Main content
Course: Wireless Philosophy > Unit 6
Lesson 10: Enhancement: What, if anything, is wrong with “doping" in competitive sports?Evaluating the argument
What, if Anything, Is Wrong with “Doping in Competitive Sports?
Evaluate and discuss the argument presented in this video.
Here's a hypothetical scenario:
There are two substances, A and B, that athletes sometimes use to help increase muscle mass and speed up recovery time after training sessions and competitions. Anti-doping agencies across major sporting leagues and associations have investigated these substances and decided to officially ban the use of substance A as a performance-enhancing drug, but to allow athletes to continue using substance B— similar to how they are allowed to use protein powders, creatine, ibuprofen, and other non-banned substances. Some athletes and trainers, who see substance A as a valuable supplement, object to this ruling, arguing that it’s unfair to prohibit the use of substance A while permitting the use of substance B.
Under what conditions would it be fair for anti-doping agencies to prohibit athletes from using substance A despite allowing athletes to continue using substance B?
Consider the following range of opinions on this question:
- This regulatory distinction would be fair if substance A is known to pose a health danger to users while also making regular winners out of athletes who are otherwise (in terms of natural gifts, training effort, etc.) distinctly inferior to their competitors, and if substance B is known to be reasonably safe and improve performance merely at the margins.
- It’s up to the official ruling body of each sport to set whatever rules it believes will best balance key values like competition, achievement safety, and spectator enjoyment within that sport. So if the official agencies decide to ban substance A, but not B, this distinction automatically counts as fair (until they decide to revise the rules).
- Since these powerful anti-doping agencies are made up of people with their own personal interests and biases, we can’t just assume that whatever they say goes. The distinction between substances A and B would be fair only if it’s supported by a wide and decisive consensus across the sport, including amongst athletes and perhaps even fans.
- These kinds of regulatory distinctions are never fair. Athletes and trainers are always seeking whatever advantages they can find. Initially, these might seem like unfair tricks, but often, when more effective tricks are picked up by others, they end up being pivotal in moving the sport toward higher levels of excitement, competition, and achievement.
Now, take some time - by yourself or with others - to reflect openly, yet critically, on the ethical considerations raised by the various perspectives, and determine where you stand on this issue. What do YOU think, and why?