Debate Is Drugs Testing in Athletes Justified

Debate
is drugs testing in athletes justified
The use of performance enhancing drugs in the modern Olympics is on record as early as the games
of the third Olympiad, when Thomas Hicks won the marathon after receiving an injection of
strychnine in the middle of the race.1 The first official ban on “stimulating substances” by a sporting
organisation was introduced by the International Amateur Athletic Federation.
Using drugs to cheat in sport is not new, but it is becoming more effective. In 1976, the East German
swimming team won 11 out of 13 Olympic events, and later sued the government for giving them
anabolic steroids.3 Yet despite the health risks, and despite the regulating bodies’ attempts to
eliminate drugs from sport, the use of illegal substances is widely known to be rife. It hardly raises an
eyebrow now when some famous athlete fails a dope test.
Argument in cons
In 2008, the International Cycling Union introduced a blood passport practice. The antidoping
procedure monitors the characteristics of an athlete's blood over a period of time. For example,
hematocrit levels (the percentage of red blood cells to the total volume of whole blood) are tracked
for abnormal spikes. Red blood cells carry oxygen -- a spike in hematocrit levels would, therefore,
enhance a cyclist's performance and indicate doping.
Some athletes take a form of steroids known as anabolic-androgenic steroids or just anabolic
steroids to increase their muscle mass and strength. The main anabolic steroid hormone produced
by your body is testosterone.
Why are these drugs so appealing to athletes? Besides making muscles bigger, anabolic steroids may
reduce the muscle damage that occurs during a hard workout, helping athletes recover from the
session more quickly and enabling them to work out harder and more frequently. Some athletes, as
well as nonathletes, may like the muscular appearance they get when they take the drugs.
Many athletes take anabolic steroids at doses that are much higher than those prescribed for
medical reasons. Anabolic steroids have serious physical side effects. By the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). Human growth hormone is a hormone that has an anabolic effect. Athletes
take it to improve muscle mass and performance. However, it hasn't been shown conclusively to
improve either strength or endurance. Human growth hormone is available only by prescription and
is administered by injection.
Risk
Adverse effects related to human growth hormone range in severity and may include: Joint pain,
Muscle weakness, Fluid retention, Diabetes, Vision problem, Carpal tunnel syndrome, Impaired
glucose regulation, Enlarged heart (cardiomegaly), High blood pressure (hypertension).
Athletes are expected to give their best performance on the ground. In order to meet the
expectations of their team, coaching staff, and fans, some athletes turn to drugs to enhance their
strength. This is the reason why doping tests are performed to prevent athletes from consuming
drugs that can tamper with their health. Some athletes take recreational drugs for fun, while many
sportspeople use drugs such as steroids to enhance their performance and secure their position on a
team. However, this action often backfires and athletes end up risking their lives.
Argument in pro
Many people, particularly who are in the sports field, are now relying on performances-enhancing
drugs to better their performance, improve their bodies, and keep their careers going. Advocates of
PEDs argue that rather than banning, we should regulate the use of them. One of the very reasons
why performance-enhancing drugs, such as steroids, stimulants, erythropoietin, and creatine, are
banned in sports is because they are believed to cause long-term health effects. While itʼs true that
these drugs have potential side effects, they may only occur if taken improperly or excessively. Most
athletes, who take PEDs, suffer adverse side effects because they use them with little knowledge and
guide from their doctors. Remember that just like other drugs, there is a correct dosage of how
much PEDs should be taken by every individual.In the book entitled, Performance Enhancing Drugs,
the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) states that PEDs, such as creatine and ephedra, are safe
when used within the recommended dosage.Performance-enhancing drugs have tremendous
benefits – thatʼs why they are created and made available in the market. However, the current ban
for using these substances prevents athletes from realizing those benefits; worse, it restricts them
from accessing the help and supervision they need. Without regulation, athletes will never know
exactly how these substances work and affect their bodies. Most people donʼt know that most of the
dangers that come from these substances lie in not knowin the safe dosage and what they do to
your body. Allowing performance-enhancing drugs in sports would make our athletes safer because
it will make them aware of what amounts of dosage provide maximum benefits and harmful effects.
Proper regulation will also allow athletes to go and seek for qualified physicians than rely to
backroom hucksters with no medical background. And if legal, more research can be done to make
PEDs a lot safer and effective.
Allowing the use of drugs in sports would reduce crime in the sense that less people would be
breaking the law for taking them and less drug lords would be able to remain in business. If all
countries would allow the use of PEDs in sports, it would substantially reduce the involvement of
organized criminals in the doping market.
n 1992, Vicky Rabinowicz interviewed small groups of athletes. She found that Olympic athletes, in
general, believed that most successful athletes were using banned substances.4
Much of the writing on the use of drugs in sport is focused on this kind of anecdotal evidence. There
is very little rigorous, objective evidence because the athletes are doing something that is taboo,
illegal, and sometimes highly dangerous. The anecdotal picture tells us that our attempts to
eliminate drugs from sport have failed. In the absence of good evidence, we need an analytical
argument to determine what we should do.

Debate Is Drugs Testing in Athletes Justified

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debate Is Drugs Testing in Athletes Justified

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debate Is Drugs Testing in Athletes Justified

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Debate

is drugs testing in athletes justified

You might also like