Performance enhancing drugs should not be
Environment a. So as far as the use of performance-enhancing substances or methods is concerned, we can maintain that even if minor health risks are to be expected, a ban on doping can be justified from an ethical point of view.
The first is that it is cheating.
Should performance enhancing drugs be allowed in sports article
Implementing the doping ban If you argue from the point of view of the individual interest of the athlete not to harm his or her health, the problem of implementation subsequently emerges. Some athletes take a form of steroids — known as anabolic-androgenic steroids or just anabolic steroids — to increase their muscle mass and strength. Given that drugs are significantly cheaper than psychologists, permitting their use might actually level out the playing field for poorer athletes. The same result applies to B. Although a long way from perfect, WADA has created the most comprehensive anti-doping program in the world indeed the only anti-doping program most of the world outside of the US models and implements. Let us now consider the case in which B adopts a doping strategy. Justification of the doping ban To consider doping from an ethical point of view initially means asking for reasons why certain substances or methods that increase physical performance are banned, and to contrast these with reasons that speak for an approval of such substances or methods.
I think all anti-doping arguments come down to two basic principles, only one of which Musburger addresses in his blanket approval of steroid use in professional athletes. Athletes try to enhance their performance in many ways: coaches, psychologists, dietitians, massage therapists, training at high altitude, skin-tight swimsuits.
Learn how these drugs work and how they can affect your health. In this case, doping is defined as an unnatural increase in athletic performance.
Why performance enhancing drugs should not be allowed in sports essay
Should the primary method of public school funding property taxes in individual school districts be amended to create more fairness in schools? Given equal circumstances, athletes would reasonably be in favour of a setting without doping as opposed to one with doping, because there is no alteration with regard to the competitive output. Law students, and indeed lawyers, are fond of the slippery slope argument. Still, NFL athletes are allowed to collide with great force every week. You may decide that the benefits aren't worth the risks. Besides the place of action, problems may also arise when controlling the amount and the point in time for the production of the desired effect. There are two definitional strategies fundamentally conceivable. This is the technology which is used to influence the genetic makeup and—through the expression of respective genetic information—to modify physiological properties with the aim of improving performance. Gender Specific — Males. Learning outcome 1. However, it becomes difficult to decide who gets into the Hall, with a sporting world that is notorious for cheating allegations. However, there are also cases where there is a clear-cut distinction that can be drawn with good judgement we will return to this issue later on.
These hormones have approved medical uses. My view is that doping has no place in sport. The intake of anabolic steroids, for example, may lead to an increased risk of arteriosclerosis: the heart muscle mass increases, the myocardial perfusion deteriorates and the liver is damaged, leading to liver failure.
A narrow definition is confined to those forms of doping that must be prohibited this, of course, does not release from the obligation to justify the ban.
Of course, it is possible to plead for a restricted approval of doping measures with acceptable risk.
based on 56 review