Performance Enhancing Drugs: Their Effect on Individuals, Athletics, and Society
Three in every five Olympic athletes have been caught doping. Let that sink in. This means that on average, for each Olympic event, only one athlete who medals is also clean. Such widespread consumption of performance enhancing drugs (PED's) throughout dozens of sports and nations makes this a topic that must be promptly addressed: the integrity of athletics is at stake. Some may argue that tightening regulations on PED's would be ineffective and a major waste of time, claiming athletes will forever successfully evade exposure by drug tests. Many others insist it is essential to continue searching for cheaters, for their own, their sport's, and society's benefit. …show more content…
Such supporters of this stance argue that athletes always will be one step ahead of those trying to prevent the usage of PED's. Malcom Gladwell, a staff writer for the New Yorker, points out that anabolic steroids were not banned until they had been used for over a decade and another PED, the human growth hormone still stumps drug testers to this day. It can take years for testers to just uncover the newest stimulants professional athletes are consuming. Advocates for this perspective believe it is pointless to attempt enforcing a ban because of previous failures in identifying new PED's. These defeats cause backers of this view to reason we will always be a step behind the athletes and therefore testers should stop trying to strive to achieve something unachievable (Gladwell). Another element making a ban potentially seem unattractive is the current lack of a complete restriction on the drugs. Instead a limit is set for each drug in the sport's ban, which some athletes view as the precise amount they should take. (Because many PED's are naturally produced by the body is small amounts, testers are forced to set the limit at an amount where they can be sure that amount could not have been produced entirely by the body). Defenders of this view call attention to athletes who take amounts of steroids all the way up to the ban's limit, claiming the ban as ineffective because it doesn't stop usage of PED's, still allowing athletes to take significant dosages of the drug. For example, testosterone, a prevalent PED, is normally present in men with another chemical, epitestosterone, at a ratio of 1:1. However, since "a small number of people have naturally high levels of testosterone, the I.O.C. avoided the risk of falsely accusing anyone by setting the legal limit at 6:1" (Gladwell). Opponents decide that if it cannot be prevented at levels
Three in every five Olympic athletes have been caught doping. Let that sink in. This means that on average, for each Olympic event, only one athlete who medals is also clean. Such widespread consumption of performance enhancing drugs (PED's) throughout dozens of sports and nations makes this a topic that must be promptly addressed: the integrity of athletics is at stake. Some may argue that tightening regulations on PED's would be ineffective and a major waste of time, claiming athletes will forever successfully evade exposure by drug tests. Many others insist it is essential to continue searching for cheaters, for their own, their sport's, and society's benefit. …show more content…
Such supporters of this stance argue that athletes always will be one step ahead of those trying to prevent the usage of PED's. Malcom Gladwell, a staff writer for the New Yorker, points out that anabolic steroids were not banned until they had been used for over a decade and another PED, the human growth hormone still stumps drug testers to this day. It can take years for testers to just uncover the newest stimulants professional athletes are consuming. Advocates for this perspective believe it is pointless to attempt enforcing a ban because of previous failures in identifying new PED's. These defeats cause backers of this view to reason we will always be a step behind the athletes and therefore testers should stop trying to strive to achieve something unachievable (Gladwell). Another element making a ban potentially seem unattractive is the current lack of a complete restriction on the drugs. Instead a limit is set for each drug in the sport's ban, which some athletes view as the precise amount they should take. (Because many PED's are naturally produced by the body is small amounts, testers are forced to set the limit at an amount where they can be sure that amount could not have been produced entirely by the body). Defenders of this view call attention to athletes who take amounts of steroids all the way up to the ban's limit, claiming the ban as ineffective because it doesn't stop usage of PED's, still allowing athletes to take significant dosages of the drug. For example, testosterone, a prevalent PED, is normally present in men with another chemical, epitestosterone, at a ratio of 1:1. However, since "a small number of people have naturally high levels of testosterone, the I.O.C. avoided the risk of falsely accusing anyone by setting the legal limit at 6:1" (Gladwell). Opponents decide that if it cannot be prevented at levels