Why We Shouldn T Performance Enhancing Drugs Be Banned In Sports

Dying to win: Drugs in sport and competition

Athletes at all levels are exposed to the pressures to win and achieve excellence in the sporting world. These pressures can take a negative toll on athletes, driving them towards the use of performance-enhancing drugs (Simon, 2007). Since the 1960’s when doping regulations came into practice, drugs and sports has become a hot topic of moral and ethical debate on whether drugs should or should not be taken by athletes to enhance performance despite performance-enhancing drugs having been around since the era of the roman gladiators (Waddington & Smith, 2008). It is important to understand the view of sport in society and how this reflects ethics and morals examining the two conflicting side
of the performance enhancing drugs issue. These two sides will be used in discussing the idea of creating good competition that they both support. Finally, I will discuss a personal take on the issue and what implications may arise from this in coaching situations. Before this however, we need to create an understanding of what a performance-enhancing drug is.
The Words Anti Doping Agency (WADA) is the agency responsible for determining what substance and methods are performance enhancing and illegal to be used by athletes in or in and out of competition (Smith & Waddington, 2008). Defining what a prohibited performance-enhancing drug is difficult given that some substances are able to be produced naturally in the body or are necessary as treatments for heath problems (Simon, 2007). WADA every year produces the prohibited list, defining all the substances and methods that are banned for use by athletes because of their performance enhancing properties (World Anti Doping Agency [WADA], 2011). The International Olympic Committee (IOC) first published a prohibited substances list in 1963. However, some substances must be treated on a case-by-case basis as the individual sport governing bodies decide which specific drugs are to be banned in their sport. Simon (2007) states how there are three main criteria to determine if a drug has been taken illegally. First, if the athlete did not think the substance would improve their performance, they would not of taken it. Second if the substance would cause significant harm to the athlete. Finally, if the amount taken is not prescribed to relieve illness. Examples of these substances are anabolic steroids, beta-blockers and stimulants. There are also three methods that the list covers, blood doping through transfusion, genetic doping or tampering with a sample (WADA, 2011).
As critical theory and functionalism state, sport is a reflection of society and can also be a tool for changing the way individuals view the world (Coakley, Hallinan, Jackson & Mewett, 2009). Pierre de Coubertin, the founder of the modern Olympics constructed two main ways to view sport; the temple and the fair. The temple is a view that reflects the sacredness of sport and the Olympic ideals that were reflected in the ancient Olympic games (Martinkova, 2006). De Coubertin described how the temple is focused on the all round development of athletes as they strive to improve more personal aspects of their personal development and performance as opposed to being driven to always be better then the competition (Martinkova, 2006). This reflects the ideal of sport as a valued human practice to bring society together through the love and joy found in sport (Arnold, 1997). On the opposite side, he fair is a reflection of sport being an institution in society where the emphasis is placed on the pursuit of excellence (Arnold, 1997). This view on sport can be seen to be an influencing factor in the use of performance-enhancing drugs as athletes are under the pressure to always achieve excellence from themselves, coaches, media or sponsors (Coakley, 2004). Te use of performance enhancing drugs is not a new phenomenon in sport however, it has only been until recently that they have become so highly scrutinised (Waddington & Smith, 2008).
Since 1963 when the IOC first found there was a problem with the use of anabolic steroids in sports, there has been a so-called ‘war on drugs’ with the aim of managing bans on performance-enhancing drugs (Mazanov & Connor, 2010).
So what are the reasons for banning these performance-enhancing drugs? The biggest emphasis of the banning of these drugs comes down to the harm that they cause to the individuals taking them. Steroids for example are a substance that causes many adverse health effects. Most are physical, effecting the normal functioning of the internal organs and suppressing the natural production of hormones, however there are psychological impacts such as aggression and addiction that can last for life (Evans, 2008). Another impact that performance-enhancing drugs are the negative image that is associated with the taking of drugs in relation to the educative value that sport has in society. Another way to look at the banning of drugs is from the athlete’s moral perspective. Mroczkowska (2011) interviewed athletes who were involved in individual, top league and junior team sports to determine their view on the risks and impact that the use of performance enhancing drugs would have on them. The athletes from the different codes all saw that the biggest risk taking performance-enhancing drugs would affect their health, respect and public image. These risks emphasise the need for the heightened control around the use of drugs because of the influence they have on the
decisions of younger athletes. The all-star athlete who is a user of drugs could have a coercive impact on a young athletes choice to take drugs (Simon, 2007). There is also an impact on the true value of competition. Taking performance enhancing drugs is seen as not abiding by the intrinsic values and the rules of competitive sport and a form of cheating (Arnold, 1997). Simon (2007) defines the point of competition as a test of the athletic ability of persons and not their ability to react to drugs as well as the athlete’s ability to react to choices and strategies. Therefore, using drugs in sport is seen as no longer participating in the sport as the athlete is not abiding by its rules and values (Arnold, 1997).
There is a second side to the use of performance-enhancing drugs, the idea that drugs should be made legal in sports. One major argument for the legalizing of performance-enhancing drugs in sport is the technological development argument. Advancements that have been made in the external technologies for sports (i.e. equipment and clothing) can be seen as an external form of doping where performances can be improved by manipulating (Miah, 2011). Altitude tents are another example of a legal technology that manipulates the internal chemical composition of the body by boosting red blood cells in a similar way that recombinant human Erythropoietin [r-HuEPO], an illegal blood boosting drug (Martin, 2002). Many officials and coaches see this as a legal form of cheating. Both of these technologies are able to manipulate the internal and external athletic performance. Miah (2011) believes that as these technologies are legal for use, the use of drugs in sport should be as well to make the competition field level. Legalising the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport would prevent the use of the drugs from going underground in sport, which is even more dangerous to an athlete’s health as they cannot be fully informed on the dangers of the drugs and the safest ways to use them (Loland, 2009). This would be solved with the use of doctors safely monitoring the athlete’s use of the drugs in order to put the athletes health as the number one priority in the practice (Mazanov & Connor, 2010). Advancements in technological advancement also relate to the athletes training. Many decades ago, the practice of training for competitions was frowned upon because of the way it was seen to be unnaturally altering the body (Loland, 2009). Now it is the standard, socially expected practice by athletes so they are able to compete at their physical best (Miah, 2011). The training that athletes complete to enhance their performance can lead to health risks (Arnold, 1997). High volume endurance training for fitness and body fat reduction carries the risk of developing excessive fatigue illnesses (Halson & Jones, 2002). Legalising drugs in sport could be justified due to the acceptance of other performance-enhancing technologies into sport that manipulate the body in ways that drugs are able to as well.
The Olympic ideals are something that I enjoy basing my coaching philosophy on. I strongly believe in the joy found in effort and the intrinsic good that sport brings to societies. Coming from a background in cycling, the opinion of most people is cycling is a sport full of drugs cheats. I take on the opposite stance to this that drugs are an unethical practice in sport and I hope that the image of cycling can be cleaned up. However, examining both sides of the performance enhancing drugs in sport has helped me to better understand the stance that I personally take. Both side of the argument are focused on creating fair competition for all athletes by either eliminating drugs or allowing full access to them (Murray, 2010). Having completely fair competition would be ideal, however I do not believe it can be achieved through allowing drugs to be legalised, as there will always be athletes opposed to the practice (Murray, 2010). As is stated by Simon (2007) competition is about the athletic ability of an athlete. By allowing drugs freely into sport, the human factor would be removed and competition would be about who is best able to adapt to the performance enhancing drugs. Even this would be an unfair practice, as the each individual would respond differently to certain drugs (Simon, 2007). I also feel that athletes should have a solid role model in their lives on which they are able to use as motivation for their own sporting success. The ‘win at all costs’ attitude that is observed in many athletes at elite level has become almost a social normality, which makes cheating, including the use of drugs, ‘okay’ so long as one is not caught (Birnbaum, 2003). I prefer the attitude of ‘Athletes first. Winning second,’ regularly emphasised by Clive Moon, Sports Injuries lecturer at Canterbury University to ensure athletes wellbeing is given priority over performance. If athletes are well looked after and well balanced mentally and physically, excellence in performance is almost second nature to them with out the need for drug or technological intervention.
The 1998 Tour de France can only be described as the event that bought drugs in sport out into the spotlight with the discovery of large quantities of doping products in the cyclists rooms (Jones, 2010). Because of this, coaches and cyclists have the implication of managing and developing a positive image in cycling. Although a coach has the position of being a role model and influence on an athlete, it is important they do not directly construct their ideals but educate them around the subject of drugs in sport so they are able to construct their own stance through experiences as Brainerd (2003) states is an effective way of acquiring knowledge. It is acceptable to state that there will always be an issue with the use of drugs in sport however this can be managed with the continued education of youth and adult athletes around the impact that drugs have on an athletes health and values (Hanson, 2009). This has worked in the United States of America with the ATLAS and ATHENA programmes aimed at youth education in sport (Hanson, 2009). Another implication that coaches can face is the differing individual values and choices of athletes. If an athlete or coach has a view that drugs should be used in sport or they are using them, should the coach segregate them in order to maintain fair and positive sporting values?

Bibliography
Birnbaum, L.
(2003). Athletes: Our Role Models, Right?. Professionalization of Exercise Physiology, 6(7), 2. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Brainerd, C.J. (2003). Jean Piaget, learning, research and American education. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.) Educational psychology: a century of contributions (pp. 251-288). Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Coakley, J. (2004). Sport in society: issues and controversies (8th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Coakley, J., Hallinan, C., Jackson, S., & Mewett, P. (2009). Sports in society: issues and controversies in Australia and New Zealand. North Ryde, Australia: McGraw-Hill Australia Pty Ltd.
Evans, M. J. (2008). An introduction to anabolic steroids. SportEX Medicine, (38), 20-26. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Hanson, J. M. (2009). Equipping athletes to make informed decisions about performance-enhancing drug use: a constructivist perspective from educational psychology. Sport in Society, 12(3), 394-410. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Jones, C. (2010). Doping in Cycling: Realism, Antirealism and Ethical Deliberation. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 37(1), 88-101. Retrieved from
EBSCOhost.
Loland, S. (2009). The Ethics of Performance-Enhancing Technology in Sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 36(2), 152-161. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Martinkova, I. (2006). Ethics of human performance. Paper presented at the 7th
Mazanov, J., & Connor, J. (2010). Rethinking the management of drugs in sport. International Journal of Sport Policy, 2(1), 49-63. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Miah, A. (speaker). (2011, 17 March). From nine to noon: featured guest Andy Miah [Audio Podcast]. Retrieved from http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20110317-1008-Feature_guest_-_Andy_Miah-048.mp3.
Mroczkowska, H. (2011). Perception of risks associated with the doping use among the competitors practicing individual and group sport disciplines. Polish Journal of Sport & Tourism, 18(2), 122-127. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Murray, T. H. (2010). Making Sense of Fairness in Sports. ASCA Newsletter, 2010(5), 4-6. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
Simon, R. L. (2007). Good competition and drug-enhanced performance. In W. J. Morgan (Eds.), Ethics in sport (pp. 245-252). Champaign, IL.: Human Kinetics.
Smith, A, & Waddington, I. (2008). An Introduction to Drugs in Sport: Addicted to Winning?. Taylor & Francis. Retrieved 13 September 2011, from http://lib.myilibrary.com?ID=193223.
World Anti-Doping Agency. (2011). The world anti-doping code: the 2011 prohibited list. Retrieved from http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-Organizations/International-Standards/Prohibited-List/.