Why Athletic Doping Should Be Banned Analysis

Kayer, Mauron and Miah (2005) take the legalization side of the debate. They claim that biological and environmental factors do not match up. Some athletes are at an unfair advantage due to their genetic makeup over others. Mayer et al. also argue that sports themselves are dangerous towards athletes health. For example in hockey concessions, broken bones, and strained muscles are common due to the physical aspect of the game. Therefore the arguments that claim performance-enhancing drugs are harmful are not permissible because athletes put themselves in danger every time they train or compete in their sport. Lastly the article for legalization argues that performance-enhancing drugs should be controlled and regulated through medical supervision. Testing and administrative aspects of performance-enhancing drugs are costly and complicated. With rules and regulations the encouragement of more sensible and informed use of performance enhancing drugs are likely. There will be a decline in health problems associated with medical supervision due to the awareness of what is dangerous and what is not. On the other end of the argument I draw from two different articles. The first article is called Why Athletic Doping Should Be Banned by Eric Chwang. His (2012) central view revolved around protecting athletes from harm. Chwang used the term ‘game-theoretic’ to compile his argument, the term combined different arguments he brought up within his paper which …show more content…
Although the difficult question may be which side of the argument is correct? Like most debates and arguments there are positives and negatives to both sides. The beside must hold the more positives or the positives must outweigh the negatives. Health and safety were topics discussed in both sides above therefore I think understanding the ricks and concerns associated with performance-enhancing drugs is relevant and