Against Legalisation

Against Legalisation

Arguments against allowing performance-enhancing drugs

Some of the arguments against allowing drugs are tied in with the arguments against cheating in general. Since this debate is about changing the rules, we've omitted the arguments that focus on drugs being against the current rules.

• It's the taking part that counts, not the winning
  • Allowing drugs would focus more on winning, not taking part
  • Opponents say: but winning already matters to a lot of people, because we celebrate and reward it
• Drugs are against the spirit of sport, even if the rules don't ban them
  • Proponents and opponents disagree on just what the 'spirit of sport' means!
  • If the 'spirit of sport' includes the idea of hard work, taking drugs may be seen as a way of succeeding with less effort
  • Opponents say: but we allow some enhancements and drugs, so to ban others is hypocritical
  • Opponents think previous attempts to draw a line between acceptable enhancements and 'bad' ones have been inadequate and arbitrary
• Many performance-enhancing drugs pose severe health risks
  • The risks of the newer drugs aren't even known, and won't be until the long-term effects are studied
  • Unless they are informed, athletes cannot properly make their own decisions
  • Taking drugs amounts to harming oneself, or risking harm unnecessarily, and for some people that is sufficient reason to say it's unethical
• Allowing drugs promotes unhealthy and dangerous behaviour
  • Drugs pose severe health risks
  • Amateur sports players would be encouraged to take drugs if professional athletes openly did it
  • Amateur players and the public do not have the medical support or advice available to professional athletes
  • Taking drugs without proper advice and monitoring would pose a much greater danger to them
• If drugs are allowed, drug advertising and sponsorship will presumably be allowed
  • This poses similar ethical problems to the debate about tobacco advertising in sports like Formula One