast food industry or the alcohol lobby. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are more than 23,000 deaths related to alcohol each year that are not traffic fatalities or homicides, and 14,406 of those are caused by alcoholic liver disease. Adding these totals to just the total number of drunk driving fatalities alone and one can see that nearly 47,000 deaths occur as a result of these alcohol related causes (Data, 2015).
Furthermore, alcohol contributes to crime and is responsible for many people’s lives being destroyed along with their families. One would presume that your average steroid using professional athlete doesn’t occupy his Sundays in a crack house shooting up or robbing the local convenience store to purchase his PED’s. The average NFL player’s salary is $1.4 million dollars with an average playing span of 3.5 years (Average NFL, 2014). With these statistics, we can be rest assured that the starting quarterback for the Pittsburg Steelers will not be caught down on 5th Avenue with a gun planning a robbery after shooting up his steroids in an abandoned building. Since these steroid using athletes represent no criminal threat to society or themselves, it is unethical to hold them back from becoming their best.
Be that as it may, one potential down side of steroid use is the likelihood of abuse of the substance. However, the abuse of any drug, food, or drink can be detrimental. More people die every year by not eating a proper diet or by ingesting Tylenol than all the steroid deaths combined over the past 50 years. During the last decade, more than 1,500 Americans died after accidentally taking too much of a drug renowned for its safety: acetaminophen, one of the nation’s most popular pain relievers. Acetaminophen – the active ingredient in Tylenol – is considered safe when taken at recommended doses. Yet in larger amounts, especially in combination with alcohol, the drug can damage or even destroy the liver (Gerth, 2013). A strong ethical argument can be made against the producers of Tylenol since they knowing produce a drug that can be hazardous to your health. If Tylenol is legal to sell, as long as there is a warning about potential side effects on the bottle, then steroids should be legal with a similar disclaimer.
All things considered, the real question which should be asked in reference to steroid use is: what are the appropriate dosages that would allow for the least amount of side effects? As already mentioned, the excessive over the top consumption of anything can cause harm. In his block buster documentary “Super Size Me,” Morgan Spurlock showed that excessive consumption of McDonalds food can cause great harm to your health. His thesis for the documentary was based on the ethics of false advertising and supplying food products to children and adults knowing that they can cause health issues and even death. Over a 30 day period, Spurlock consumed three meals per day at different McDonalds across the country. He ate the suggested serving sizes on the menu, resulting in the then-32-year-old Spurlock gaining 24½ lbs. (11.1 kg), a 13% body mass increase, a cholesterol level of 230, and experienced mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and fat accumulation in his liver. It took Spurlock fourteen months to lose the weight gained from his experiment (“Super Size Me”, 2014). Granted this experiment was done to prove a point, but it was 100% legal. Moreover, it exposes the government and big corporations as the ethical “big brother” dictating to the masses what is acceptable risk and what is not.
The risk factors for consuming legal products like fast food over a short period of time can be death. The US Department of Health and Human Services discovered that the combination of a poor diet and a lack of physical activity causes 310,000 to 580,000 deaths every year. These numbers are significantly higher than deaths caused either by guns or drug use (Therien, 2013). According to the Center for Disease Control, there are a total of 3 deaths caused by steroid use per year (Answers, 2014). This figure does not account for the possibility that those three individuals used absurd amounts of the compounds or that they were sharing dirty needles.
Unlike the devastating side effects of poor nutrition, the majority of steroid users only realize minor acne, with the possibility of increases in aggression and cholesterol. The rise in LDL cholesterol and the decrease in HDL cholesterol may have some side effects on the cardiovascular system. Regardless, these effects are a far cry from all the deaths each year from fast food consumption and a small price to pay for the potential million dollar contracts these athletes sign. It is more unethical to prevent a father from making as much money as he can to support his children. If the use of steroids can make an athlete a few more million dollars for his family, then it seems only ethical to allow their use. Since an athlete only has a 3.5 year average career, it is imperative that they make the most out of that time period.
Another and probably the most used argument against steroid use in athletics is the social coercion stance. Proponents of steroid use argue that because some athletes are using steroids in order for them to remain competitive at that level that they are forced to use steroids as well. The athlete is being coerced into using drugs placing them in a compromised position with breaking the law, jeopardizing their careers, and facing the side effects of their use. Last time I looked we live in America, home of the free. At this point we still have rights protected under the constitution and at no point are any American citizens forced to take drugs or play football.
In addition, unlike some communist countries, a person is not assigned a job from birth or forced to compete in any sport. If people do not have a clear grasp on the ethics of this argument, then they obviously have no understanding of our country. Unfortunately, as with athletes in Iraq, they were forced to take steroids to compete and were tortured if they didn’t win. According to Talib Mutan, an Iraqi Olympics Committee official, Sadam Huseins son Odai would punish athletes that came in second place by beatings, sleep deprivation, and burning their feet (Associated, 2004). Our country is a far cry different and no one forces an individual to compete or punishes them for second place other than themselves. Life in this country is about the choices we make on a daily basis. Based upon those choices, we design a life of either misery or happiness. Regardless of the outcome, our results should be controlled by the choices we make. By limiting the choices of professional athletes to take steroids ultimately limits not only their rights, but also there God-given rights to have, be, and do whatever they desire as long as it does not infringe on another’s rights.
Not surprisingly, according to Concussion Watch, teams had 128 players with concussions or head injuries on weekly regular-season injury reports through the first 14 weeks and are on pace to report 155 for the regular season (Fainaru, 2012). These statistics coming from the NFL completely debunk the next argument that steroids create an undo risk of harm to the athletes. Undo risk? Professional athletes by nature of the game are guaranteed to get injured multiple times throughout their brief careers. Equally, there are thousands of surgical procedures performed by sports medicine doctors across the country on youth athletes each year. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 2.6 million children under the age of 19 are treated in emergency rooms each year for injuries related to sporting events (Youth Sports, 2014).
Data involving the devastating, destructive effects from long term steroid use are not published by the NFL or CDC. These reports are not published because they do not exist. Not surprisingly, there are little or no surgeries nor medical attention reported each year for the use of steroids. Equally, when professional athletes retire, one would be hard pressed to hear them complaining about nagging issues resulting from steroid use. These athletes suffer damaging bodily injuries due to the violent nature of most professional sports. In other words, the game is killing these athletes, not steroid use. On the contrary, steroids may in fact prolong many athletes’ careers and help prevent injuries. Therefore, to use the argument that steroids cause an undue risk to athletes is ridiculous. If the athlete’s health is really of concern, then the most logical answer would be to just eliminate sports.
Finally, the last argument against steroid use is that they create an uneven playing field.
According to David Fairchild, PhD professor of philosophy at Indiana University and opponent of steroids in sports, states without equivocation "[T]he use of performance enhancers is cheating because it violates constitutive rules of the activity. Since such use is cheating, it is wrong and we should expect the disqualification of competitors who are caught doping. This conclusion is established through a simple and straightforward argument. Cheating is the deliberate, knowing, and voluntary violation of certain constitutive rules in order to gain a competitive advantage. Since the violation is knowing, the attempt to gain an advantage is illegitimate and unethical, and the advantage sought is thus unfair. The knowing and voluntary use of proscribed substances is an attempt to gain such an unfair advantage. Some specified performance enhancers, anabolic steroids for example, are listed as proscribed substances in certain sports. The deliberate use of steroids is thus an illegitimate attempt to gain an unfair advantage. We conclude that their use is cheating." (Fairchild, 1992) Fairchild’s entire premise that steroids are unethical is based solely on the rules set forth against them. His argument stems from a decision to ban the substance and not on any medical research. Thus, using his logic, one can conclude that if two seven foot tall adults decided to have a child it would be unethical for him to dominate the sport of basketball because parents knowingly produced a child with the genes to grow to seven feet tall. Henceforth, this would knowingly give him an unfair advantage over the five foot tall individual. Moreover, using this argument, one delves into the area of genetic engineering. Is it ethical through genetic engineering for a women to go to a doctor and virtually pick out the egg and sperm that could yield an amazing athlete and be inseminated? Where is
the fairness when it comes to this child competing against others? Steroids are the only way to level the playing field now and more so in the future.
Nonetheless, in the Aug. 1, 2005 article titled "Why We Should Allow Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport," Bennett Foddy, a professor in Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, and Julian Savulescu, PhD, Professor and Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, made the following statements "There is no difference between elevating your blood count by altitude training, by using a hypoxic air machine, or by taking EPO [erythropoietin]. But the last is illegal. Some competitors have high PCVs [packed cell volumes] and an advantage by luck. Some can afford hypoxic air machines. Is this fair? Nature is not fair. Ian Thorpe has enormous feet which give him an advantage that no other swimmer can get, no matter how much they exercise. Some gymnasts are more flexible, and some basketball players are seven feet tall. By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, we level the playing field. We remove the effects of genetic inequality. Far from being unfair, allowing performance enhancement promotes equality”. (Fairchild, 1992)
This argument for steroids has validity in that it recognizes the genetic differences between athletes. The only way a five foot six inch individual can possibly compete against three hundred pound linebackers in the NFL is if he takes steroids. The most ethical means available to level the playing field then for the genetically challenged among us is to allow the ability to take PED’s. It would be unethical to not allow the use of steroids based on this one argument alone.
All in all, sports are entertainment and the more exciting the entertainment, the more the fans enjoy the game. Equally, the more the fans enjoy the game, the more money the athletes can earn. Since the average career for an NFL athlete is 3.5 years, it is of the utmost importance to earn as much money during that period as possible. Steroids help these athletes get bigger contracts and stay healthier allowing them to better take care of their families since their careers may end at any point in time due to injury. Conversly, many people feel that steroid use is cheating, that athletes are cohersed to take them, they create an uneven playing field, are dangerous, they don’t work, and they cause undo harm to the athletes. Due to these arguments against steroids, they have been banned in all professional and amature sports. This action has resulted in more injuries, less excitement, smaller contracts, and players not being able to realize there God given potential.
Moreover, the hypocrisy surrounding steroid use is overwhelming. The same league officials that call for their ban and criminal prosecution based primarily on the health risks to the athletes encourage alcohol sponsorships at baseball fields, smoke cigarettes, and take their kids to McDonalds. Furthermore, the argument that these athletes are role models for kids and the potential for steroid use to be glorified has some merit. However, before we lay the fate of these children on the shoulders of these professional athletes, one needs to examine the role of the parents. The role of a good parent is to be the “role model” for their children. When these parents smoke, drink, take drugs, and feed them a fat filled diet, they are putting their children in way more harm than Barry Bonds is. The real ethical issue comes down to personal choice. Until people are willing to take 100% responsibility for their actions, we will continue to submit to the ruling powers that govern us and be told like children what we can and cannot do.
References
Americans for Non-Smokers Rights. (2014). Secondhand Smoke. Retrieved on January 16, 2015 from http://no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=13
Answers. (2014). How Many steroid deaths per year. Retrieved on January 18, 2015 from http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_steroid_deaths_per_year
Ashby, A. (2010). Why Steroids Have No Place In Sports. Retrieved from http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2010/10/20/why-steroids-have-no-place-in-sports/
Associated Press. (2004). Saddam’s Olympic Torture Tools. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/07/24/saddamrsquos-olympic-torture-tools/
Average NFL player. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_06/b4214058615722.htm
Data, Trends and maps. (2015). Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved on January 17, 2015 from http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/data-stats.htm
Ergogenic Aids. (2014). Retrieved on January 16, 2015 from http://www.healthline.com/natstandardcontent/alt-performance-enhancers
Fainaru, S. (2012). Inside the Numbers: Counting Concussions in the NFL. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/concussion-watch/inside-the-numbers-counting-concussions-in-the-nfl/
Gerth J. (2013). Use Only As Directed. Retrieved from http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/tylenol-is-killing-americans/
Super Size Me. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved January, 18 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me
Tartamella, A. (2012). Baseball fans have never warmed up to the idea of players taking steroids, but should they? Retrieved from http://firstandtensport.com/articles/why-steroids-are-good-for-professional-baseball--2
Therien, S. (2013). Statistics of Health Risks From Eating Fast Food. Retrieved from http://www.livestrong.com/article/383621-statistics-of-health-risks-from-eating-fast-food/
Youth Sports Injuries: Statistics and Prevention Stratagies. (2014). Retrieved on January 18, 2015 from http://houstonorthopedicsportsmedicine.com/2014/07/28/youth-sports-injuries-statistics-and-prevention-strategies/
ARE ETHICS PREVENTING ATHLETES FROM BECOMING THEIR BEST? ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE BAN ON STEROIDS.
A Class Paper Submitted for
SAB 634
Ethics in Sports
Professor: Dr. Ogden
By:
Michael Baptiste
Daphne, Alabama
January, 2015
Table of Contents
Title Page…………………………………………………………………………………….i
Section I. Introduction to the problem…………………………………………………1 Intention of the paper………………………………………………………..1
Section II. Review of Literature………………………………………………………...2 What are ergogenic aids……………………….…………………………….2 Argument #1 Steroids don’t work……………..…………………………….2 Argument #2 Steroids are dangerous………………………………….…….3 Steroid use ethically compared to tobacco………………….………..3 Steroid use ethically …show more content…
compared to alcohol……………………….…...4 The dangers with abuse………………………………………………5 Steroid use ethically compared to fast food………………………….6 Risk factors with steroid use…………………………………………6 Argument #3 Social Cohesion American freedoms vs. communism…………………………………7 Argument #4 Steroids create an undo risk of harm………………….............7 Is the game killing the players?..............................................................8 Argument #5 Steroids create an uneven playing field………………………8 A professors view against steroid use………………………………...8 A professors view for steroid use……………………………………..9
Section III. Summary and Conclusions…………………………………………………10 Ethical considerations for steroid use ………………………………………10 hypocrisy in sport…………………………………………………………...11 References…………………………………………………………………………………..12
What exactly are sports ethics and how do they relate to professional sports in regards to steroid use? Sports ethics are a set of principles of right conduct in relation to a system of moral values created by man. The same ethics that apply to everyday life are not necessarily the same ethics that are applied to professional sports. Likewise, what might be an unethical act in professional sports may be quite ethical and acceptable by the general public. The practice and evolution of ethics has created many fiercely debated topics within sports. One topic in particular is the use of steroids by professional athletes as a means of helping them attain a higher level of play. This paper will explore the moral and ethical considerations about steroid use and tackle several of the most popular arguments against their use. This paper is not intended to be an informative guide or history on the use of steroids, but an in-depth look at the ethical considerations and concerns about steroid use by professional athletes. It is the intention of the author to leave the reader questioning their moral and ethical stance on the issue and further the debate. In spite of the controversy surrounding steroids and the negative attention given to them, it will be argued that the positives out way the negatives. Furthermore, this paper will show both sides of the issue allowing the reader the ability to conclude if steroid use in sports is unethical and cheating or on the contrary the act of banning steroids is unethical and denies a person the rights given to them by god to reach their highest potential.
What do these names have in common? Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Roger Clemens, Rafael Palmero, Alex Rodriguez, Jose Canseco, and Manny Ramirez. If you said they all have taken steroids or are widely believed to have taken steroids, you are correct. If you also answered that they are some of the most exciting players of the last 25 years, you 'd also be correct (Tartamella, 2012). What exactly are steroids and what do they do besides arguably turn ordinary men into gods on the baseball diamond? Steroids are a type of ergogenic aid which helps improve an athlete’s performance. Ergogenic aids are not just steroids or supplements that enhance muscle growth and recovery. Conversely, ergogenic aids can be classified in to three areas: mechanical, psychological, and physiological. Mechanical ergogenic aids refer to those external devices that help the athlete improve their athletic abilities. Examples of mechanical aids would be specially designed shoes, types of bats, training equipment, and facilities. Mechanical aids are only limited by the athlete in respect to his commitment and dedication to training as well as his ability to be able to afford them. Furthermore, psychological aids would refer to motivational speeches, self-talk, and hypnosis to name a few. There are several physiological aids besides steroids for athletes, including massage, acupuncture, sports drinks, sauna, herbal medicines, and wide variety of protein powders and creatine to name a few.
Additionally, many forms of ergogenic aids are regularly incorporated into the training of an athlete. Such methods may be as harmless as friends cheering on the sideline to boost self-esteem or weight training to increase strength when on the field. Less conventional methods include nutritional aids like high-protein diets, physiological aids like sports drinks to replace lost electrolytes and mechanical aids like weighted vests (Ergogenic, 2014).
Several reasons are stated that individuals and organizations give in support of their anti-steroid position. The first reason to ban steroids is that they do not work and therefore, there is no reason to do them. This argument against is near impossible to prove conclusively on a scientific level due to the medical ethics involved in giving potentially fatal mega-doses of steroids to subjects over a prolonged period. Moreover, this argument contradicts its self. If steroids do not work, then why ban them? Should we propose banning and making it illegal to jump off your roof and fly? Since we know people cannot fly, it would be ridiculous to create a law forbidding it. Nevertheless, opponents of steroid use in sports will continue to use this argument with no medical references to back it up.
Equally important, a second argument against steroid use is that they are dangerous and to protect the safety of the athletes, they should be illegal. The use of steroids can have serious health repercussions, including affected liver, endocrine and reproductive function, tumors of the liver and kidneys, heart conditions, and psychiatric symptoms (Ashby, 2010). The question every athlete should be able to answer for themselves is to what cost to their own health are they willing to endure to realize the anticipated gains that taking steroids would produce? Unfortunately, the media has demonized steroids with their ignorant reporting on steroids in an attempt to destroy and to demoralize individuals. Steroid users are often portrayed as cheaters, out- of-control maniacs, and drug dealers. No wonder the public has misconceptions about steroids and the athletes that use them. The uneducated public does not know that some steroids have positive effects on the body and if used properly can be very effective.
Regardless of opinions, what business is it of any individual or professional organization to dictate what any person can put in their body? Unlike second hand smoke which according to Americans for non-smokers rights kills an estimated 53,800 people every year, no one external to the user is harmed from steroid use, yet it is ruled a schedule three banned substance while tobacco is sold on every street corner, killing thousands daily (Americans, 2014). These same tobacco using moralists that place their ethics on others and make judgments as to what is right and wrong are the same people that smoke in the car while their kids sit in the backseat. Any adult smoker that attempts to claim they are not aware of any risk factors to their children breathing in second hand smoke should be arrested.
Steroid users, on the other hand, are aware of the potential risks or side effects and make an informed decision. The key point is that they make the decision themselves whether or not to take the drugs. It should be their decision on what they believe is best for them, and not on some ethical standards placed on them by society or some governing body. Individuals that deem it necessary to place their ethical values on everyone else forget to take in to account that the Barry Bonds and Lance Armstrongs of the world did nothing to negatively impact them. If these moral “high rollers” are so concerned about the health and welfare of people, their time might be better served tackling more important social and health issues facing Americans like the fast food industry or the alcohol lobby. According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there are more than 23,000 deaths related to alcohol each year that are not traffic fatalities or homicides, and 14,406 of those are caused by alcoholic liver disease. Adding these totals to just the total number of drunk driving fatalities alone and one can see that nearly 47,000 deaths occur as a result of these alcohol related causes (Data, 2015).
Furthermore, alcohol contributes to crime and is responsible for many people’s lives being destroyed along with their families. One would presume that your average steroid using professional athlete doesn’t occupy his Sundays in a crack house shooting up or robbing the local convenience store to purchase his PED’s. The average NFL player’s salary is $1.4 million dollars with an average playing span of 3.5 years (Average NFL, 2014). With these statistics, we can be rest assured that the starting quarterback for the Pittsburg Steelers will not be caught down on 5th Avenue with a gun planning a robbery after shooting up his steroids in an abandoned building. Since these steroid using athletes represent no criminal threat to society or themselves, it is unethical to hold them back from becoming their best.
Be that as it may, one potential down side of steroid use is the likelihood of abuse of the substance. However, the abuse of any drug, food, or drink can be detrimental. More people die every year by not eating a proper diet or by ingesting Tylenol than all the steroid deaths combined over the past 50 years. During the last decade, more than 1,500 Americans died after accidentally taking too much of a drug renowned for its safety: acetaminophen, one of the nation’s most popular pain relievers. Acetaminophen – the active ingredient in Tylenol – is considered safe when taken at recommended doses. Yet in larger amounts, especially in combination with alcohol, the drug can damage or even destroy the liver (Gerth, 2013). A strong ethical argument can be made against the producers of Tylenol since they knowing produce a drug that can be hazardous to your health. If Tylenol is legal to sell, as long as there is a warning about potential side effects on the bottle, then steroids should be legal with a similar disclaimer.
All things considered, the real question which should be asked in reference to steroid use is: what are the appropriate dosages that would allow for the least amount of side effects? As already mentioned, the excessive over the top consumption of anything can cause harm. In his block buster documentary “Super Size Me,” Morgan Spurlock showed that excessive consumption of McDonalds food can cause great harm to your health. His thesis for the documentary was based on the ethics of false advertising and supplying food products to children and adults knowing that they can cause health issues and even death. Over a 30 day period, Spurlock consumed three meals per day at different McDonalds across the country. He ate the suggested serving sizes on the menu, resulting in the then-32-year-old Spurlock gaining 24½ lbs. (11.1 kg), a 13% body mass increase, a cholesterol level of 230, and experienced mood swings, sexual dysfunction, and fat accumulation in his liver. It took Spurlock fourteen months to lose the weight gained from his experiment (“Super Size Me”, 2014). Granted this experiment was done to prove a point, but it was 100% legal. Moreover, it exposes the government and big corporations as the ethical “big brother” dictating to the masses what is acceptable risk and what is not.
The risk factors for consuming legal products like fast food over a short period of time can be death. The US Department of Health and Human Services discovered that the combination of a poor diet and a lack of physical activity causes 310,000 to 580,000 deaths every year. These numbers are significantly higher than deaths caused either by guns or drug use (Therien, 2013). According to the Center for Disease Control, there are a total of 3 deaths caused by steroid use per year (Answers, 2014). This figure does not account for the possibility that those three individuals used absurd amounts of the compounds or that they were sharing dirty needles.
Unlike the devastating side effects of poor nutrition, the majority of steroid users only realize minor acne, with the possibility of increases in aggression and cholesterol. The rise in LDL cholesterol and the decrease in HDL cholesterol may have some side effects on the cardiovascular system. Regardless, these effects are a far cry from all the deaths each year from fast food consumption and a small price to pay for the potential million dollar contracts these athletes sign. It is more unethical to prevent a father from making as much money as he can to support his children. If the use of steroids can make an athlete a few more million dollars for his family, then it seems only ethical to allow their use. Since an athlete only has a 3.5 year average career, it is imperative that they make the most out of that time period.
Another and probably the most used argument against steroid use in athletics is the social coercion stance. Proponents of steroid use argue that because some athletes are using steroids in order for them to remain competitive at that level that they are forced to use steroids as well. The athlete is being coerced into using drugs placing them in a compromised position with breaking the law, jeopardizing their careers, and facing the side effects of their use. Last time I looked we live in America, home of the free. At this point we still have rights protected under the constitution and at no point are any American citizens forced to take drugs or play football.
In addition, unlike some communist countries, a person is not assigned a job from birth or forced to compete in any sport. If people do not have a clear grasp on the ethics of this argument, then they obviously have no understanding of our country. Unfortunately, as with athletes in Iraq, they were forced to take steroids to compete and were tortured if they didn’t win. According to Talib Mutan, an Iraqi Olympics Committee official, Sadam Huseins son Odai would punish athletes that came in second place by beatings, sleep deprivation, and burning their feet (Associated, 2004). Our country is a far cry different and no one forces an individual to compete or punishes them for second place other than themselves. Life in this country is about the choices we make on a daily basis. Based upon those choices, we design a life of either misery or happiness. Regardless of the outcome, our results should be controlled by the choices we make. By limiting the choices of professional athletes to take steroids ultimately limits not only their rights, but also there God-given rights to have, be, and do whatever they desire as long as it does not infringe on another’s rights.
Not surprisingly, according to Concussion Watch, teams had 128 players with concussions or head injuries on weekly regular-season injury reports through the first 14 weeks and are on pace to report 155 for the regular season (Fainaru, 2012). These statistics coming from the NFL completely debunk the next argument that steroids create an undo risk of harm to the athletes. Undo risk? Professional athletes by nature of the game are guaranteed to get injured multiple times throughout their brief careers. Equally, there are thousands of surgical procedures performed by sports medicine doctors across the country on youth athletes each year. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), more than 2.6 million children under the age of 19 are treated in emergency rooms each year for injuries related to sporting events (Youth Sports, 2014).
Data involving the devastating, destructive effects from long term steroid use are not published by the NFL or CDC. These reports are not published because they do not exist. Not surprisingly, there are little or no surgeries nor medical attention reported each year for the use of steroids. Equally, when professional athletes retire, one would be hard pressed to hear them complaining about nagging issues resulting from steroid use. These athletes suffer damaging bodily injuries due to the violent nature of most professional sports. In other words, the game is killing these athletes, not steroid use. On the contrary, steroids may in fact prolong many athletes’ careers and help prevent injuries. Therefore, to use the argument that steroids cause an undue risk to athletes is ridiculous. If the athlete’s health is really of concern, then the most logical answer would be to just eliminate sports.
Finally, the last argument against steroid use is that they create an uneven playing field.
According to David Fairchild, PhD professor of philosophy at Indiana University and opponent of steroids in sports, states without equivocation "[T]he use of performance enhancers is cheating because it violates constitutive rules of the activity. Since such use is cheating, it is wrong and we should expect the disqualification of competitors who are caught doping. This conclusion is established through a simple and straightforward argument. Cheating is the deliberate, knowing, and voluntary violation of certain constitutive rules in order to gain a competitive advantage. Since the violation is knowing, the attempt to gain an advantage is illegitimate and unethical, and the advantage sought is thus unfair. The knowing and voluntary use of proscribed substances is an attempt to gain such an unfair advantage. Some specified performance enhancers, anabolic steroids for example, are listed as proscribed substances in certain sports. The deliberate use of steroids is thus an illegitimate attempt to gain an unfair advantage. We conclude that their use is cheating." (Fairchild, 1992) Fairchild’s entire premise that steroids are unethical is based solely on the rules set forth against them. His argument stems from a decision to ban the substance and not on any medical research. Thus, using his logic, one can conclude that if two seven foot tall adults decided to have a child it would be unethical for him to dominate the sport of basketball because parents knowingly produced a child with the genes to grow to seven feet tall. Henceforth, this would knowingly give him an unfair advantage over the five foot tall individual. Moreover, using this argument, one delves into the area of genetic engineering. Is it ethical through genetic engineering for a women to go to a doctor and virtually pick out the egg and sperm that could yield an amazing athlete and be inseminated? Where is
the fairness when it comes to this child competing against others? Steroids are the only way to level the playing field now and more so in the future.
Nonetheless, in the Aug. 1, 2005 article titled "Why We Should Allow Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport," Bennett Foddy, a professor in Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University, and Julian Savulescu, PhD, Professor and Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford, made the following statements "There is no difference between elevating your blood count by altitude training, by using a hypoxic air machine, or by taking EPO [erythropoietin]. But the last is illegal. Some competitors have high PCVs [packed cell volumes] and an advantage by luck. Some can afford hypoxic air machines. Is this fair? Nature is not fair. Ian Thorpe has enormous feet which give him an advantage that no other swimmer can get, no matter how much they exercise. Some gymnasts are more flexible, and some basketball players are seven feet tall. By allowing everyone to take performance enhancing drugs, we level the playing field. We remove the effects of genetic inequality. Far from being unfair, allowing performance enhancement promotes equality”. (Fairchild, 1992)
This argument for steroids has validity in that it recognizes the genetic differences between athletes. The only way a five foot six inch individual can possibly compete against three hundred pound linebackers in the NFL is if he takes steroids. The most ethical means available to level the playing field then for the genetically challenged among us is to allow the ability to take PED’s. It would be unethical to not allow the use of steroids based on this one argument alone.
All in all, sports are entertainment and the more exciting the entertainment, the more the fans enjoy the game. Equally, the more the fans enjoy the game, the more money the athletes can earn. Since the average career for an NFL athlete is 3.5 years, it is of the utmost importance to earn as much money during that period as possible. Steroids help these athletes get bigger contracts and stay healthier allowing them to better take care of their families since their careers may end at any point in time due to injury. Conversly, many people feel that steroid use is cheating, that athletes are cohersed to take them, they create an uneven playing field, are dangerous, they don’t work, and they cause undo harm to the athletes. Due to these arguments against steroids, they have been banned in all professional and amature sports. This action has resulted in more injuries, less excitement, smaller contracts, and players not being able to realize there God given potential.
Moreover, the hypocrisy surrounding steroid use is overwhelming. The same league officials that call for their ban and criminal prosecution based primarily on the health risks to the athletes encourage alcohol sponsorships at baseball fields, smoke cigarettes, and take their kids to McDonalds. Furthermore, the argument that these athletes are role models for kids and the potential for steroid use to be glorified has some merit. However, before we lay the fate of these children on the shoulders of these professional athletes, one needs to examine the role of the parents. The role of a good parent is to be the “role model” for their children. When these parents smoke, drink, take drugs, and feed them a fat filled diet, they are putting their children in way more harm than Barry Bonds is. The real ethical issue comes down to personal choice. Until people are willing to take 100% responsibility for their actions, we will continue to submit to the ruling powers that govern us and be told like children what we can and cannot do.
References
Americans for Non-Smokers Rights. (2014). Secondhand Smoke. Retrieved on January 16, 2015 from http://no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=13
Answers. (2014). How Many steroid deaths per year. Retrieved on January 18, 2015 from http://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_steroid_deaths_per_year
Ashby, A. (2010). Why Steroids Have No Place In Sports. Retrieved from http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2010/10/20/why-steroids-have-no-place-in-sports/
Associated Press. (2004). Saddam’s Olympic Torture Tools. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/07/24/saddamrsquos-olympic-torture-tools/
Average NFL player. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_06/b4214058615722.htm
Data, Trends and maps. (2015). Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved on January 17, 2015 from http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/data-stats.htm
Ergogenic Aids. (2014). Retrieved on January 16, 2015 from http://www.healthline.com/natstandardcontent/alt-performance-enhancers
Fainaru, S. (2012). Inside the Numbers: Counting Concussions in the NFL. Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sports/concussion-watch/inside-the-numbers-counting-concussions-in-the-nfl/
Gerth J. (2013). Use Only As Directed. Retrieved from http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/tylenol-is-killing-americans/
Super Size Me. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved January, 18 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Size_Me
Tartamella, A. (2012). Baseball fans have never warmed up to the idea of players taking steroids, but should they? Retrieved from http://firstandtensport.com/articles/why-steroids-are-good-for-professional-baseball--2
Therien, S. (2013). Statistics of Health Risks From Eating Fast Food. Retrieved from http://www.livestrong.com/article/383621-statistics-of-health-risks-from-eating-fast-food/
Youth Sports Injuries: Statistics and Prevention Stratagies. (2014). Retrieved on January 18, 2015 from http://houstonorthopedicsportsmedicine.com/2014/07/28/youth-sports-injuries-statistics-and-prevention-strategies/