Sports and Drugs
Sports “ain’t never been clean,” says Charles Yesalis, former Pennsylvania State University professor and long-time performance-enhancing drug researcher.[1]
And by “never,” Yesalis means never. Research suggests that the first Olympians were openly doping. “The ancient Olympic champions were professionals who competed for huge cash prizes as well as olive wreaths, lived on the public dole and were sometimes recruited by competing cities seeking status. Most forms of what we would call cheating were perfectly acceptable to them, save for game-fixing. There is evidence that they gorged themselves on meat — not a normal dietary staple of the Greeks — and experimented with herbal medications in an effort to enhance their performances,” explains sports journalist Sally Jenkins. [2]
While ancient Greeks used wine concoctions and the hearts and testicles of animals to enhance performance, athletes in the mid-19th century started experimenting with chemical potions including “sugar cubes dipped in ether, brandy laced with cocaine, nitroglycerine and amphetamines.” Thus, as Jenkins explains, “the current scourges of steroids and blood boosters are merely a sequential progression….The next step…is gene therapy — athletes will be able to inject genes that build muscle. At which point steroids will seem as crude as sugar cubes soaked in ether.” [2]
As Jenkins notes, gene editing is expected to be the “next big issue” in sports’ doping. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), the international agency tasked with enforcing doping rules, anticipated this as far back as 2003, when it issued a preemptive ban on gene therapy. That ban was extended to all forms of gene editing in 2018. The United States government included a permanent gene-doping ban for athletes in the 2006 reauthorization of the Office of National Drug Control Policy Act. [3][4][5]
However, the bans face steep challenges because, as Sam Moxon of the University of Manchester explains, “current tests are designed to detect foreign substances and chemicals in an athlete’s bloodstream or urine. DNA is far from a foreign substance and is harder to probe for evidence of tampering. For example, unlike classic doping drugs such as steroids, bioengineered substances are chemically identical to the body’s natural hormones, making detection difficult at best. Gene editing adds additional layers of concerns. Doping using something like CRISPR guarantees that tests will be unable to detect when an athlete has attempted to give themselves a genetic advantage.” [3][4]
Another question is whether “techno-doping” should be allowed. Techno-doping is any specialized equipment or technological augmentation that confers an advantage to the athlete, like a specially designed shoe, bike motor, or limb prostheses that specifically offer an advantage over other athletes in the same competition. Techno-doping can be seen in a positive or negative light: as either balancing the playing field for a disabled athlete or giving an unfair advantage to an athlete. Most famously, when South African Paralympian Oscar Pistorius adopted J-shaped “cheetah blades” (both of his feet had been amputated due to a congenital disorder), the augmentation ignited fierce debate because using the blades “allowed him to use 25 percent less energy than non-disabled athletes use when running at the same speed” but also conferred disadvantages because of his increased potential for slipping on slick surfaces. [6]
And in the age of artificial intelligence, with new human-machine interfaces such as “smart glasses” (glasses that provide specialized data and abilities to the wearer), the possibilities for boosting competitive advantages through technology are seemingly endless. In football and golf, for example, digital scanners in a player’s helmet or sunglasses, or even embedded in the player’s brain, could render the need “to read” defenses and greens all but obsolete because technology will perform such tasks. True, the athlete would still need to execute the play or shot, but the mental aspect of the sport, so fundamental to the competition, would be dramatically changed by such technological enhancements. [6]
The debates about performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) also seep into other aspects of fairness in sport and the very question of what counts as “performance enhancing.” As medicine and technology advance, so, too, will the complexities of these debates over fairness and athletic competition. But the specific question remains: should performance-enhancing drugs and technologies be allowed in sports?
(This article first appeared on ProCon.org and was last updated on Oct. 4, 2023.)
| PROS | CONS |
|---|---|
| Pro 1: Performance-enhancing drug (PED) use is so prevalent that banning it only disadvantages those not doping and hinders the forward progress of sport. Read More. | Con 1: Performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) violate the spirit and integrity of sport. Read More. |
| Pro 2: PEDs help athletes to recover from injuries and to endure the rigors of sport. Read More. | Con 2: Despite any benefit in injury recovery, PEDs are dangerous drugs that can still yield an unfair competitive advantage. Read More. |
| Pro 3: PEDs can be regulated and safely used. Read More. | Con 3: Allowing PEDs will increase youth drug use and other unhealthy activities. Read More. |
Pro Arguments
(Go to Con Arguments)Pro 1: Performance-enhancing drug (PED) use is so prevalent that banning it only disadvantages those not doping and hinders the forward progress of sport.
“But everyone else is doing it” might not be an argument a teenager is going to win with a parent, but in the case of professional athletes and PEDs, the argument is one that the sporting world should accept.
As sports editor Matt Glover explains, “Some might argue that performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) are cheating or unfair. I beg to differ. I believe it would truly even the playing field because some countries (like Russia…) already are doping, while clean athletes are punished for being clean. There is a prisoners’ dilemma for athletes, with the dominant strategy being to cheat. This penalizes those who have the moral character or fortitude to not cheat, while rewarding others who did cheat.” [7]
“The solution,” Glover asserts, “is not more draconian testing policies, but rather an abolition of these policies and a level playing field where athletes are able to make informed decisions about their bodies. This would ensure all athletes that wanted to use PEDs could, rather than those that can circumvent testing either with new drugs or through sheer luck (as not all athletes are tested).” [7]
The “spirit of sport” evolves in tandem with the evolution of the actual sports and society at large. Torbjörn Tännsjö, professor of practical philosophy at Stockholm University, notes that paying athletes was once considered highly problematic. Sport evolved to pay athletes for their talents, and it can similarly evolve to allow PEDs because, as Tännsjö concludes, there is no overriding “moral virtue” in “exhibiting natural strength.” [8]
Glorifying “natural” playing in sports only encourages more injuries and, thus, short careers. This hinders the advancement of sport and competition.
Pro 2: PEDs help athletes to recover from injuries and to endure the rigors of sport.
Professional athletes are almost guaranteed to be injured at some point during their career. A 2021 survey found 62.5 injuries per 100 players in the MLB, NBA, NFL, and NHL from 2007 through 2019. While a similar study of women’s professional sports injuries was not available, on average, female athletes are prone to even more injuries because of anatomical differences like wider pelvises and weaker knees. [9][10]
Quite a few drugs, including steroids and growth hormone, that are regularly banned by sports organizations are useful medical treatments, especially for sports injury recovery.
Research is showing that short-term anabolic androgenic steroid use during surgery may help people recover after ACL (the anterior cruciate ligament, which stabilizes the knee) surgery and total joint replacement surgery (in which a human joint is replaced with a prosthesis). The drugs may also “augment the biological healing environment” for muscle injuries, fractures, and rotator cuff repair. In other words, though many PEDs, such as anabolic steroids, have gotten a “renegade” reputation, there are some with useful, “ethical clinical applications.” [11][12]
“If an [athlete’s] injury is severe enough to sideline a patient for a month or so, there’s a good chance that there will be long-term consequences of that injury that will extend many years, sometimes decades, into their later life. In patients with ACL tears, for example, even after surgery and rehab, muscles in their injured leg are often around 30 percent weaker than they were before the injury. Over time, this weakness slowly erodes the cartilage in the knee. My lab is currently investigating the possibility that growth hormone — a banned substance by WADA — could help address this weakness in an FDA-approved clinical trial,” explains Christopher Mendias, assistant professor at the University of Michigan. [13]
Mendias asserts that, unlike the popular news stories of unscrupulous medical drug dealers, “the vast majority of sports medicine clinicians and researchers are interested in finding ways to help restore injured athletes back to their pre-injury levels and not to engage in therapies that give athletes advantages that go above and beyond what they could achieve through approved training techniques and practices.” [13]
“If a player can reach his full fitness level two to three weeks faster, then [PED use] makes sense. It’s not about players being brought up to 120, 150 or even 180 per cent [of their previous capacity and skill level]. It’s about getting players to their usual level as soon as possible,” argues Bernd Schuster, a former German professional footballer. [14]
Pro 3: PEDs can be regulated and safely used.
Professional athletes are adults who deserve bodily autonomy, meaning the right to do with their own bodies as they choose. Banning PEDs, which are otherwise legal drugs, treats adult athletes like children. [15]
“It’s time to head in the opposite direction: legalizing performance enhancing drugs (PEDs)….If steroid use for professional athletes is permitted, they will be able to legally obtain physical enhancement drugs which have been regulated, and are therefore possibly safe to use,” says columnist Maeve Juday. [16]
“We do not want an Olympics in which people die before, during, or after competition” from taking banned drugs, say professors Julian Savulescu, Bennett Foddy, and M. Clayton. “What matters is health and fitness to compete. Rather than testing for drugs, we should focus more on health and fitness to compete.” [17]
“We should permit drugs that are safe and continue to ban and monitor drugs that are unsafe. There is another argument for this policy based on fairness: provided that a drug is safe, it is unfair to the honest athletes that they have to miss out on an advantage that the cheaters enjoy,” the three professors argue. “Far from harming athletes, paradoxically, such a proposal may protect our athletes. There would be more rigorous and regular evaluation of an athlete’s health and fitness to perform. Moreover, the current incentive is to develop undetectable drugs, with little concern for safety. If safe performance enhancement drugs were permitted, there would be greater pressure to develop safe drugs. Drugs would tend to become safer.” [17]
Further, the treatment of medical conditions would not be stigmatized and private medical conditions would not have to be divulged publicly because the treatment is a “banned” drug. For example, “If an archer requires β [beta] blockers to treat heart disease, we should not be concerned that this will give him or her an advantage over other archers. Or if an anaemic cyclist wants to take EPO [erythropoietin], we should be most concerned with the treatment of the anaemia.” Ultimately, taking a health-centered approach, rather than a prohibitive approach to drugs, will safeguard the athletes—and thus the sport. [17]
The same applies to so-called “techno-doping.” As journalist and bioethicist Alex Pearlman explains, “Supporters of using enhancing technologies in sports counter that people with disabilities already rely on increasingly high-tech assistive devices in everyday life. They point out that enhancements would not worsen an already inherently unjust situation. On the contrary—more attention to assistive devices might have the fringe benefit of going a long way toward alleviating ableist supremacy and getting more technology to people who need it.” [6]
Pro Quotes
Matt Glover, sports editor for the Mac Weekly, states:
“Some might argue that performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) are cheating or unfair. I beg to differ. I believe it would truly even the playing field because some countries (like Russia, which is currently banned from the Olympics until December 17, 2022 for their state-sponsored doping program) already are doping, while clean athletes are punished for being clean. There is a prisoners’ dilemma for athletes, with the dominant strategy being to cheat. This penalizes those who have the moral character or fortitude to not cheat, while rewarding others who did cheat.
“The solution is not more draconian testing policies, but rather an abolition of these policies and a level playing field where athletes are able to make informed decisions about their bodies. This would ensure all athletes that wanted to use PEDs could, rather than those that can circumvent testing either with new drugs or through sheer luck (as not all athletes are tested). I would also be open to an Olympics for athletes who chose not to dope, which would give those athletes a chance at fair competition.”
—Matt Glover, “The Case for PEDs, and a More Fair Sporting World,” themacweekly.com, Feb. 10, 2022
Alex Pearlman, journalist and bioethicist, states:
“With the potential cancellation of the Olympics [due to the COVID-19 pandemic barely making headlines, and with viewership already in significant decline, would allowing enhancement make the Olympics more relevant? Would opening the competition to anyone wearing a springy exoskeleton suit to propel them down the track 50 percent faster than human legs alone actually make the games even more compelling? What about altering their genetics to enhance a freakish amount of red blood cells to ferry more oxygen to their muscles? And importantly, would changes to the games still be able to capture what it is that we appreciate about competitive sports in the first place?
“What is purity of sport, anyway?
“…Allowing science into the picture raises the bar that already exists. To allow genetic and cybernetic enhancement would be to elevate our experience of the art of expressing what the human body is capable of when it merges with the technological prowess at our fingertips, and it also allows sports to evolve to mirror the human experience. If our lives are augmented, perhaps our sports entertainment should be as well.”
—Alex Pearlman, “The Case for More Doping in the Olympics,” neo.life, Mar. 11, 2021
Maeve Juday, columnist for the Swarthmore College newspaper The Phoenix, states:
“I propose that it’s time to head in the opposite direction: legalizing performance enhancing drugs (PEDs)….If steroid use for professional athletes is permitted, they will be able to legally obtain physical enhancement drugs which have been regulated, and are therefore possibly safe to use…
“Now, let’s not forget that the purpose of professional sports is entertainment, witnessing the seemingly magical feats of human athleticism and physical ability. An increase in steroid use would only serve to increase the talent and intensity of the game and bring it to a higher level…The essence of sports is that winning touchdown, that sprinting finish, and that fence-clearing homerun. Steroid legalization for professional athletes won’t jeopardize that; it will only enhance it.”
—Maeve Juday, “To Dope, or Not to Dope?,” swarthmorephoenix.com, Feb. 15, 2018
Rory W. Collins, master’s student at University of Canterbury, School of Teacher Education, states:
“[M]any of the PEDs which are currently banned ought to be allowed in the Olympics for athletes over 16 years of age. There is substantial justification for a less prohibitive approach to PEDs on the grounds of well-being, autonomy, and fairness; many of the objections to this proposal are simply unconvincing. In saying that, however, there are reasons to be hesitant about going straight from the current approach to a laissez-faire system.
“Numerous drugs thought to be safe do not have studies on their long-term health consequences. Additionally, many elite athletes are relatively young and, therefore, may not be able to give free and informed consent. Furthermore, legalising PEDs may provide a benefit to athletes from wealthy countries that is unavailable to those from poorer nations. But allowing some PEDs would almost certainly not incur these negative effects. To name one example, EPO is cheap, widely available, and reliable evidence suggests that there are no long-term health risks if used in moderation. Prohibiting athletes from using EPO under the current criteria is simply unjustified, as is the case for many other safe PEDs. Over the coming years, we ought to strive for a less restrictive approach towards PED use in both the Olympics and other elite sporting events.”
—Rory W. Collins, “Lowering Restrictions on Performance Enhancing Drugs in Elite Sports,” inquiriesjournal.com, 2017
Con Arguments
(Go to Pro Arguments)Con 1: Performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) violate the spirit and integrity of sport.
“Sports are designed to test a specific cluster of skills and capacities, including physical, psychological, tactical and technical abilities. Performance-enhancing drugs elevate the importance of certain physical attributes, such as strength and stamina. Lifting the ban on drugs would alter the nature of sports by increasing the significance of this sub-set of physical attributes at the expense of other physical attributes, such as coordination and agility, as well as non-physical attributes such as strategic skill, mental resilience, and technical proficiency,” explains John William Devine, lecturer in sports ethics at Swansea University. [15]
We are “designing people for sport. We are treating human beings like pieces of meat. We create them for this activity. If commercialism pushes this so strongly, we lose the core values about celebrating human effort and the joy of the effort and the love of the game,” says Angela Schneider, professor of kinesiology at Western University. Designer athletes, so to speak, make “sport…a perversion and a circus.” [18]
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) lays out this dynamic: “Anti-doping programs seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport. This intrinsic value is often referred to as ‘the spirit of sport.’ It is the essence of Olympism, the pursuit of human excellence through the dedicated perfection of each person’s talents. It is how we play true. The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is reflected in values we find in and through sport, including Ethics, fairplay and honesty; health; excellence in performance; character and education; fun and joy; teamwork; dedication and commitment; respect for rules and laws; respect for self and other Participants; courage; community and solidarity.” [19]
In the 2004 Summer Olympics Ukraine’s Yuriy Bilonoh earned the gold medal in the shot put. In 2013 that gold medal was awarded to American Adam Nelson “during a rushed meeting with an IOC official outside Burger King at the Atlanta Airport.” Bilonoh’s steroid use had been confirmed via drug tests and, thus, Nelson won the gold medal almost a decade after competing, without the glory or affirmation of the top place on the medal stand and without an estimated $2.5 million in income that would have come had he been awarded gold while actually at the Olympics. [20]
“The thing that makes sports fantastic is watching competition on a level playing field. Throw PEDs in the mix, and it becomes not about how good you are, but how good your doctor is,” says Nelson. Moreover, Nelson only won the gold medal because Bilonoh was drug tested. Not all athletes in all sports are tested, meaning some who dope keep their ill-gotten awards, throwing into question every win by every athlete who has not been tested. [20]
Con 2: Despite any benefit in injury recovery, PEDs are dangerous drugs that can still yield an unfair competitive advantage.
Even if a PED is originally used for injury or surgery recovery, the drugs’ effects can be addictive and lead to more long-term use and unfair advantage in competition. While PEDs may seem like the quick ticket to athletic glory, they are deadly. They can shorten not only an athlete’s career but their lifespan as well. We only have to look at bodybuilding, a sport that has historically encouraged PED use, for proof of this fact.
Bodybuilders “stack various steroids and other muscle-building drugs, then add in compounds intended to burn fat, blunt appetite or sap water from below the skin,” explain journalists Bonnie Berkowitz and William Neff. “They might counteract the worst side effects with another arsenal of medications, vitamins and supplements. The result can be outlandish physiques that appear indestructible but are often quite fragile.” These drug combinations essentially send their bodies into survival mode: their bodies believe death is near, and every bodily process slows to try to stay alive. [21]
PED use can result in weak hearts with overly thick walls that cannot pump blood effectively, high cholesterol, blood clots, heart attacks, and strokes, not to mention a complete shutdown of the reproductive system and severe mental alterations, including “roid rage,” mood disorders, depression, psychosis, and suicide, among other disorders. [21]
Former champion bodybuilder and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says bodybuilding is “the most dangerous sport in the world. In MMA fighters, you’ve had four guys die in the last ten years. In bodybuilding you’ve had 14 guys [die] over the last ten years. So it just shows you how dangerous it is to take some of those medications and things that those guys take.” [22]
The sports themselves are brutal enough, as seen in boxing and football and the rise of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a degenerative brain disease typically associated with repetitive trauma to the head. CTE can cause headaches, depression, increased irritability, decreased ability to concentrate, loss of short-term memory, and suicidal behavior, leading to headline-making tragedies as well as numerous lawsuits. Why would the sporting world want to compound such serious medical and mental afflictions by now allowing PEDs? [23]
Moreover, as PED use gets more and more “cutting edge,” the dangers rise significantly. Jon Mannah was an Australian National Rugby League player when he died of Hodgkin lymphoma in 2013. The disease was in remission until his team’s “sports scientist” began giving him (and other players) peptides, a less-used variety of PED with little to no scientific study behind its use. His cancer returned, and he died at age 23. [24]
Con 3: Allowing PEDs will increase youth drug use and other unhealthy activities.
A review of 52 studies of 187,288 people aged 10–21 years old, as well as an additional 894 adults, found that, on average, kids first use PEDs when they are 14 years old, with some using the drugs as early as nine. [25]
The same study found that kids who use PEDs are more likely to participate in other dangerous behaviors, such as substance abuse (including alcohol, marijuana, and heroin), driving drunk, not wearing a seat belt, riding with a drunk driver, and sexual promiscuity. Whether one bad habit directly fed another is not the point—all are signs and symptoms of dangerous behavior that should not be condoned or encouraged. [25]
While athletic performance is often a driver for PED use, a correlation between male body image and PED use has also been noted. “There is increasing concern regarding a rise in body dissatisfaction in young males particularly around masculinity. Individuals develop an unhealthy obsession with muscle growth and definition and are at risk of over-exercising as well as utilising medications including anabolic agents to achieve their goals,” says Laura Lallenec, physician and medical adviser for the Australian government. [26]
Athletes, like it or not, are role models for children, especially as social media increases access to famous players. Their behavior, good and bad—and especially their use of PEDs—can spur similar actions among their youthful fans. Teddy Bridgewater, self-professed “neighborhood hope dealer” and a former NFL quarterback, posted about this dynamic on Instagram: “Kids don’t be fooled. You can play ball, do the right thing and they still gonna accept you. Look at me, I’m far from perfect but I chose the ball route but I can still go to the hood and post up and it’s all love. I still keep the same 3 dudes around me. My people accept me for making all the right decisions and not falling victim or being tricked by the false image you see on IG [Instagram] from a lot of ball players.” [27]