Steroids in Sports - Essay Example

?Steroids in Sports The use and abuse of performance enhancing drugs such as anabolic steroids is widespread in the world of sports. While sporting bodies have been set up and rules have been established to deal with the problem internationally, it still continues to plague the different sports resulting from the drive elite athletes have for success, money and glory. There has been some support given to legalising of the use of performance enhancing drugs. One of the main reasons given is that athletes face a major risk of physical injury whilst competing, especially in contact sport; so why not allow them to risk taking performance enhancing drugs too? In addition, banning the use of performance enhancing drugs cannot be rationalised as it is a form of paternalistic approach that should theoretically not be taken with an adult. An athlete’s career is fairly short compared with other careers and needs to be maximised. This may seem like sound reasoning for allowing performance enhancing drugs until one takes a look at the some of the health problems associated with the prolonged abuse of performance enhancing drugs. It has been associated with both long term and short term damage to athletes and has even been implicated in the deaths of some athletes. In addition, the use of performance enhancing drugs offers an unfair advantage to the athletes who choose take them in their quest for glory and money and completely goes against the unwritten values of sport which include honesty and integrity. When the view of athletes of athletes is taken into consideration regarding the use of performance enhancing drugs, it appears that over half of them seemed convinced that would actually contemplate the use of such drugs while the others firmly opposed it. This paper will attempt to critically take a look at the reasoning behind the argument that performance enhancing drugs should be legalised and then present the counter arguments for it. I will argue that despite the reasoning provided for it, the (ab)use of performance enhancing drugs in any sport is dishonest and detrimental to the health of the athlete who chooses to use it. The use of performance enhancing drugs in the world of sports has been present probably since the start of sports competition (Campos et al, 2003). Two major events in recent history that shocked the world of sport was Ben Johnson admitting to the use of performance enhancing drugs in 1988 (Catlin et al, 2008) and the scandal surrounding the Tour de France in 1998 with allegations of doping (Schneider, 2004). While most people would agree that the use of performance enhancing drugs should be banned it is worth taking a look at the other side of the argument stating that these drugs should be legalised too. One of the main reasons given by bodies like the Sports Council in Britain or the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) have been the health risks associated with performance enhancing drugs (Hanstad and Waddington, 2009). It has been argued that if this concern for the health of elite athletes is really the reason for the ban of performance enhancing drugs, then concern must be had for other aspects of sport that affect health like sports-related injuries. There have been no sports bodies that have passed rules on whether an athlete can perform whilst injured though the risk of injury is quite high for many sports (O’Leary, 2001 from Hanstad and Waddington, 2009). Athletes who take part in sports, especially contact sports, effectively work in an extremely hazardous environment. There is a high risk of sports-related injuries or the development of chronic conditions later in life as a result of the sport (Hanstad and Waddington, 2009). One study actually concluded that the risk of injury if a thousand times higher in athletes playing professional football than in jobs such as construction or mining (Hawkins and Fuller, 1998 from Hanstad and Waddington, 2009). Similarly, when considering a sport like American football, the average length of the career of a player is a meagre 3.2 years thanks to the vast number of injuries they sustain during the course of their career. It seems that damage to health through performance enhancing drugs seems insignificant when compared with the risks of the sport (Guttmann,1988 from Hanstad and Waddington, 2009). It is also worth mentioning that since athletes are expected to take risks, such as the risk of injury, why would the taking of performance enhancing drugs to better themselves at the sport be any different? In fact, athletes often are expected to just deal with the pain of injury and face a ‘culture of risk’. This attitude seems to be necessary to ensure success in their sport (Roderick, 1998 from Hanstad and Waddington, 2009). To make clearer the risks associated with some sports, it has been found that competitors in women’s gymnastics, for example, face a high incidence of arthritis and other joint conditions (O’Leary, 2001 from Hanstad and Waddington, 2009). 80% of trampolinists have actually been seen to suffer from stress urinary incontinence (Hanstad and Waddington, 2009). If a certain performance enhancing drug had this effect, the sports bodies would take action but as it is a result of the sport, a blind eye is turned towards it. Another view that has been taken is that athletes who take performance enhancing drugs should be treated as having an addiction and it needs to be treated as any other addiction would be treated. It has been said that the complete ban of performance enhancing drugs would be inhumane and would adverse affect the athlete’s health in the short term (D’Angelo and Tamburrini, 2010). Another point to be mentioned is that some have taken the view that the methods of testing for drugs raise some cause for concern. Randomised testing is very much a method employed and elite athletes having to produce blood or urine samples at a moment’s notice for random tests greatly infringes upon their basic human rights (Schneider, 2004). In addition, it must be noted that the ban on performance enhancing drugs is a rather ‘paternalistic’ view. Theoretically, such decisions should only be taken for those unable to make decisions for themselves such a s minors. It is somewhat difficult to rationalize since it is being taken for an adult on the basis that it will affect their health (O’Leary, 2001 from Hanstad and Waddington, 2009). It is true that while the use of performance enhancing drugs is policed in the world of elite sports, there appears to be little or no regulation for its use in the general population. It also has been pointed out that it is fairly commonplace in daily life amongst people who partake in sports (Lippi et al, 2008). It is probably this attitude that makes it difficult to curtail the use of performance enhancers in elite athletes (Lippi et al, 2008). It was found that in a study which looked at 964 university students who were studying sports sciences, urine samples obtained indicated that 11.2% of the participants had the presence of drugs that are banned by the various sports bodies (Thevis et al, 2008). This was especially true of males where the incidence was higher than in females (Thevis et al, 2008). Having mentioned the arguments for lifting the ban on performance enhancing drugs, a look must be taken at the arguments against it. While it has been said that since athletes are taking risks with their health simply by participation in an elite sport, the potential side effects of many performance enhancing drugs have been documented to be extremely serious. athletes often take them in doses much higher than the recommended therapeutic dosage. there are both short-term and long-term effects on the body. usually, the use of performance enhancing drugs will target cerebral, metabolic, cardiovascular, respiratory, haematological and possibly even genetic functions in the future (Lippi et al, 2008) specifically, some of the shortterm effects include adverse effects on the liver, reproductive functions, immune functions heart disease, prostrate problems and even behavioural changes (Friedl, 2000 from Hanstad and Waddington, 2009). In addition, long term effects have recorded have included muscle cramps, menstrual irregularities, infertility, hiruitism, changes in libido and acne. Also, some performance enhancing drugs have been linked with the deaths of some elite athletes (Franke and Berendonk, 1997; Ungerleider, 2000 from Hanstad and Waddington, 2009) In addition to health, while there have been numerous debates about it, the bottom line is that most performance enhancing drugs are banned by WADA and most other sports bodies. The decision by an athlete to still continue to take these drugs is illegal and dishonest. It also is unfair to athletes who have not taken any performance enhancers. The motivation for the use of such drugs is usually glory and money. The huge economical profit that can be made from sport, nowadays, has unfortunately meant that more athletes focus on the glory and money rather on being honest competitors. The use of performance enhancing drugs has even been found in sports like billiards (Lippi et al, 2008). Perhaps the most refreshing step toward ending the use of performance enhancing drugs was the drafting and implementation of a set of anti-doping rules along with a list if banned substances in 1967 (Campos et al, 2003). The World Anti-Doping Agency came into existence and this most certainly set the precedent for the creation of standards to be used. Rules and regulations regarding the use of performance enhancing drugs were established and methods of testing had to meet certain standards (Catlin et al, 2008). These rules and regulations certainly create more order within the different sports and also allow decisions as to what penalties should be given to those athletes found guilty of the misuse of performance enhancing drugs (Lippi et al, 2008). After this code was introduced, a large sum of money is spent by the governments of different countries to fund anti-doping testing (Lippi et al, 2008). It is good idea to have an opinion of the athletes being discussed. There seems to be a divide down the middle in this case however. In the 1970s, when American runners were asked if they would consider taking a ‘magic pill’ that would ensure Olympic success but would also kill them within a year of consumption, more than 50% of the athletes surveyed indicated that they would actually take the pill (Donati, 2004 from Hanstad and Waddington, 2009). When a similar question was asked of weightlifting athletes, a resounding 52% indicated they would take the pill (Goldman, 1984 from Hanstad and Waddington, 2009). This shows that the issue is actually very complex and the motivation for success may be so great that athletes feel compelled to take performance enhancing drugs. While it is understandable that the motivation by athletes for fame and success in their selected sport and also the drive to benefit from the financial gains is understandable, it is my view that the bottom line is that the abuse of performance enhancing drugs is inherently unacceptable. It offers the athletes with an unfair advantage over the other athletes who have gone about their training in a more honest manner. In addition, the short term and long term health effects of performance enhancing drugs are very destructive to a person’s health and there appears to be no justification for an individual taking the performance enhancers just to further their career. To conclude, it can be said that in the world of sport, the use of performance enhancing drugs is very much prevalent. There is wide support for the legalising of performance enhancing drugs by people who believe that it is not up to the sporting bodies to takes such an intrusive role in deciding what elite athletes can consume. In theory, an adult who is of sound mind should be able to make this decision for themselves and it is the view held that going against this indicates and infringement of basic human rights. Also, elite athletes take many health risks in the name of the sport in which they partake. This is especially true of athletes who participate in contact sports. The length of their career is fairly short due to the huge risk of injury that they face. It has also been said that if athletes are prepared to take such risks in order to compete, it unfair not to allow them the extra advantage of the use of performance enhancing drugs. The view held is that, they probably can do more harm to their bodies by injuries, so why would the consumption of performance enhancing drugs be any different? The counterargument for this in taking a look at the side effects of many of the performance enhancing drugs and many of the combinations of performance enhancers athletes have been found to take. The side effects vary from short term to long term and affect all major organs of the body. They are severely detrimental to health and have even been implicated in the death of some athletes. In addition to health, the fairness of the game is compromised of some elite athletes take performance enhancing drugs while others do not. they have an unfair advantage by being dishonest. Another underlying issue is the legality of taking performance enhancers. The sports bodies have produced a list of banned substances and hence it is essentially illegal for any elite sportsperson to consume any of these drugs. It is my opinion that performance enhancing drugs are simply too high a risk for athletes to risk taking for any sport. There are proven health risks that are detrimental to health and in extreme cases even death. In addition to this, it compromises the fairness of the sport goes against the unwritten moral code. As for the argument that health risks are inevitable in any sport, it seems fair to say that the health risks of performance enhancing drugs versus the health risks associated with injury almost seem incomparable. As for testing being intrusive in some circumstances, it seems that every chosen profession comes with some responsibilities and this is one of the responsibilities to be faced by elite athletes Bibliography Campos, Daniel R. , Yonamine, Mauricio and de Moraes Moreau, Regina L. Marijuana as Doping in Sports. Sports Medicine. 33:6 (2003). 395-399. Web. Catlin D. H., Fitch, K.D and Ljungqvist, A. Medicine and science in the fight against doping in sport. Journal of internal medicine. 264 (2008). 99–114.Web. D’Angelo, Carlos and Tamburrini, Claudio. Addict to win? A different approach to doping. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36 (2010). 700-707. Web Hanstad, Dag Vidar and Waddington, Ivan. Sport, health and drugs: a critical re-examination of some key issues and problems . Perspectives in Public Health, 129:4 (2009). 174-182. Web. Lippi, Giuseppe.; Franchini, Massimo and Guidi, Gian Cesare. Doping in competition or doping in sport?. British Medical Bulletin, 86 (2008). 95–107. Web Schneider, Angela J. Privacy, Confidentiality and Human Rights in Sport. Sport in Society, 7: 3 (2004). 438 — 456. Web. Thevis, Mario , Sauer, Michael , Geyer, Hans , Sigmund, Gerd , Mareck, Ute and Schanzer, Wilhelm. Determination of the prevalence of anabolic steroids, stimulants, and selected drugs subject to doping controls among elite sport students using analytical chemistry. Journal of Sports Sciences, 26:10 (2008). 1059 -1065. Web. Read More