Olympic drug testing in international athletes is a huge topic on todays Olympic games. A lot of opinions are shared and a lot of problems are to be dealt with. Performance enhancing drugs should be legal to provide better and faster healing, but anti-doping efforts should be betterly enforced for fairness of competitions and legitimacy of gold medal winnings.
With the various arguments against doping or with doping, you can 't deny the fact that there are many perils of using performance enhancing substances and many consequences in the Olympic games if caught doping, Such as being suspended for 2 years, then banned for life if there is multiple offenses. “Canada 's second-ranked sprinter, Cheryl Thibedeau, received a lifetime suspension--which …show more content…
The argument supporting legalization of performance enhancements is the fact that they would allow injured athletes to heal faster and more efficiently, thus giving them more of a chance to get back into the games without missing much time, Or the fact that if everybody in the games used performance enhancements it wouldn 't be giving competitors an unfair advantage. Everybody would have an equal chance. There is a great population of fans that wouldn 't mind the use of performance enhancements “What if fans don 't care if a player is using performance-enhancing drugs? In fact, maybe that 's what they want. After all, Vonn 's withdrawal was a huge disappointment to skiing fans, who hoped to see her defend her gold medal win in 2010. Why not let Vonn take human growth hormone, or whatever she needs, in order to recover quickly?” (Duncan). The question has been raised by this author. What if we took it farther and looked into the future of technological advancements and decided to let athletes have robotic arms and legs to improve performance? Wouldnt performance enhancements be the same concept? The fact that we could theoretically biologically and/or technologically alter the body is an immense subject to discuss and take into
With the various arguments against doping or with doping, you can 't deny the fact that there are many perils of using performance enhancing substances and many consequences in the Olympic games if caught doping, Such as being suspended for 2 years, then banned for life if there is multiple offenses. “Canada 's second-ranked sprinter, Cheryl Thibedeau, received a lifetime suspension--which …show more content…
The argument supporting legalization of performance enhancements is the fact that they would allow injured athletes to heal faster and more efficiently, thus giving them more of a chance to get back into the games without missing much time, Or the fact that if everybody in the games used performance enhancements it wouldn 't be giving competitors an unfair advantage. Everybody would have an equal chance. There is a great population of fans that wouldn 't mind the use of performance enhancements “What if fans don 't care if a player is using performance-enhancing drugs? In fact, maybe that 's what they want. After all, Vonn 's withdrawal was a huge disappointment to skiing fans, who hoped to see her defend her gold medal win in 2010. Why not let Vonn take human growth hormone, or whatever she needs, in order to recover quickly?” (Duncan). The question has been raised by this author. What if we took it farther and looked into the future of technological advancements and decided to let athletes have robotic arms and legs to improve performance? Wouldnt performance enhancements be the same concept? The fact that we could theoretically biologically and/or technologically alter the body is an immense subject to discuss and take into