A Discussion of Whether Performance Enhancing Drugs Should Be Legalised in Sport

Performance Enhancing Drugs are substances that are used illicitly to improve athletic performance. They have been used since the time of the original Olympic Games and the first rule against doping in sport was introduced in 1928. When we hear on the news about an athlete “doping”, the public are quick to assume the athletes are using them for the wrong reasons and should be immediately banned from competing. Although this maybe true of certain athletes, are we right to assume it applies to all athletes? Or should we try to understand the reasons why so many athletes make this radical decision which can have major consequences on their career. If we legalised certain drugs, could we fix the problem that seems to be never ending? Would the athletes and the public become more aware of the issue and save sport? To investigate this, I decided to choose the topic, “Should performance enhancing drugs be legalised in sport?”. 

My first source is titled “Why it’s time to legalise doping in athletics” and was published on the 28th August 2015 by Julian Savulescu, a professor at the University of Oxford. The writer states that zero - tolerance drugs are clearly not working. The possibility of doping techniques advancing quicker than testing has confused the majority of the public. Are the athletes who are winning all cheating? Athletes are under immense pressure to succeed resulting in them constantly looking for ways to increase their competitive advantage. He states that we could increase testing which will help but will still not necessarily catch everyone. The system is unfair and needs to be changed because of the advantage given to some athletes. To enhance the system, we could introduce what is known as “physiological doping” which ensures the normal function of living organism are protected. This means that if drugs are either too unsafe or effect the spirt of the sport, they would be made illegal. This results in a more successful system since we are able to centre our research more closely on the real issue. This alternative system is ultimately better for every aspect of the sport and should be introduced in order to protect athletes, maintain stricter laws and therefore have a more level playing field. Another argument against legalising drugs is that countries with the most money will be able to obtain the most expensive PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs). But this is not the case as this disadvantage already exists - wealthier countries have better machines to legally increase stamina, for example. So if we makes them legal, they will be cheaper and more accessible for every country. He sums up his article by stating when rules and regulations are being abused, they should be changed. 

The second source is titled “Should performance enhancing drugs remain illegal in sports?” and was published on the 25th February 2019 by athlete Catherine Campbell Reid, an athlete. More athletes are using PED’s to improve their performance and beat the competition. The writer states that technology is constantly improving and testing is more frequent. As a result drugs which previously were undetected are now being easily found meaning athletes are receiving a suitable punishment. Although there are many reasons to support the legalisation of PEDs, she states that in fact most of the advantages are in fact false and the current system is the most effective. “Doping” is ruining major events like the Olympics because of the damage it has on the 3 main values of sport : Excellence, Friendship and Respect. Excellence is obviously affected by PEDs because if you are under the influence of drugs, how can you achieve anything when you know it isn’t truly yourself winning or gaining a personal best. Friendship unites people from all over the world. How can you happily say you have contributing to this when it isn’t truly yourself building relationships? Finally, Respect is undoubtedly the biggest value betrayed by taking PEDs because you are cheating the public, other athletes and yourself. It can affect your health without knowing the risks and also your mental health. Catherine recognises legalising “doping” could take sport to a different level and increase popularity. But could you trust athletes if there is an uncertainty as to whether the drugs are helping them achieve the medals. The legalisation of drugs will be unfair since the wealthier countries will have more advance drugs, no matter their previous disadvantage. Lastly, she passionately speaks about the hope and power of sport and the negative impact of drugs in sport being detrimental to sport and society in the future. 

Researching author Julian Savulescu, I found that he is a philosopher who researches the ethics of various technologies, including the effect of an athletes performance through drugs or genetic manipulation. The author is clearly very knowledgable of the topic and is able to give the reader a very intellectual opinion. Introducing the article, he talks about the World Championships and the glorious athletes who inspired many people by their performance and attitudes towards the game. Although the mood quickly changes when we are suddenly informed of how much of a terrible year 2015 was for athletics. He uses the phrase “annus horribils” which makes the reader think further since it is in italics and obviously not English. The phrase remains in the readers mind throughout the duration of the article and as they progress through the article it becomes clear why the author used the strong phrase and message right at the beginning of the article. The language used is formal and the writer uses words like “it is clear” and “it should be” to persuade the reader to agree with him. As well as this, the reader finishes with rhetorical questions which makes the reader think further and question their previous opinion. I think the information is presented well and the reader grasps a clear view of the author’s opinion. By the use of the sub-headings and various paragraphs it is easy to understand the main point he is making. I think overall the source is very effective because it gives us the key points of the positive effects of legalising doping in athletics. 

Researching the article by Catherine Campbell Reid I found that she is an athlete who has competed in various competitions and has written several articles. This makes the source effective because it provides us with a very different point of view from the first author. Since she is an athlete, she has experienced the pressure and emotions of competing against competitors who have used Performance Enhancing Drugs. This means she will have a personal and unique opinion since only a small percentage of people are involved in athletics at the highest level. The article brings an emotional side to the topic and talks about the feelings the athlete and the public obtain from sport because it brings a lot of people together. Throughout the duration of the text the writer uses many rhetorical questions and short sentences which persuade the reader even further into believing her argument. The information is presented clearly in various paragraphs to give the reader a clear idea of the specific topic which is discussed in each individual argument. Also, the writer emphasises specific words which is very eye-catching to the reader and it is made clear that it is very important. A piece of information we learned from this article, made bold, is the fact that 1,575 athletes from a range of sports in 2015 (Association of Summer Olympic International Federation) were found with banned substances in their bodies. This is a very alarming statistic because if that is the number of people found, there must be many more athletes that are not being caught and using illegal substances. As I said before, this article is much more emotional and thought provoking for the reader since it focuses on the hope and happiness sport gives to the world by bringing people together to watch something inspiring and pure - something we have lost a lot of in this world. 

Both sources begin by talking about athletes who have won, with or without PEDs, and shows the positive effect of sport. However they both communicate their worries about the opposite side to this - the unknown and possibly dark side to athletics and to the athletes that compete. Although the articles are expressing completely different opinions, there are some similarities. In both sources, they express how they do not think we should just legalise every single drug and make them available to the athletes. Even though one source wants to legalise doping, they express an idea of physiological doping which is setting safe limits. This shows that although they have very different arguments, they agree on the fundamental rights to doping and the health risks it has. Also they both agree legalising PED’s would solve a lot of sporting issues. Finally, they both acknowledge winning or participating in a major event is the peak of any athletes career, whether athletes would wilfully admit it or not. But they both express different effects of this pressure and how we could change the system for the better. An obvious difference between the sources is they both express opposite point of views on the main topic: the legalisation of Performance Enhancing Drugs. The first source is from a professional’s point of view, whereas the second source is personal. It is clear that their profession has shaped their views and why they have them. They both focus on different effects of the drugs, the medical and the emotional effect on both the athlete and the public. A second difference of both sources is they both believe different changes will make the sport fairer. One article says that although many people assume legalising PED’s will be fair, it is in fact unfair. Smaller countries who may not be financially able to fund their athletes to have the same level of PEDs as Great Britain, for example, have a disadvantage. This means certain countries are still going to be one step ahead of the competition in terms of PED’s. Although the opposing article actually says this isn’t true, that legalising doping would be fair. The disadvantage of certain countries having more money already exists. For example, many athletes train at altitude to increase their levels of hematocrits (ratio of volume of red cells to whole blood) which is very expensive. He says that by legalising doping, athletes could use EPO (hormone naturally produced by the kidneys that can be artificially produced to improve performance) to achieve the same level of hermatocrit. But the advantage of this is that it is likely to be cheaper and more accessible to many athletes whilst maintaining the same effect. This would effectively make it fairer for everyone, so he disproves her argument. 

In conclusion, my investigation has discussed many different views of the legalisation of “doping” and has changed my view on PEDs. The main argument for the introduction of legalisation is it will most probably save the “doping” crisis by educating and informing athletes about both the benefits and the risks of the drugs. But the only way it will save sport is if we legalise “safe” drugs that don’t effect the spirt of the sport. However, the other source opposed this view when it expressed drugs effect the moral and values of sport, no matter if an athlete commits it once or multiple times. The legalisation of drugs is a major issues which is talked about world wide, but will someone ever come up with a suitable solution that pleases everyone?