Should doping be legalized? Ethics etc.

[maltiv]

Basically I'm writing an essay which is supposed to be about an ethical problem. I chose to write about doping in sports. My main question in the essay is whether or not doping should be legalized, which I'm trying to give an answer to. However, I find it quite difficult to write much about why doping should be legalized, so I'm wondering if anyone knows about any good sources I could use, or simply if anyone has some good arguments concerning the subject, whether for or against legalizing doping. I know there are quite a lot of guys here who are very involved in this subject and your contribution to the discussion will be much appreciated.

Moreover, I know that I've read an article somewhere about a guy claiming that it's more healthy to dope than not to dope, due to the extreme damages professional sports do to your body. Does anybody remember who said this (a link would be great), and has there been any research on the matter?

 

[Mrs John Murphy]

It's probably written by professional **** and show pony Peter Singer. All I can say is that if you are writing an essay steer clear of him. He is terrible.

There is a link in the first post: http://justcycling.myfastforum.org/viewcardtopic.php?t=1603&view=next

 

[pedaling squares]

Some interesting perspectives on the ethics argument in this thread.

 

[Granville57]

At the risk of adding too much cross-threading here...

You may be thinking of this quote from Christophe Bassons, but it must be taken in context to fully understand it.
From this thread:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12212

That’s why it’s a mistake to fight the war on doping in terms of health – because, if you actually analyse it, doping responds to a need there too, because you can be healthier doing the Tour de France on drugs than without anything.
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/bassons-wont-judge-landis-and-armstrong

Also, check out the last few pages of the "Armstrong news" thread. The recent link that thehog provided is absolutely essential reading if you are going to be writing an essay.
http://m.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bonds-ramirez-armstrong-clemens-just-tip-of-sports-drugs-iceberg-says-ex-white-house-drug-spokesman-robert-weiner-120568759.html
Be sure to follow the link at the bottom to the full transcript.

Why is any of this even important? Or are the cynics right that the federal government should quit wasting its time investigating sports drugs?

There is a powerful answer to this question. Polls show that youth pay attention to sports stars. A Kaiser Foundation poll shows that large majorities of kids look up to sports stars AND say it is “common” for sports figures to “use steroids.” That’s a big contributor to the unfortunate reality that between 500,000 and a million youth use steroids annually. In the late nineties, when home run king Mark McGwire used androstenedione and admitted it (FDA only recently confirmed it as a steroid), youth use of it QUINTUPLED.

When McGwire stopped using it, his home run capacity dropped from 70 to 30 and he dropped out of baseball. Now when you look at him he is thin and drawn. Bonds likewise is shrunken in his shoulders and face compared to his steroid time. While on steroids, kids have committed murders, other violent crimes, become schizophrenic, and have committed suicide, as testified to by parents in congress.

 

[skippythepinhead]

It's an interesting question. All of my responses would be anecdotal. The one I hear the most is that professional athletes are entertainers and 70 home runs is way more entertaining than 30 (remember when the ball was juiced?). I've heard technological arguments as well--might as well use the most modern tech available within as well as without.

I personally would love to see what you come up with.

 

[maltiv]

You may be thinking of this quote from Christophe Bassons, but it must be taken in context to full understand it.
From this thread:
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showthread.php?t=12212

Also, check out the last few pages of the "Armstrong news" thread. The recent link that thehog provided is absolutely essential reading if you are going to be writing an essay..

Thank you! I was indeed thinking of the comment from Bassons. That last link seems very useful and I will definitely use it in my essay.

 

[Granville57]

Some interesting perspectives on the ethics argument in this thread.

Be sure to check out Jonathan Vaughters contribution in Post #61 from that thread.
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=451263&postcount=61

An athlete who's moral compass directs him away from doping, will become a less competitive athlete. Relative morals should have nothing to do with the outcome of athletic competition.

 

[patricknd]

legalized and required. let's see some real racing

 

[scribe]

Due to liability, this will never happen. Try to imagine having to regulate doping. Is that gonna be different than what they are trying to do now? Might be even more difficult to monitor parameters when they can't even figure out a positive.

 

[DrC0721]

Ethics Class

I took an awesome sports ethics class in college and we had this debate. Ultimately, it always came back to the "force" factor.

If athlete A dopes, it forces athlete B to make the "ethical decision" to potentially harm himself to keep up with athlete A. Now if doping was mandated and was able to be done safely...the debate is up in arms again. I'd say it would still relate to the force factor though.

 

[SirLes]

Just some random thoughts

If doping is legal then surely using it is not an ethical question. An ethical debate could be whether you should take them if you know your main rivals are also taking them.

What chemical/medicinal help should be allowed or not is surely a medical question.

The rules of different sports have evolved over time and to some extent are arbitary. Usually rules are changed to make the sport easier to understand, better to watch or safer. When it comes to chemical or medical assistance if something is not a medical risk, should it not be allowed?

If taking drugs or undergoing a medical procedure is illegal then why should surgery or other medical procedures be allowed following an injury.

 

[unfitatanyspeed]

drugs and life

We all use them [caffeine, modafinil, add drugs etc] in our lives to improve our performance. Can't think of a competition use for viagra but heck get it in the essay somehow for added bling.
No one cares when athletes get lasik for enhanced 20/25 vision. William Saletan has a series on this in Slate magazine.
Good subject for an essay as you can go either way. Unworkable but why not split competitions into two -the sponsored by 'Pfizer, Merck and others' games and the clean ones that no one will watch.

 

[Berzin]

Here is the ethical dilemma with doping, and I hate to use Armstrong as the template but he has perfected it, so here it goes-

Once "cheating" is normalized, where does it stop? The rot pervades all aspects of the bureaucratic side, and the rider not only with the best drugs but with the best connections is allowed to become the champion he would never have become otherwise.

It is clear to me that with doping, a rider can access a program that will allow him to win races he was never made to win. Natural talent aside, this affects riders who will think that by storming the PED gates, they will be able to win a grand Tour when their talents dictate they cannot.

So what you will have is a complete and utter farce, one greater than what we've witnessed so far in pro cycling these last 15-20 years.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Here is the ethical dilemma with doping, and I hate to use Armstrong as the template but he has perfected it, so here it goes-

Once "cheating" is normalized, where does it stop? The rot pervades all aspects of the bureaucratic side, and the rider not only with the best drugs but with the best connections is allowed to become the champion he would never have become otherwise.

It is clear to me that with doping, a rider can access a program that will allow him to win races he was never made to win. Natural talent aside, this affects riders who will think that by storming the PED gates, they will be able to win a grand Tour when their talents dictate they cannot.

So what you will have is a complete and utter farce, one greater than what we've witnessed so far in pro cycling these last 15-20 years.

There is no ethical dilemma. Doping is unethical because it violates the rules of the sport. The athletes are not entitled to violate the rules because of some personal philosophy. Rules are rules.

To ask why doping is unethical is like asking if it's unethical that a pawn can only capture pieces in chess when moved diagonally.

 

[TERMINATOR]

Just some random thoughts

If doping is legal then surely using it is not an ethical question. An ethical debate could be whether you should take them if you know your main rivals are also taking them.

It's unethical because it's against the rules. It's also illegal to take prescription medicines such as EPO and steroids for non-medicinal reasons.

Doping is considered a very serious offense in sports.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Just some random thoughts

If doping is legal then surely using it is not an ethical question. An ethical debate could be whether you should take them if you know your main rivals are also taking them.

What chemical/medicinal help should be allowed or not is surely a medical question.

The rules of different sports have evolved over time and to some extent are arbitary. Usually rules are changed to make the sport easier to understand, better to watch or safer. When it comes to chemical or medical assistance if something is not a medical risk, should it not be allowed?

If taking drugs or undergoing a medical procedure is illegal then why should surgery or other medical procedures be allowed following an injury.

As with the new thread you have started you have focussed on just one aspect of doping, cheating.
Obviously if you legalize doping it takes away the moral/ethical part.

Alos - the rules aren't as you say "to some extent are arbitary" - all rules are arbitary!

Trying to say that surgery following injury is akin to doping is flawed, - doping is Performance Enhancing Drugs in sport.

 

[SirLes]

As with the new thread you have started you have focussed on just one aspect of doping, cheating.
Obviously if you legalize doping it takes away the moral/ethical part.

Alos - the rules aren't as you say "to some extent are arbitary" - all rules are arbitary!

Trying to say that surgery following injury is akin to doping is flawed, - doping is Performance Enhancing Drugs in sport.

With regards rules being arbitary: some rules are brought in order to have a specific effect and are therefore I wouldn't describe them as arbitary.

If you can't walk due to a torn ACL and after surgery you can run again, isn't the surgery performance enhancing?

Not trying to pick fights and I agree that surgery should be allowed, I'm just curious about the logic and rational on which my emotional responses are actually based.

 

[hrotha]

There is no ethical dilemma. Doping is unethical because it violates the rules of the sport. The athletes are not entitled to violate the rules because of some personal philosophy. Rules are rules.

To ask why doping is unethical is like asking if it's unethical that a pawn can only capture pieces in chess when moved diagonally.

Of course there's an ethical dilemma. When everybody does something, individual responsibility dissolves and it stops being a moral issue for those involved.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Basically I'm writing an essay which is supposed to be about an ethical problem. I chose to write about doping in sports. My main question in the essay is whether or not doping should be legalized, which I'm trying to give an answer to. However, I find it quite difficult to write much about why doping should be legalized, so I'm wondering if anyone knows about any good sources I could use, or simply if anyone has some good arguments concerning the subject, whether for or against legalizing doping. I know there are quite a lot of guys here who are very involved in this subject and your contribution to the discussion will be much appreciated.

Moreover, I know that I've read an article somewhere about a guy claiming that it's more healthy to dope than not to dope, due to the extreme damages professional sports do to your body. Does anybody remember who said this (a link would be great), and has there been any research on the matter?

If your essay is solely on the ethics question then yikes.

In most cases people have a sence of fair play. Rules are made so that there is some fairness (same number on teams, same sized goals, same distance, same weight for bikes etc).
Rules by there very nature are abitary and there is always a percentage that will 'push' rules and some who ignore rules. In doping because there are undetectable techniques and the advantages of doping can be so great it erodes what is viewed as cheating or not cheating.

But if your premise is soley on ethics - some would never cheat no matter what, some would cheat no matter what while most would rather abide by the rules. However as it is the person who cheats (and gets away with it) that dictates it forces many to question what is regarded sa cheating or not cheating.

 

[SirLes]

But if your premise is soley on ethics - some would never cheat no matter what, some would cheat no matter what while most would rather abide by the rules. However as it is the person who cheats (and gets away with it) that dictates it forces many to question what is regarded sa cheating or not cheating.

Agreed, and that then brings in the idea that it's only cheating if you get caught or it's not cheating if everyone else is doing it.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

With regards rules being arbitary: some rules are brought in order to have a specific effect and are therefore I wouldn't describe them as arbitary.

If you can't walk due to a torn ACL and after surgery you can run again, isn't the surgery performance enhancing?

Not trying to pick fights and I agree that surgery should be allowed, I'm just curious about the logic and rational on which my emotional responses are actually based.

Well no - having surgery to repair something is not enhancing, its repairing and bringing you back to what your capability was.

As for rules - well yes, some rules are brought in for various reasons but essentially rules are there to apply to everyone.
If you have some examples of arbitrary rules I may understand your point better.

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Agreed, and that then brings in the idea that it's only cheating if you get caught or it's not cheating if everyone else is doing it.

No - by breaking the rules you are cheating.

My point was on how many try and legitmise what they do as not cheating - a good recent example was Landis comments "it was either cheat, or be cheated". While he tried to rationalise it, he still knew he was cheating.

 

[SirLes]

As for rules - well yes, some rules are brought in for various reasons but essentially rules are there to apply to everyone.
If you have some examples of arbitrary rules I may understand your point better.

Arbitary rules would include things like number of players on each side, size of pitch/field, length of time of a match, many of the rules regarding equipment- at least to some extent. (It amazes me that there is no standard size for a soccer field!) and some of the rules the UCI have come up with regarding what consitutes a bike as well probably!

 

[python]

legalized and required. let's see some real racing

weird post and a stupid idea. unless of course, the sense of humour was even wierder.

 

[SirLes]

No - by breaking the rules you are cheating.

My point was on how many try and legitmise what they do as not cheating - a good recent example was Landis comments "it was either cheat, or be cheated". While he tried to rationalise it, he still knew he was cheating.

I agree entirely, I was just trying to bring in some sort of ethical dimension. The fact that some people would justify their actions in such a way is perhaps relevent and I suspect widespread.

As you say Landis was aware of the fact he was cheating but rationalised it to himself. I am sure there are people who genuinely don't consider themselves or others as cheating if they are not caught or see other behave in the same way. In fact they would consider it wrong to try and catch them. I am reminded of a story in a newspaper describing how students in a particulalr country were going on strike as there was a planned crackdown on cheating in exams. Not unlike the behaviour of cyclists on occasion!