Ian Bernard Philosophy 201 11/26/12 Doping in Sports

There are two major schools of thought surrounding the practice of doping in sports. Some people believe that doping is a very serious problem and that potentially stricter legislation is needed to eliminate the rampant practice. Those opposed to this view think that there are aspects of the legislation that are not ethical, such as, the invasion of privacy of the athlete and the potential for duplication of punishments between the governing body of the sport and the legal system itself. There are some individuals at the more extreme end of this spectrum that suggest that doping should actually be allowed.i It is the goal of this paper to refute arguments that oppose doping legislation. In light of the massive Lance Armstrong doping scandal that occurred recently, it appears that the last thing that the sporting world needs is less strict doping rules. The invasion of privacy that is involved in stringent drug testing policies is, undeniably, an unfortunate reality. The policy goes as far as to require that the tester observes the athlete urinating into the sample container, so as to ensure that a fake sample is not used. Additionally, regular drug testing requires that the athlete inform those in charge of the drug testing of his or her whereabouts regularly. Critics of the practice argue that this violates some of the human rights of the athletes.i However, the issue with this argument is that those privacy invasion measures are necessary in order to reasonably ensure that the doping tests are not being falsified. They are a necessary evil and the athletes enter into the professional arena of their sport knowing that these requirements are in place. Furthermore, the location requirement is not so different from any other full time job. In essence, an employer knows the whereabouts of his or her employees much of the time because they are required to report to a given location to perform their jobs each day.

Ian Bernard Philosophy 201 11/26/12 Duplication of punishments is another issue that is brought up by opponents of strict antidoping regulations. The argument is that, if an athlete is caught using an illicit substance, he or she may incur fines or other penalties from organization that governs his or her sport, but he or she may also endure punishment at the hands of the legal system.i Although this occurrence is unfortunate, it is not unethical or unfair. Because the individual is not being prosecuted by the same governing body multiple times for the same crime, it is not a violation of his or her rights. He or she has simply violated multiple sets of laws. McNamee and Tarasti state that one sanction belongs to private law, while the other is of public law.i Finally, there is the argument that there should not be regulations against performance enhancing drugs in competitive sports. There are those who think that it is not unnatural to use performance enhancing drugs and that their dangers are no greater than other risky sporting behaviors, such as, aggressive football tackling or punching in boxing.i Fundamentally, this argument seems mostly legitimate. It would certainly eliminate the need for complicated drug testing procedures. However, one obvious flaw with this idea is that it is known that the drugs are not safe. They allow the athletes to exert themselves past their normal physical limits and can result in serious injury or death. But, the point could be made that it should ultimately be the athletes choice if he or she is willing to take that risk. Neglecting the health risks, the major problem with allowing performance enhancing drugs in competitive sports is that they would fundamentally change the focus of the sport. Immediately, a large portion of the focus of every sports team would be research and development of new and better enhancement drugs. It seems logical that, in that drug searching fervor, the true spirit of honest human competition might be left to the wayside. In conclusion, strict drug testing procedures must be maintained to attempt to preserve the honest competitive nature of professional sports. In fact, in light of recent public doping scandals, it

Ian Bernard Philosophy 201 11/26/12 might be logical to actually add even more rigorous standards. The testing procedures are not unethical because the athletes enter into a contract when they agree to compete professionally. This contract, like any contract that an employee might agree to, has certain standards and rules, specific to that industry, which must be upheld and followed. Finally, performance enhancing drugs should not be made acceptable in professional sports because doing so would ultimately change the focus of the sport itself. Sports should focus on the competition of the athletes, not the competition of the athletes pharmacists.

i) McNamee, M. J., and L. Tarasti. "Juridical and Ethical Peculiarities in Doping Policy."Journal of Medical Ethics 36.3 (2010): 165-69. VA Comm Univ Tompkins MCCaw Library. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. </http://jme.bmj.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/content/36/3/165.full>.

i) McNamee, M. J., and L. Tarasti. "Juridical and Ethical Peculiarities in Doping Policy." Journal of Medical Ethics 36.3 (2010): 165-69. VA Comm Univ Tompkins MCCaw Library. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. </http://jme.bmj.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/content/36/3/165.full>.