The Debate Over The Use Of Performance Enhancing Drugs In Sport
Competitive sport is something that has been around since the days of the ancient Greeks, with the first recorded Olympic Games in 776BC. The recent developments in lighting and mass media have increased the popularity of competitive sports by bringing it to the world stage. Spectator sports now make up many of the most widely viewed broadcasts on the planet with the Olympics averaging at 3.3 billion views. These massive audiences make sports a highly profitable industry, through ticket sales and advertising revenue, but this also puts it under the scrutiny of strict regulations, which can negatively affect certain parties involved. One issue currently affecting competitive spectator sports is the use of performance enhancing drugs or doping, as it is more commonly known. This is an issue because the use of performance enhancing drugs can pose harm to the health of athletes, and the celebrity status of elite athletes means that this issue has wider implications and links to general drug use. Use of some form of performance enhancing substance has been seen across nearly all competitive sports. Doping is a complex issue and experts are still undecided as to the reasons why individual athletes choose to use performance-enhancers. Regulation surrounding doping first came about in the late 1960s when the International Olympic Committee (IOC) established a medical commission as a response to an increased usage of performance enhancers. The establishment of the world anti-doping agency (WADA) in 1999 led to stricter regulations following the criminalization of non-medicinal use of anabolic steroids in the United States by the 1988 drug abuse act. Drug use is a global issue and since doping is seen across all sports, athletes in all fields are affected by this issue because if they are competing against people who have used drugs to enhance their performance, they will be playing at a disadvantage. This issue is surrounded by debate as to whether or not performance enhancers should be allowed. There are two distinct groups: those who support regulation and those who believe drug use in sports should not be criminalised. Both of these groups generally agree that there are still some drugs that are too unsafe and should not be used at all. Despite the large amounts of media attention that the use of performance enhancing substances in sport has received, there is still considerable public debate as to the best way to address this issue.
The use of drugs in sport reflects and affects the use of drugs in wider society, which makes this a global issue. Elite athletes are role models for many people, some of whom are likely to mirror the behaviour of the people they look up to. Someone who hears of their favourite athletes using illicit substances may be more likely to try it for themselves. Drug use is a massive global issue and the way doping is regulated in sport has a direct effect on the societal perception of drugs. Decriminalization of drugs in countries such as Portugal has shown positive change to the perception of drug use. Although eliminating the penalty for use or possession of drugs has not been shown to reduce overall drug use, it has shown a drastic decrease in addiction and overdose. This means less money needs to be spent on incarceration and monitoring drug use, as well as less needing to be spent on healthcare for drug-related ailments. Another example of this can be seen in the increased regulation surrounding alcohol consumption in America in the 1920s, which ultimately led to an increase in alcohol consumption and more money needing to be spent on the negative health effects of this increased consumption.
One viewpoint on this issue is that the use of performance enhancing drugs, especially steroids, should be banned from sports entirely because they are unsafe and compromise the integrity of competitive sports. This viewpoint is held by groups such as the IOC and WADA. WADA’s vision is for “a world where all athletes can compete in a doping-free sporting environment.” April Ashby, a former student at Marquette University Law School, wrote a blog post in October 2010, following the events of Alberto Contador, the 2010 Tour de France winner, testing positive for the banned substance clenbuterol. The piece argues that doping has no place in sports. It raises two anti-doping arguments: that doping threatens the health of athletes and that doping negatively affects the integrity of sport. The article disagrees with the argument that with proper medical supervision, steroids can be used safely by athletes. According to an article on the negative health effects of steroids, their use can result in negative consequences such as “affected liver, endocrine, and reproductive function, tumors of the liver and kidneys, heart conditions, and psychiatric symptoms.” Ashby states that “legalizing steroid use would not solve these problems.” She argues that it is likely that even if safe levels of doping are legalised, athletes drive to win can always compel them to take more than the recommended safe dose, which would result in the same consequences as mentioned above. Another issue that Ashby identifies is that the use of performance enhancers has a negative impact on the integrity of sport. This is a viewpoint held by nearly all anti doping agencies around the world. Many of these agencies were founded on the principle that integrity lies at the core of all sports.
Many notable actions have been taken by multiple parties to control and regulate the misuse of banned substances including the establishment of the World Anti-Doping Agency in 1999. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has a specific anti-doping division. The actions that have been taken to increase regulation surrounding doping far outweighs those that have been taken to decriminalise it. Anti doping agencies work to research more comprehensive and cheaper testing methods, as well as anticipating how emerging drugs could be used for doping purposes. Ashby, as well as anti-doping agencies around the world, value the health of athletes. This can be seen in their actions towards the issue such as speaking out against doping and bringing the issue to public awareness. Ashby argues against points of pro doping (decriminalisation) arguments, stating that legalization would make athletes health safer. Even if they were given a safe dosage by a doctor, Ashby states, “when that athlete fails to win the next race, game, or match, he or she is more likely to increase the dose or combine other methods of doping.” UNESCO states in their values that “doping jeopardizes the moral and ethical basis of sport and the health of those involved in it.” this leads into another value that these parties hold, which is the values of integrity within sport. Ashby’s values here can be seen from the quotes “Sports are about competition on equal footing, with respect for the opponent, and with respect for the rules of the game.” and “Permitting the use of steroids under proper medical supervision would threaten the fairness and integrity of the game.” Ashby points to the views of anti-doping agencies in her argument on this side of the issue, including the aforementioned quote from UNESCO and quotes from the National Football League (NFL) such as their statement that the use of performance enhancers “sends the wrong message to young people who may be tempted to use them.” This points back to one of the overarching reasons why the use of drugs in sports is an issue: drug use in sport affects not only the athletes competing but also the views of the young, impressionable people who look up to them. Elite celebrity athletes using performance enhancers sets a precedent that glorifies drug use in society. This may encourage more youths to try drugs. Drug use in sport reflects drug use in wider society, which makes doping a global issue. The views and values of anti-doping parties are based around ideologies of health and upkeep of tradition. These parties show this through their actions taken to protect the health of athletes as well as global health, such as the establishment of anti-doping agencies and their efforts to maintain the integrity behind historic sporting traditions such as the Olympics.
The aforementioned issues relating to doping in sport are recognised as issues by both sides, but each side takes on the issues from opposite angles. The second viewpoint on the issue is that the safe use of performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sport as it will reduce economic inequalities in sport such as An article published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine in 2004 argues that the safe use of performance enhancing drugs could act to level the playing field and overcome genetic advantages, which is another sporting issue in itself. This paper was authored by Julian Savulescu, professor of practical ethics at Oxford University. Savulescu has authored multiple articles on the ethical arguments for legalising doping in sport. The main points of view within the article are that the current state of doping is likely to create a “climate of cheating”, that safe drug use should be permitted in order to level the playing field, and that health testing should be prioritised over catching the use of banned substances. Salvulescu argues that the nature of drug testing creates a climate of cheating in sport. According to the International Amateur Athletic Federation, only an estimated 10-15% of athletes are tested in each competition. Many drugs are designed to mimic natural chemical processes in the body, making them nearly impossible to detect. This makes for very low odds of athletes who use these banned substances being caught. These low odds, coupled with the large monetary rewards and fame that can come with winning sporting competitions creates a climate of cheating within sport, according to Salvulescu. Kjetil Haugen of Molde University College, has taken actions to prove a similar point. His investigation showed that “unless the likelihood of athletes being caught doping was raised to unrealistically high levels, or the payoffs for winning were reduced to unrealistically low levels, athletes could all be predicted to cheat.” This seems likely to occur with the evolution of drugs although, as Salvulescu states, “They are worse off as a whole if everyone takes drugs, than if nobody takes drugs.” Another point raised in the article is that athletes from countries that are more well off are more likely to win because they can afford more expensive training such the use of a hypoxic air machine, which can cost around $7000. Technologies such as this are inaccessible to poorer athletes, which puts them at a disadvantage. This goes against the Olympic value of fairness. Drugs such as erythropoietin (EPO) have similar effects to using a hypoxic air machine, and come at a fraction of the cost. EPO acts to thicken blood by producing more hemoglobin, which transports oxygen around the body. EPO is produced naturally by the body. The standard test to identify whether EPO in the body is natural or synthetic costs around 130 USD. Salvulescu argues that this money would be better spent on grants to provide EPO to disadvantaged athletes, and a simpler, cheaper test, which only measures blood thickness, should be used to measure whether blood has been thickened to unsafe levels. This would act to level the playing field and allow for better representation of athletes who are disadvantaged. The article states that “Rather than testing for drugs, we should focus more on health and fitness to compete.” Drugs that are determined to be safe should be permitted, but athletes should have to undergo regular health checks to ensure that they are fit to compete. Salvulescu does not believe that all drugs should be allowed, stating that “We should permit drugs that are safe, and continue to ban and monitor drugs that are unsafe.” This links back to the argument for fairness, where athletes who abide by the rules miss out on the advantages attained by cheaters using safe substances. Decriminalising the use of such substances would solve this problem, according to Salvulescu. He argues that experts should decide on a safe level, and that anyone found over that level would not be allowed to compete in the event in question, for their own safety. If Salvulescu’s proposed action to test athletes for health, not drugs, were to be applied, athlete’s health could be better than it currently is, depending on how rigorously health testing was implemented.
Salvulecu’s views on the issue of doping are based on his values of fairness and health, as seen in his proposal for systems that create a more level playing field and promote health and safety of athletes. The views and values held by Salvulescu and his counterparts show ideologies of globalism and health promotion. These values and ideologies are what shape the views of the parties involved. Around $300 million is spent every year on drug testing in professional sport, according to figures collected by the IOC, and this number will increase significantly if this solution was to be put in place. Experts predict that drug usage in sport is much higher than high profile cases would indicate, and more and more athletes are not getting caught, as the range of drugs that are available grows. In one anonymous survey, nearly 60% of the several thousand non-professional athletes interviewed admitted to using performance enhancing substances, however, this does not reflect the number of people being caught through drug tests. It is clear that the methods currently in place are not working.
There are two viable solutions to the issue of drug use in sport. The first would be to increase regulation and punishment surrounding drug use. This would involve more testing and more research on how to identify the presence of substances that mirror natural biological processes. Research surrounding new methods of testing will be costly, as will increasing the number of tests carried out. The IOC and other anti-doping agencies would have to increase the funding put into developing and implementing new tests. With the constant evolution of drugs available to athletes, anti-doping agencies would be in an endless battle to keep ahead. If all the performance enhancing substances come to mirror natural bodily processes, it would become nearly impossible to determine whether an athlete is using performance enhancers or not and testing for illegal substances would be futile. All athletes would have to break the rules to stay in the game, but there would be no way to for regulatory bodies to prove it. This leads on to the second solution which is to allow drug use within safe levels. If this solution were to be implemented, athletes health would be tested, rather than their drug levels. Not all substances would be legalised, as some are still too dangerous. Even though some drugs, like erythropoietin (EPO), for example, are difficult and costly to detect, as they are similar to natural processes, their effects on the body can still be measured. EPO boosts endurance by stimulating red blood cell production. It is a hormone produced naturally by the body, but it can also be taken to increase blood cell count which increases the percentage of red blood cells in the blood overall. This is known as the packed cell volume (PCV). Excessive use of EPO can lead to dangerously high PCV, which poses the risk of cardiac arrest or a stroke, due to the blood becoming too thick. The use of EPO in sports has been banned since 1985. Before proper testing for EPO had been established, a small number of Dutch athletes died in their sleep due to cardiac arrest, believed to have been caused by high PCV due to excessive use of erythropoietin. The proposed solution would set a maximum level that is considered safe, and if athletes were found to be outside of this range, they would not be allowed to compete until they had reduced their levels. In the context of EPO for example, the risk of harm drastically increases if the percentage of the blood made up of red blood cells exceeds 50%. The limit would be set at 50%, and athletes who tested above the safe limit would not be allowed to compete until they reduced their PCV down to the safe levels. This would ensure that athletes are not competing with dangerously high levels of PCV, for example, which would reduce the number of hospitalisations and deaths related to the misuse of performance enhancers. The money is already in place for health tests, the $300 million curruently being spent on drug tests, would merely need to be spent on health checks instead. The decision of which course of action to follow lies with the regulatory bodies such as WADA and the IOC.
The inquiry process surrounding the use of drugs in sport was easy to research, as is a highly public topic that is subject to large amounts of debate. The controversy surrounding doping has been around since the issue became publicly recognised in the late 1960s. Various experts have published numerous papers and articles on both sides of the argument, many of which can be found with a simple google search. In my research, I was able to find the perspectives of parties on both sides of the issue. These include athletes, lawyers, regulatory bodies, and sports ethicists. Through my research, I found that nearly all of the parties involved identified the same issues within this conflict, that performance enhancing drugs can negatively affect athletes health, and that their use will have an effect on the fairness of competitive sport, which is one of many sports core values. Although they all identify the same central issues, the opposing sides have different ideas as to the best ways to deal with the issue of doping and its effect. These viewpoints are affected by their values and ideologies. I found that the parties that were against doping, such as WADA, took a more traditional view towards sport and believed that tradition should be central to healthy competition. Their concern was focussed more on the bigger picture, rather than the individuals involved, some of whom are accidentally exposed but are no longer allowed to compete due to the strict rules. In comparison, parties that believed there should be less regulation believe that health of athletes should be put first and that safe use of drugs could give athletes from poorer countries a better chance to compete. This side of the argument is focussed more on helping the individual, and create a more level playing field for all. To date, most of the actions taken within this issue have been to increase regulation and punishment, rather than reduce it. I do not believe that regulations have been unjustified but through my investigation, I have not been able to reach a conclusion as to the best way to solve the issue. The proposed means by both sides both have advantages and disadvantages, and decisions need to be treated carefully since many people will be affected.
