NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
Introduction Performance enhancing drugs in sports has become a controversial topic in todays professional sports world, as pros and cons are discussed in the media and among professional organizations. Todays athletes continue to push the boundaries of excellence in performance and physical fitness. Helping these athletes are more refined training methods and technologies. Never have athletes had more training aids at their disposal. The down side is that never before have athletes had more opportunities to cheat mainly through the use of performance enhancing drugs. Defining Performance Enhancing Drugs Sport enhancing drug used by athletes to enhance performance include Steroids, Creatine, Amphetamines, Stimulants, Peptide Hormones, Human growth Hormone, and Insulin.
Steroids and performance enhancing drugs are used by todays athletes to increase the testosterone production in the body. These drugs work by stimulating muscle growth and muscle development. Athletes also seek this effect through the use of over the counter substances such as creatine, androstenedione, and erythropoietin especially at the high school level. These drugs do have some medical uses, but are carefully controlled when used for medical reasons, and are illegal unless used in accordance with a prescription. The article from CBC In Depth look at Drugs Amphetamine-like sympathomimetics are described as drugs that stimulate the central nervous system, as well as the cardiovascular system. In addition, they increase glycogen and fatty acid metabolism.
Such compounds have been shown to improve athletic performance to various degrees in strength and endurance exercises, improve reaction times, and reduce fatigue. Amphetamine and its analogues can cause euphoria, boost confidence, and intensify aggression (2006). The concern with this group of drugs is ephedrine, which is available in the United States and abroad, and is often found in combination allergy and cold products and in dietary supplements. The NCAA prohibits the use of ephedrine, and the National Football League (NFL) added ephedrine to its list of banned substances in 2001 Nowadays more and more athletes are tempted to use GH as a performance drug.
It is considered to be efficient undetectable and without major side effects. Athletes use it to increase their muscle mass and strength. GH is also believed to reduce injuries and to shorten recovery periods between workouts. Pros of Performance Enhancing Drugs The pros of using sports enhancing drugs include; physical enhancement, bigger body mass, improves strength and endurance, improved performance. Steroids increase muscle mass and strength which helps athletes recover quicker from injuries.
Cons of Performance Enhancing Drugs The cons of using sports enhancing drugs include negative physical side effects. All of the physical side effects can present very serious medical issues. Males are subject to hair loss, acne and liver cancer which can be a life threatening disease. Females are exposed to growth of body and facial hair and they are also liable to contract deepening of the voice. Gaining that little bit of competitiveness can lead to greater increases in performance but may affect an athletes overall health. Moral issues and the impact on high school sports are issues also surrounding the use of performance enhancing drugs.
Performance enhancing drugs are on the rise in high schools. Athletes hear about the pros using the drugs and they see the difference it makes, but what they don't know or don't care about are the long term effects. The effects on teenagers are similar to the effects on adults. If a teenager starts out using at this young age and constantly uses, they will never be able to stop because of the addictive ness the drug has on them. Controversial Issues Surrounding Performance Enhancing Drugs Controversial issues in professional sports are all over the media. There has been a lot of media controversy about steroids in sports.
The pressure has caused some sport stars to admit to their use of steroids. Some of the professional baseball players that have admitted to steroids use Gary Sheffield, and Jason Giambi. Steroids seem to be very helpful to professional athletes. The people who takes steroids has advantage over other people. Babe Ruth vs Barry Bonds home run record is another hot topic in the media. Barry Bonds who has denied using steroids even though he has been accused of steroid use has broken Babe Ruth home run record.
Should history show the record broken by Barry Bonds if he was on steroids or should there be a foot note in the history book? Ben Johnson Olympic record was also questioned. Johnson captured the imagination of Canadians on Sept. 27, 1988, when he won the 100 -metre sprint title in a world-record time of 9. 79 seconds at the Seoul Olympics (CBC Sports 2003). To make the victory even sweeter, Johnson captured the gold medal by handily defeating American rival Carl Lewis.
The euphoria of Johnson's win didn't last, however, when it was found the Canadian tested positive for the anabolic steroid stanozolol. Johnson's claim that the positive test stemmed from a spiked herbal drink the night before the race was unfounded (not that his positive test was any surprise, considering his inflated deltoid muscles and jaundiced eyes, but how many Canadians wanted to believe that? ). Johnson was stripped of his gold medal and world record and banned from competition for two years. The disgrace of the event was a black eye on Canadian amateur sport and pushed the drugs-in-sport issue to the forefront like never before. Nearly 15 years later, it was discovered that several American track athletes tested positive for drugs before those same Seoul Games. Allegedly among them was Lewis, who was awarded the gold medal after Johnson's disqualification...
Tour de France athletes using drugs to win, Some say cycling faced a near death following the 1998 doping scandal in which French officials caught an employee of the Festina cycling team with a carload of performance-enhancing drugs, including erythropoietin (EPO) a hormone that helps the blood carry more oxygen, letting you go faster and longer on your two wheels. Tour de France winner American Floyd Landis has failed two drug test following his victory this year. Conclusion Pressure placed on athletes to perform better. The fierce competitive nature of the modern sports world, in combination with society's demand for excellence, has caused athletes to seek alternative means to enhance their performance. Today's athlete faces an increasingly difficult choice: to use drugs to enhance performance or to accept what could amount to a competitive handicap.
It is a choice, which carries significant ethical considerations. Should athletes be permitted to make this choice, or should society, through the sports' governing bodies strictly enforce the ban on performance enhancing drugs? Some argue that the choice should be left to the athletes in order to respect their individual choice above any ethical considerations. Others choose to ban performance-enhancing drugs with the intention of protecting the athlete against the potentially harmful consequences of his or her own actions. Athletes who are caught using illegal drugs are often exposed through the media and negatively discriminated against by the sporting community. The result is that the athlete faces a double bind conflict: he or she is pressured to produce superhuman performance, yet must remain ethically human while preparing for them.
The negative effects of cheating in sport are numerous and all harmful in nature. Beyond the negative aspect which cheating in sports presents, are dangerous physiological and psychological side effects, which the athlete faces when, using performance enhancing drugs such as anabolic and androgenic steroids? At the heart of anti-drug use in sport debates, lies the idea that using sport enhancing drugs take away the true intention of sport. The continuing media frenzy of drug use in sport is negatively impacts the athlete, as well as the sporting itself. Drugs and other performance enhancers do not reflect the forms of human excellence which sports are intended to honor.
Using performance-enhancing drugs is the same as using a corked or lead-weighted bat in baseball. In either case, the true skill, hard work and excellence of the athlete are masked behind a form of cheating. In addition to the negative impact of cheating in sports, the side effects of anabolic and androgenic steroids present another negative realm of drug use in sport. Drug testing is not yet extensive enough yet to deter the athlete from using he drug, but has enhanced fair competition in certain sports.
Without any testing, drug use would be out of control (CBC Sports 2003). The future of drug testing can serve to be an effective deterrent if money, research and cooperation contribute together with positive incentives for drug-free athletes. Modern sports competitions place little emphasis on the means when dealing with the end results. This presents itself to be a dangerous situation both for the athletes as well as for the integrity of sport.
Free research essays on topics related to: performance enhancing drugs, babe ruth, muscle mass, androgenic steroids, gold medal
Research essay sample on Performance Enhancing Drugs In Sports
There has been a huge amount of academic, policy, and public debate over the years about doping in sport (i.e. the use of banned performance enhancing substances or drugs and other prohibited practices), and significant resources devoted to addressing it.
Doping is a complex issue – we are still striving to understand how and why it happens, and how to prevent it. But despite the attention doping in sport has received, there is still significant public disagreement about how best to respond to this problem.
Public discussions on doping usually break down - sometimes because of the way we argue about such issues, and often due to inconsistent reasoning. If you want evidence of this take a look at the online comments pages on sports doping articles, or start your own debate with friends and see how far it goes.
Greater clarity is needed on how people think and argue about doping in sport. In this piece I look at the common positions people take on doping, what these commit us to, and the consequences of mixed messages going unchallenged.
Why people dope
Assuming you care about doping in the first place (some people don’t), a key issue to clarify is your theory about why people dope. Your position here is important for discussing the doping issue because, whether you realise it or not, this informs your views on what should be done about it.
Some people believe the doping decision simply comes down to the individual’s desire to win or gain advantages of some type. To them, doping is mostly determined by individual psychological factors, and should therefore be addressed as an issue of personal responsibility and culpability.
Others believe doping choices are driven by a mix of psychological, social, cultural, and systemic factors, rather than individual traits alone. In this view, doping occurs due to the interaction of individual factors (e.g. the desire for winning, improvement, pain management, recovery, career longevity, economic gains, and belonging), and wider socio-cultural and systemic factors (e.g. social background and experiences, team/club/sport culture, sport governance systems, perceived efficacy of anti-doping system, and so on).
Against doping in sport
The question of whether you are for or against doping in sport is also clearly important. If you are against doping in sport, as most people are, there are a number of arguments you might run here.
For example, you may think doping is wrong because:
- It is against the defined rules and laws governing sport.
- It is unfair and goes against the level playing field ideal.
- It represents a health risk and is harmful to the individual.
- It harms the athletes who choose not to dope (e.g. they exit sport early, or their career is impacted from being cheated out of results and earnings).
- It contravenes other values defined as the ‘spirit of sport’ (e.g. fair play and honesty; health; character and education; fun and joy; teamwork; respect for self and others; courage; community and solidarity).
- It sends an unacceptable message about the place and impact of sport in society.
The important thing to note here is that anti-doping advocates vary in their relative emphasis on the above arguments. For some, it is all about the rules of sport, and related ethics and integrity requirements. While for others, the health risk and harm issue is paramount.
For doping in sport
Some people in academic circles argue that doping should be permitted in sport – either in an open free for all as it used to be, under medical supervision, or under the framework of regulated decriminalisation.
The proponents of these more liberal positions on doping commonly argue the following:
- The level playing field ideal is a myth - there are numerous legal performance enhancing strategies that are unequally available across sports and countries (e.g. expensive training facilities and programs, technologically superior equipment, nutritional, medicinal and other aids etc).
- Current banned drugs and substances are not inherently harmful, nor the biggest sources of risk and harm when you consider injury rates and long-term physical outcomes in some sport.
- The true spirit of elite sporting competition is closer to the Athenian ideal of superhuman effort at any cost (including risks and injuries), and doping is consistent with that.
- Supervised regulated use of performance enhancing drugs and substances, and other banned practices (e.g. blood transfusions) would reduce health risks and harms.
- Prohibition policies and punitive measures create hidden, uninformed, and riskier doping which exacerbates health and other harms.
Again, people who argue for doping in sport may place different weight on some of the above arguments over others. Further, belief in one or other of these arguments doesn’t commit you to all of them.
Doping prevention approaches
If you are opposed to doping, you should also have a position on how to prevent or reduce it – your discussions on the topic won’t get far if you’re against doping but have nothing to say on what to do about it.
On doping prevention you could take a zero tolerance stance, where you favour restrictive surveillance and testing protocols, and punitive responses for even minor doping transgressions. Implicit in this stance is the belief that because the individual chooses to break known rules by doping, they should take responsibility and be punished accordingly if caught or if they confess, or make later admissions.
Zero tolerance advocates might also believe that doping in sport can ultimately be eradicated. But this is not a necessary belief for this position - for example zero tolerance proponents might simply favour the strong public message in sports doping policy that includes punitive responses.
Alternatively, you could adopt a prevention stance based on harm minimisation principles. Implicit in this position is the belief that doping will always exist in sport, and so the pragmatic aim of prevention is to reduce doping harm (to dopers, other athletes, spectators, sport generally), rather than total eradication of the behaviour.
Harm reduction proponents emphasise an athlete health and welfare focus over harsh punitive measures (i.e. criminalisation specifically). People here are less concerned with upholding individual responsibility as far as punishment goes. They believe doping prevention is better achieved through a focus on broader social, cultural, and systemic factors (e.g. team/club/sport culture, sport governance systems, ethics and integrity culture and systems, etc) rather than individual factors alone.
Punishing dopers doesn’t work
People who argue for harm minimisation approaches believe punitive measures alone will be ineffective in reducing or preventing doping in sport. As above, one reason for this is they believe doping behaviour is driven by a range of factors, and so doping prevention too must take a broad focus (beyond individual behaviour and psychology) to achieve widespread and lasting change.
Another claim made here is that penalties for doping such as fines, suspensions, and even lifetime bans are unlikely to deter doping, and will not eradicate it. The analogy often cited here this is the case of death penalties for murder not halting murder rates, or harsh criminal penalties for illicit drug possession, supply and use failing to reduce or eliminate those proscribed behaviours.
People who are unconvinced about the effect of punitive measures might also point out that even the severest doping penalties are unlikely to work in most cases, because under the current system athletes would challenge such penalties legally to uphold their right to compete, or preserve their rights for future earnings.
Finally, many people against punitive responses to sports doping also place a high value on forgiveness and redemption – a chance to start again with a clean slate. What often comes with this position is the view that the punishment and public humiliations suffered by some dopers (and their families) can be wrongly disproportionate to their original doping offence.
Punitive measures have a place
Supporters of punitive measures do not accept the analogy made between doping and criminal behaviour. They would argue the social, cultural and individual factors (including psychological determinants) of doping in sport are very different to those for murder and illicit drug use. As such, they also claim the thinking behind doping prevention approaches, including the expected impact of severe sanctions (not necessarily criminal), should be different too.
Zero tolerance advocates believe that, if applied appropriately, punitive measures can achieve desired sports doping prevention outcomes (i.e. reduced doping behaviour, reduced harm, or complete eradication). The view here is if doping policy is to include punitive measures (as per the current anti-doping framework), then these should be implemented competently and consistently in accordance with the defined policy aims and processes; and with clear and consistent public messages from sports governing bodies giving unambiguous support.
Supporters of punitive measures might also argue that it is not the current anti-doping policy framework that has failed, but rather the inadequate implementation of this framework by sports governing bodies and systems weakened by inconsistent practices, ineffective leadership, and ambiguous public messages about high profile doping cases.
Middle ground or mixed messages?
Doping in sport debates are often framed around the two ‘sides’ of harm minimisation and zero tolerance. At first glance, such positions appear distinct. In reality, people commonly shift between positions or argue a mix of both.
For example, you might believe that doping requires social determinants focused education and prevention programs (including capacity building in ethics and integrity, athlete culture and health and welfare and so on), AND progressively severe punitive measures in certain circumstances (e.g. for repeat doping offences, systematic team-based doping, related fraud and criminal activity).
A significant challenge for the doping in sport debate is predicting how people will think about and respond to doping cases. Ideally, careful reasoning based on the types of beliefs and positions summarised in this article would lead us to consistent responses, but that is not what often happens.
We see this with the sport of cycling - for example, compare most people’s strident opinions and responses about the Lance Armstrong case, to the relatively muted reactions about other cyclists who have doped (e.g. David Millar, Jan Ullrich, Erik Zabel, George Hincapie, Tyler Hamilton, Stuart O'Grady, Matt White, Neil Stephens, Alberto Contador, Alejandro Valverde, Danilo Di Luca etc).
We also see this in the responses from governments, sports governing bodies, and the sport itself. Again, the official reactions to the above cases in cycling have been markedly different - take a moment to reflect on where each of these riders are currently.
Most sports governing bodies and officials would claim they occupy a middle position between ‘crime and punishment’ and ‘education and prevention’ thinking and approaches. At face value, this seems like a sensible space for doping policy - the best of both worlds. However, this middle space can also be a fertile ground for mixed public messages and inconsistencies on doping that can undermine prevention efforts - as I have argued before in this Column (here and here).
By trying to occupy the middle ground on doping between zero tolerance and harm minimisation - trying to have it both ways - sports governing bodies run the risk of subsequently failing to implement either aspect of their doping prevention policies competently and consistently. Again, take a look at the recent criticisms made about the International Cycling Union.
Doping prevention efforts in all sports are undermined when mixed messages emerge from inconsistent thinking and action around doping policy - and especially when they continue unchallenged in public discussion and debates (e.g. ‘say no to doping’ but ‘say yes to ex-dopers in coaching positions’; ‘our sport is anti-doping’ but ‘ex-dopers manage our pro teams’; ‘strong doping prevention messages are needed’ but ‘ex-dopers are sponsoring elite teams, sports blogs, and working in sports media’).
What does your position on doping in sport commit you to? What should be done to prevent doping? What should we say about the mixed messages that exist about doping in sport?
Further reading: There is of a large academic literature, and a growing research evidence base, underpinning many of the points made in this article. If you are interested in further reading, a reasonable coverage of the issues can be seen at the Wikipedia doping in sport site, and Routledge have published a number of excellent academic books on this topic by some of the leading thinkers in this area.