Undergraduates (total N = 185) were asked about performance-affecting drugs. Some drugs supposedly affected athletic performance, others memory, and others attention. Some improved performance for anyone who took them, others for the top 10% of performers, others for the bottom 10%, and finally, yet other drugs worked only on the bottom 10% who also showed physical abnormalities. Participants were asked about the fairness of allowing the drug to be used, about banning it, and about whether predictions of future performance based (...) on testing with or without the drug were better. The study found that participants appreciated the "interaction effect", that they felt it was less unfair to allow the drug if it affected the bottom 10% than if it affected everyone, and they were more eager to have the drug banned if it affected everyone. Participants were least tolerant of drugs that affected athletic performance and most tolerant of those that affected attention. (shrink)

Until recently, the problem of traumatic brain injury in sports and the problem of performance enhancement via hormone replacement have not been seen as related issues. However, recent evidence suggests that these two problems may actually interact in complex and previously underappreciated ways. A body of recent research has shown that traumatic brain injuries, at all ranges of severity, have a negative effect upon pituitary function, which results in diminished levels of several endogenous hormones, such as growth hormone and gonadotropin. (...) This is a cause for concern for many popular sports that have high rates of concussion, a mild form of TBI. Emerging research suggests that hormone replacement therapy is an effective treatment for TBI-related hormone deficiency. However, many athletic organizations ban or severely limit the use of hormone replacing substances because many athletes seek to use them solely for the purposes of performance enhancement. Nevertheless, in the light of the research linking traumatic brain injury to hypopituitarism, this paper argues that athletic organizations’ policies and attitudes towards hormone replacement therapy should change. We defend two claims. First, because of the connection between TBI and pituitary function, it is likely many more athletes than previously acknowledged suffer from hormone deficiency and thus could benefit from hormone replacement therapy. Second, athletes’ hormone levels should be tested more rigorously and frequently with an emphasis on monitoring TBI and TBI-related issues, rather than simply monitoring policy violations. (shrink)

Scholars such as Simon (2007; 2004) and Loland (2002) as well as the authors of the World Anti-Doping Code (2001) argue that using performance-enhancing substances is unhealthy and unfairly coercive for other athletes. Critics of the anti-doping position such as Hoberman (1995), Miah et al. (2005) and Tamburrini (2007) are quick to argue that such prohibitions, even though well-intended, constitute an unjustifiable form of paternalism. However, advocates for both of these positions assume that preserving good health and, conversely, avoiding health-related (...) harms, lie at the centre of the debate. Given the apparent stalemate in the debate over the validity of health concerns on performance-enhancing drugs, in this essay, I investigate ethical issues of ‘harm-free’ pharmaceutical performance enhancement. Beginning with the hypothesis that a harm-free performance-enhancing drug may be produced in the future, I ask if there would still be compelling reasons for prohibiting such a drug. I address this question by providing two arguments against allowing athletes to use pharmaceutical performance-enhancing drugs – the damage to the testing and contesting of sport and the loss of internal goods that are intrinsically satisfying. These two arguments taken together, I argue, are sufficient to sustain the prohibition of pharmaceutical performance-enhancing drugs without citing their harmful side effects. (shrink)

In 1984, a number of US cyclists used blood transfusions to boost their performance at the Los Angeles Olympic Games. The cyclists broke no rules and dominated the Games, yet were later maligned as cheaters and dopers?they had, it seemed, violated some important norm, albeit one which was neither an official rule nor otherwise easily identifiable. Their case illustrates the moral ambiguity that arises when a performance enhancement is employed in a sport that has not addressed it. This article takes (...) up the crucial question posed by such moral ambiguity: is it ethical to enhance performance through a substance or technology when no rules exist to prohibit it? We first examine ordinary ethical obligations that athletes carry based on their status as moral agents. We conclude that such obligations provide some guidance, but cannot resolve the issue. We then examine arguments that take sport as a unique social practice that presents its own moral obligation not to use performance enhancers. We argue that these ?spirit of sport? arguments, developed by McNamee and Loland and Hoppeler cannot resolve the issue either. We conclude that when the rules governing sport are silent on the issue of performance enhancement the constraints on its ethical use are limited at best. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to draw attention to the normative role of conventions in sports. However, the approach I have in mind does not dispatch the theory of interpretivism. What I offer is a synthesis that aims to show how interpretivism works in concert with – and relies heavily on – conventions. To make this point, I will argue that historical, cultural, and even simple preferential needs and desires help to determine what counts as athletic ‘excellence’ in sports.

We provide a new wrinkle to the Argument from Unfair Advantage, a rather popular one in the ethics of doping in sports discussions. But we add a new argument that we believe places the moral burden on those who favor doping in sports. We also defend our position against some important concerns that might be raised against it. In the end, we argue that for the time being, doping in sports ought to be banned until it can be demonstrated that (...) our concerns can be satisfied. (shrink)

The World Anti-Doping Agency was created in 1999 with the goal of making elite competitive sports free of doping practices. Since then, it has grown into a powerful organization that oversees national anti-doping institutions and a majority of international sports federations. Anti-doping regulations means that the use of performance enhancement drugs or methods is prohibited in elite sports competition, and athletes who do not comply are sanctioned through a ban from competition and loss of titles and prizes link to them. (...) The recent discovery of a systematic doping scheme in Russia has shown that the regulations currently in place have failed to offer the 'clean' environment promised to athletes and the public. While there is an understandable call to reform WADA's practices to further the anti-doping fight, I suggest that the purpose of WADA itself should also be reconsidered. In taking a step back from the current controversy and urge for stricter regulations, this thesis will first ask if performance enhancement in sports should really be understood as unethical and undesirable. Favouring a interdisciplinary approach to this problematic, I will take a look at the scholarly debate on doping and critically analyze arguments from both positions including theoretical ideas on doping itself and practical concerns about WADA's current measures to prevent doping. This overview, while it does provide an unequivocal answer about the ethicality of doping, will show a wide range of counterarguments to the prevailing anti-doping stance, and raise numerous concerns about the current system. In doing so, it indicates the need for a larger, inclusive of all stakeholders, deliberation on the anti-doping position, a position which remains so far mostly uncontested outside of academia. In the second part of my thesis, this rejection of a by-default anti stance to doping in sports will then lead me to explore whether there is a more suited alternative to dealing with issue of doping in elite sports than the current zero tolerance approach. Finally, I conclude that a harm reduction approach provides a suitable answer to both moral concerns and issues of feasibility, even though it may be difficult to incorporate into WADA given the number of stakeholders involved. Still, the identification of this alternative, conjointly with the Russian scandal, serves to justify why there should be further deliberation about WADA and the anti-doping movement that goes beyond accepting the status quo and the Agency's idealist notion of achieving completely doping-free sports. (shrink)

This article argues that performance enhancing drugs ought to be allowed across all elite sporting competitions for athletes over the age of 16 so long as consuming them does not pose a significant risk to their health. I begin with a brief explanation of the current state of PED use in professional sports before assessing the prospect of allowing PEDs by three widely accepted measures of ethical merit: well-being, autonomy, and justice. I end with a critique of the World Anti-Doping (...) Agency's criteria for banning PEDs, concluding that allowing athletes to use PEDs is a superior alternative to the current prohibitive approach. (shrink)