The ethical debate over the use of performance enhancing drugs centers around two main arguments. The first argument states that performance enhancers allow athletes to cheat by artificially increasing size or strength without training. The second argument states that performance enhancers allow athletes to train better through size and strength gains that they were unable to achieve before.

The President’s Council on Bioethics came up with three ways in which to view athletic performance enhancement. First, there is the romantic view, which perceives performance enhancement as diminishing the integrity of sport. Second, there is the entertainment view, which perceives performance enhancement as increasing the entertainment value of the sports enterprise. Lastly, there is the techno-centered view, which perceives performance enhancement as a part of sports technology that helps to advance the development of sport (Miah, 2002). Keeping these three views in mind can help one to better understand both the arguments for and against the use of performance enhancers in sports.

Athletes using performance-enhancers seek to increase their athletic ability via drugs rather than through the training process, which requires true commitment and effort on the part of the athlete (“Steroids: Play Safe,” 2004). While developments in sports technology might increase aspects of the game, these athletic tools still depend upon the athlete, who wields them. By using drugs, athletes, who are at the heart of a sport, undergo an artificial enhancement. Athletes that use performance enhancing drugs will have an unfair and unearned advantage over those that do not. As a result, athletes, who do not use drugs, will feel increasing pressure to use them in order to stay competitive. The pressure to win can come from not only the athlete himself but also from family, friends, and coaches. With these pressures, an athlete can develop the mentality of win at any cost. The costs of using a performance-enhancing drug can often be quite severe and sometimes even deadly (Meadow, 1996).

Despite the use of drugs to enhance athletic performance, winning still requires a lot of effort on the part of the athlete. Drug use alone does not guarantee a win. Drugs simply permit the athlete to train harder and longer than they were able to before (Mehlman, 2004). Drugs give athletes the ability to do what they were previously unable to do. How is this different than the developments made in sport technology? Drugs merely develop the athlete instead of the athlete’s tools. New developments in bats, racquets, and clubs allow balls to be hit farther and harder than ever before (Mehlman, 2004). Performance enhancers help sports to achieve an even higher entertainment level because of the extraordinary performances that the athletes are now able to make.

The argument over whether or not athletes should use performance enhancers has generated a strong antagonism between athletes and officials over the current drug regulation policy. As athletic officials develop new ways of testing for performance enhancing drugs, athletes and scientists often come up with new drugs to use or ways to circumvent the detection process. This creates a use-detection race between officials and athletes (Bahrke, 2002).

This unending race can only result in one of two potential outcomes: either performance enhancing regulation will be become stricter or more relaxed in the future. In one scenario, the athletic governing bodies will continue to develop new ways of detecting performance enhancing drugs as they become aware of their existence and use. However, any ineffectiveness with regard to detection might result in a ban on all drugs including those that do not influence performance. In the other possible scenario, the inability of athletic officials to test for every possible performance enhancing drug, whose numbers have become insurmountable, results in a relaxing of regulations, which gives athletes the ability to use performance enhancing substances at their own discretion. The benefit of this scenario is that the focus will shift from enforcing the ban on performance enhancing drugs to developing safer forms of the drugs for the athletes to use.

There are a great many costs and benefits associated with use of performance enhancing drugs by athletes. While studies have shown both these risks and benefits, there are still many risks, primarily long-term, that remain largely unknown. As a result, it is up to the athletes to decide whether or not the benefit of using a performance enhancer outweighs the cost to both themselves and to the integrity of their sport. Athletic officials have attempted to dissuade athletes from using by banning their usage in most major sports; however, athletes are still able to find ways to avoid detection. Only time will tell whether or not the use of performance enhancing drugs by athletes will gain greater acceptance. In the meantime, the ethical struggle over their usage continues to occupy a prominent place on the forefront of sports discussion.

BACK TO TOP