Pros and Cons - Debbie Newman, Ben Woolgar 2014

Performance-enhancing drugs in sport
Section F. Culture, education and sport

There is a variety of substances and procedures which enhance physical performance that are banned in sports; for example, steroids, hormones and blood doping. Some sports such as cycling and athletics have seen many high-profile sports stars caught breaking the rules. Despite increased screening, some people believe that drug taking is still rife. The Proposition team must decide whether to allow everything in their definition, which will open them up to an attack of serious health risks; or whether to regulate the substances, which may undermine the point about a level playing field.

Pros

[1] Performance-enhancing drugs are a reality in sport that we cannot combat. Given that, it is fairer to allow everyone access to the drugs, thereby creating a level playing field. At present, the cheats have an advantage, and the honest are penalised.

[2] The current situation, with the exposure of drugs cheats, undermines sports. When Ben Johnson had to be stripped of his 100m sprint Olympic gold medal in 1988, or Lance Armstrong was stripped of seven Tour de France titles in 2012, it made a mockery of the sport and the fans who had been duped. People see their role models fall and children are sent the message that successful people cheat to win.

[3] The use of performance-enhancing drugs will make sport more exciting; it will literally become faster, higher, stronger. Imagine how fast Usain Bolt could run on steroids! It would be amazing to use drugs technology to push the limits of human performance in this way. It would still ultimately remain a competition between individuals and their training programmes. This would become one more enhancement like the right shoes, wetsuit, cycle, diet or altitude training. The athlete and his/her talent, drive and hard work would remain the most important factor (in fact, this would be truer because of the level playing field created by the policy).

[4] Athletes should be given the freedom of choice to take drugs, having been informed about the risks. Many athletes decide that the risk is worth it. There are risks associated with many sports already (paralysis in rugby, mental damage in boxing, possible death in motor sports), and we allow individuals to assess these risks. If the drugs were being taken in an open and regulated manner, then there would actually be fewer health risks (albeit to more people).

Cons

[1] Until all amounts of every drug are legalised, some people will always break the rules in order to gain an edge over their competitors. This measure would also disadvantage those who do not wish to compromise their health by taking steroids and other harmful drugs or who wish to achieve success naturally. You are not therefore creating a level playing field. The best way to create that is to continue improving detection technology, pursue thorough investigations and provide strong deterrents through lifetime bans for those who are caught.

[2] The exposure of drugs cheats shows that the status quo is working. People do not get away with cheating, and when they are caught they face public disgrace. The messages that are sent through this are that drug use is not acceptable and also that there are consequences to breaking the rules. Both of these are positive values to be communicating through sport.

[3] Sport would be damaged by this change. People want to watch human achievement, not a battle between pharmaceutical companies. It would also give an advantage to developed countries that have the funds for research and development of the substances. At the moment, there is no financial barrier to access sports such as running, in the way there is for sailing or horse riding. This will damage that. Because it will also discriminate against athletes who do not wish to take the health risks associated with drug taking, they may find they lose their places on teams, and sport could be denied some of its future talent.

[4] Taking performance-enhancing drugs can be extremely detrimental to an athlete’s health. The stakes are so high for athletes to win that there would be enormous pressure on them to take the drugs, risking their health and even their lives. In the 1980s, deaths of young cyclists were linked to taking the steroid EPO (Erythropoietin). Freedom of choice is compromised because of that pressure. Drug use would also trickle down from professional sport to amateur and junior leagues and young people would be harmed.

Possible motions

This House would legalise performanceenhancing drugs in sport.

This House believes that it is time to lift the doping ban in sports.

Related topics

Protective legislation v. individual freedom

Sport, regretting the commercialisation of

Boxing, banning of

Drugs, legalisation of