TOPIC GUIDE: Doping in Sport
"We should permit the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport"
PUBLISHED: 29 May 2015
AUTHOR: Adam Rawcliffe
Share this Topic Guide:
In May 2015 doping in sport hit the headlines again when the entire American 4 by 100 metre relay team were stripped of their silver medals three years after the 2012 London Olympics, due to star sprinter Tyson Gay’s drugs ban [Ref: Telegraph]. This follows former seven-time winner of the Tour de France Lance Armstrong admitting the consistent use of performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) throughout his career, and being the ringleader of what has been described as “the most sophisticated, professionalised and successful doping program that sport had ever seen” [Ref: BBC Sport]. In 2013 ‘the blackest day in Australian sport’ followed a report from the Australian Crime Commission which reported widespread use of performance enhancing drugs in Australia, particularly in the Australian Football League [Ref: Sydney Morning Herald]. And evidence suggests that of 21 podium finishers in the Tour de France 1999-2005, 20 are suspected or proven to have used banned substances [Ref: Practical Ethics Blog]. Despite publicising itself as ‘the toughest Olympics ever’ on drug cheats, 107 athletes tested positive to doping prior to London 2012, and numerous athletes who passed tests throughout the games have since tested positive - including the Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova, and Jamaican sprinters Asafa Powell and Sherone Simpson [Ref: aeon]. This has led many commentators to question the ability of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) to control the use of illegal aids in sport [Ref: Huffington Post], and has prompted debate about whether doping in sport is in fact ethically wrong.
For further reading use the menu bar on the right hand side.
Doping in Sport DEBATE IN CONTEXT
This section provides a summary of the key issues in the debate, set in the context of recent discussions and the competing positions that have been adopted.
What are Performance enhancing drugs, and are they safe?
The use of artificial substances or methods to enhance athletic performance dates back as far as the 776 BC Olympics, according to some commentators, where athletes would use cola plants and even eat sheep’s testicles in an effort to increase performance [Ref: Observer]. Manipulation of the body, through training, diet and the use of equipment, has always been an accepted part of athletic activity. The World Anti Doping Agency (WADA), in its 2015 Code, places strict restrictions upon substances that meet two of the following criteria: (1) they are a danger to health; (2) they lead to performance enhancement; or (3) their use is contrary to the spirit of sport [Ref: WADA]. Those opposed to doping point to the health risks associated with performance enhancing drugs, noting that anabolic steroids can cause infertility, liver abnormalities, tumours and numerous psychiatric disorders [Ref: USADA]. For example the hormone erythropoietin (EPO) thickens the blood, increasing the risk of clotting, strokes and heart failure; and some users stop being able to produce red blood cells and can become dependent on it [Ref: Telegraph]. After a Cycling Independent Reform Commission report found that “doping in amateur cycling is becoming endemic”, many now fear that amateur athletes, following the example set by professionals, will fall victim to the same health problems [Ref: BBC Sport]. There are even suggestions that child athletes in Russia are being encouraged to take performance enhancing drugs [Ref: Guardian].
Is performance enhancement a bad thing?
According to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and anti-doping commentators, performance enhancing drugs devalue athletic achievement which they define as “the pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection of each person’s natural talents” [Ref: WADA]. However, enhancement can take many forms; biological, technological and chemical, many of which are permitted in sport – baseball players are permitted to have laser eye surgery to improve their eyesight, as well as ligament transplants to aid pitching speed and reduce injury [Ref: New Yorker], and enhancements like wearable technology only serve to distance us further from our natural limits [Ref: Law in Sport]. For some, such as writer Radley Balko, the concept of enhancement is fundamental to the pursuit of excellence in sport: “Ingenuity, innovation, nutrition, and knowledge about what makes us faster and stronger, has always been a part of the game” [Ref: Huffington Post]. After all, sports people train, alter their diets and take supplements so as to turn the athlete “into an improved version of his natural self” [Ref: New Yorker]. If this is the case, then why do we object to sports people using performance enhancing drugs to do this? Are performance enhancing drugs a victim of “an accident of language” which gives them a false connection with drugs like crack cocaine and heroin [Ref: CNN]? For those opposed to performance enhancing drugs the distinction isn’t a technical one, but ethical in nature - as one commentator points out, “the moral offence lies in the diminishing of the very idea of sport as a contest of merit and fair play” [Ref: CS Monitor]. But perhaps more profoundly, some suggest whilst lamenting the decline of sportsmanship, that if we were to permit the use of performance enhancing drugs, the effect would be corrosive for us more broadly, because: “Sports have always been the repository of a culture’s values, mirroring and shaping society” [Ref: City Journal].
The ethics of doping – would it undermine the ‘spirit of sport’?
Those critical of the use of performance enhancing drugs worry that the ‘all or nothing’ culture pervasive in professional sport, in which: “Second place is first loser” [Ref: Telegraph] drives the need for sportsmen to continually seek ways of coming out on top. They argue that doping undermines sportsmanship more generally, and deprives athletes of a level playing field if some choose to take drugs and others do not [Ref: Huffington Post]. An unforeseen consequence of this, they suggest, could be that permitting the use of performance enhancing drugs would only advantage rich countries who would be able to fund more advanced doping programs – further entrenching unfairness [Ref: Outside Online]. However, it is worth noting that some performance enhancing drugs are relatively cheap - a cyclist can buy enough EPO to last a season for just £1,000 when a set of carbon fibre wheels costs £2,000 or more [Ref: BBC Sport]. Writer and author Malcolm Gladwell notes that some individuals “carry genes that put them far ahead of ordinary athletes”, and concludes that, “elite sport then, is a contest amongst wildly disparate groups of people, who approach the starting line with an uneven set of genetic endowments and natural advantages” [Ref: New Yorker]. Some people, for example, are blessed with far higher haemoglobin levels in their blood than normal, allowing them to excel at endurance sports [Ref: New Yorker] - so how should we view these individuals? Do their natural advantages render competition unfair? Opponents counter that sport is the embodiment of the human will to achieve superhuman accomplishments through dedication and the sharpening of our natural talents [Ref: aeon]. Drug intervention, they argue, could reach a point where it is impossible to distinguish between the uniqueness of human achievement, and technological innovation - therefore, de-humanizing sport: “A race at 43km/h is not necessarily any more interesting than one at 39km/h but the amazement vanishes if the riders become computer game characters with infinite lives and endless energy re-ups” [Ref: Inner Ring]. How then should we view performance enhancing drugs in sport? Do they denigrate the spirit of fair competition, and dehumanise the sporting spectacle? Or is the will to overcome our natural limits what makes us human? As Professor Julian Savulescu states: “Doping expresses the spirit of sport. To be human is to be better. Humans are not like racehorses, flogged by the whip of the jockey: they are their own masters” [Ref: aeon].
It is crucial for debaters to have read the articles in this section, which provide essential information and arguments for and against the debate motion. Students will be expected to have additional evidence and examples derived from independent research, but they can expect to be criticised if they lack a basic familiarity with the issues raised in the essential reading.
Louisa Thomas New Yorker 29 July 2016
WADA 1 January 2015
Julian Savulescu Aeon 11 June 2014
Malcolm Gladwell New Yorker 9 September 2013
Ellis Cashmore CNN 24 October 2012
Ian Steadman Wired 9 October 2012
Inner Ring 20 February 2013
Tom Murray Pittsburgh Gazette 2 December 2012
Chris Cooper New Republic 29 June 2012
Michael Shermer Huffington Post 25 May 2012
New York Times 1 August 2016
Steven Poole Aeon 7 November 2012
David Edmunds Prospect Magazine 16 November 2011
Definitions of key concepts that are crucial for understanding the topic. Students should be familiar with these terms and the different ways in which they are used and interpreted and should be prepared to explain their significance.
Useful websites and materials that provide a good starting point for research.
James Kirkup Telegraph 4 June 2015
Peter Vigneron Outside Online 19 April 2015
Jonny Madill Law in Sport 9 April 2015
Joe Rafferty Inside the games 8 April 2015
Mark Kenny Sydney Morning Herald 1 April 2015
Joe DeLessio New York Magazine 31 March 2015
Jonathan Liew Telegraph 11 March 2015
James McDonald Bleacher Report 20 February 2015
Peter Vigneron Outside Online 15 December 2014
Scott Douglas Runnersworld 25 October 2013
Marek Doyle Huffington Post 29 January 2013
Christian Science Monitor 17 January 2013
Radley Balko Huffington Post 15 January 2013
Dr Phil Skiba Velo News 2 November 2012
Julian Savulescu & Bennett Foddy University of Oxford 6 July 2012
Kjetil K. Haugen Academia.edu 1 April 2011
DW 1 October 2010
Dan Travis spiked 25 June 2008
Observer 8 February 2004
Brian C. Anderson & Peter Reinharz City Journal 2000
Links to organisations, campaign groups and official bodies who are referenced within the Topic Guide or which will be of use in providing additional research information.
IN THE NEWS
Relevant recent news stories from a variety of sources, which ensure students have an up to date awareness of the state of the debate.
Telegraph 31 July 2016
BBC News 27 July 2016
CNN 24 July 2016
BBC Sport 18 July 2016
Telegraph 11 July 2016
BBC Sport 8 June 2016
Malaysian Insider 19 May 2015
BBC Sport 15 May 2015
Guardian 15 May 2015
BBC Sport 14 May 2015
Telegraph 13 May 2015
New York Daily News 12 May 2015
Cycling Weekly 5 May 2015
ABC News 4 May 2015
Guardian 24 April 2015
Guardian 2 April 2015
Sky Racing 26 March 2015
Guardian 3 February 2015
BBC Sport 11 November 2014
Guardian 8 November 2014
International Business Times 20 August 2014
BBC Sport 11 October 2012
BBC News 31 July 2012
Telegraph 19 January 2012
This site contains links to websites operated by parties other than Debating Matters. Although we make every effort to ensure links are current, they will sometimes break after Topic Guide publication. If a link does not work, then the publication reference and date should enable you to find an alternate link. If you find a broken link do please send it to the webmaster for review.
TOPIC GUIDE MENU
Select the relevant option
Related topic guides