Is Roid Rage Worth It? Drug use is sports in not a topic that is even remotely secretive. The question of whether or not they should continue to be banned, however, is still disputed. There are obvious explanations as to why athletes use drugs, but none that are practical when put in the perspective of the larger picture. Banned drugs, specifically steroids, are banned for a reason. These drugs should not be legalized in sporting events. One of the most glaring rationalizations for the banning of steroids is that they are bad for the athlete’s short-term and long-term health. According to procon.org some short-term issues are: abnormalities in reproductive organs in both males and females, acne, nausea and vomiting, depression, aggressiveness,
…show more content…
Thomas Murray in “The Coercive Power of Drugs in Sports” (1983) provides these three major possibilities: 1) the athletes would either use as much or more than their competitor, 2) not use and succumb to a most probable loss, 3) or they would stop competing altogether. A large number of athletes would end up in category one. This could be as a result of the competitive nature that most athletes have. In September 2000, a report on substance abuse in sports written by the National Commission backed that up by showing, “…half of all recently surveyed Olympic athletes admitted that they would be willing to take a drug -- even if it would kill them eventually -- as long as it would let them win every event they entered five years in a row.” If steroid use was no longer banned in sports and one person started using it, others would undeniably follow suit. In the case that a person would not normally harm their body to get desired results, they would be coerced into using because of the inability to be on the same level as the others who are using. This would constitute a spiraling effect that would get worse and worse until natural talent and hard work were only minor contributors to the winner’s “success.” Murray’s article names this “inherent
Thomas Murray in “The Coercive Power of Drugs in Sports” (1983) provides these three major possibilities: 1) the athletes would either use as much or more than their competitor, 2) not use and succumb to a most probable loss, 3) or they would stop competing altogether. A large number of athletes would end up in category one. This could be as a result of the competitive nature that most athletes have. In September 2000, a report on substance abuse in sports written by the National Commission backed that up by showing, “…half of all recently surveyed Olympic athletes admitted that they would be willing to take a drug -- even if it would kill them eventually -- as long as it would let them win every event they entered five years in a row.” If steroid use was no longer banned in sports and one person started using it, others would undeniably follow suit. In the case that a person would not normally harm their body to get desired results, they would be coerced into using because of the inability to be on the same level as the others who are using. This would constitute a spiraling effect that would get worse and worse until natural talent and hard work were only minor contributors to the winner’s “success.” Murray’s article names this “inherent