Introduction
Performance enhancing drugs are the drugs used to improve any kind of performance activity that can be conducted by human beings. They are often identified as PED and will usually be identified in the critical issue of doping in sport. In the modern society, athletes and bodybuilders may use performance enhancing drugs as a means of improving their body’s endurance and capabilities. This has been identified as an unethical practice among sportsmen as it creates an unfair advantage over their competitors. Hereby, the increased endurance or capability of carrying out a significant vigorous activity will be conducted with ease by the user as opposed to other athletes. Additionally, the continued use of performance enhancing drugs will usually lead to the deteriorative health of a user and may affect their professional careers. The following paper will therefore look into various reasons why the use of performance enhancement drugs has been discouraged in sports.
Main Argument
The critical factor that has led to significant opposition against the use of performance enhancing drugs is the critical health impact. It is important to note the fact that nearly tens of millions of professional athletes and non-athletes use performance enhancing drugs. This has been a critical issue as there has been minimal research conducted to identify the effects of these drugs on the human anatomy. Media attention according to numerous articles has focused entirely on the elite sportsmen who use PEDs as they gain illicit competitive advantage over the other competitors. This has brought about the widespread belief that the use of performance enhancement drugs is safe for the users. This prevalent belief has brought about increased use of the drugs by the vast majority of non-athletes. Failure to understand the severity of the issue may result in the increased deterioration of health among the users of PEDs.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In this regard, users of performance enhancement drugs according to an article by Pope, Wood, Rogol, Nyberg, Bowers and Bhasin (2014) are usually recreational bodybuilders who are not focused on their performance and rather for their own personal appearance. The users in this case usually seek to improve their bodies such that it is leaner and muscular. Through the use of these drugs, the authors believe that they should be identified as body image enhancing drugs which identifies the major purpose of its users. The article identifies that PEDs are increasingly becoming a bane in the society as their use begins at an early age. It is believed that the use of these drugs may begin as early as 9-years-old to the late teenage years particularly in young boys seeking to appear more muscular and attractive to the opposite sex than others. As a result, the adverse effects of these drugs may be severe and almost impossible to manage.
Pope et al (2014) identified numerous adverse effects that have been associated with the significant use of PEDs among both athletes and non-athletes. These include hematologic, psychiatric and neuropsychological, cardiovascular and hormonal and metabolic impacts. For instance, the individual cases of cardiovascular effects include cardiomyopathy, conduction abnormalities, myocardial infarction, coagulation abnormalities and cerebrovascular accidents. The above may affect the users of AAS as they present numerous symptoms of these cardiovascular effects. The occurrence of these effects may be reduced through abstaining from the anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS). Further studies on the effects of PEDs have indicated that users will usually present cases of psychological changes including hypomanic or manic symptoms. Such cases may include exaggerated self-confidence, irritability, reckless behavior, hyperactivity, occasional psychotic symptoms and aggressiveness. There are also depressive symptoms that may include loss of interest in normal activities, occasional suicidality, anorexia, loss of libido, hypersomnia and depressed mood. This will usually be presented by individuals seeking to withdraw from the performance enhancing drugs.
According to an article by Hope et. al (20013) there are numerous health risks associated with the use of performance and image enhancing drugs. These health risks according to the article are particularly associated with men who inject these PEDs. The major issue in this case is the prevalence of blood-borne infections through the continued use of needles and syringes in administering PEDs. These may include HIV, Hepatitis B and C illnesses that may easily be transmitted through the self administering processes that most users apply. There are also numerous cases of physiological effects including acne, damage to the liver, baldness among men and stunted growth that may be associated with the closure of the growth centers of long bones. The latter may have the effect of causing disruption of puberty among children in puberty.
Supporting Evidence for the Premise
The concept of using drugs in sports has been identified as one that dates back to the ancient times when sport was created. It is believed that once the athletes were chosen it was necessary that they be given particular diets and medication that would ensure they are physically capable of the task at hand. Though the medication provided was usually identified as beneficial, it was noted that it would have significant impact on the users in question usually negative. Though this may have not been accounted for in the ancient times, it has been highly documented in the modern society identifying the use of performance and image enhancing drugs as key to the identified effects. Numerous articles have provided substantial evidence through research of the various PEDs particularly anabolic-androgenic steroids as used by athletes and non-athletes. According to these articles, it has been identified that the use of PEDs both in athletes and non-athletes is a clear indication of substance abuse due to the individual’s dependence on the drug.
The article by Perry, Ip, Barnett and Tenerowicz (2011) has been identified as significant evidence that supports the premise that the use of performance enhancing drugs such as anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS) has negative health effects. The study used 500 self-reported users of AAS and 771 non-users. Through the use of a 99-item web survey identified as Anabolic 500, the researchers were able to receive the demographics of the use of AAS among other drug supplements including alcohol and illicit drugs. The study provides strong evidence that high substance dependence on the drug is prevalent amongst the users of AAS (Deligiannis & Kouidi, 2012). This is presented where the individuals were seen to use an average of 11.1 performance enhancing agents through their processes of strength training. The individuals who reported to have used the substance in their training routines were more likely to present anxiety disorders as a common side effect of the drug. Additionally, the use of alcohol and illicit substances such as cocaine may be a clear indication of increased health risk as a result of the AAS (Hope et al, 2013).
A study by Kanayam, Brower, Wood, Hudson and Pope (2010) has identified the long term effects of using Anabolic-Androgenic Steroids among individuals. The authors identify the use of this PED as substance abuse due to the growing dependence on these drugs among users. Though many of its current users do not seek substance abuse treatment, the researchers believe that this perception will change through the emerging evidence and its implications (Perry et al, 2011). The illicit use of AAS began in the 1980s and as a result, individuals who began consuming them at that time are now in their middle ages (Pope et al, 2013). This is where the adverse effects of the drugs will be identified through numerous complications including cardiac infarctions and psychological effects like major depression.
The research also indicates a high use by individuals as indicated by the current estimates for using AAS. Pope, Kanayama, Athey, Ryan, Hudson and Baggish (2014) have identified that majority of AAS users will usually begin after the age of 20 as only 22% of users will begin before this age. The national data identifies that individuals between the ages of 13 and 50 have at some point used AAS which accounts for 2.9-4,0 million individuals. Among these individuals, about 1 million of them have presented cases of AAS dependence. This is a clear indication that approximately 25%-33% of the individuals using these PEDs will be affected by the adverse effects of the substances (Pope et. al, 2014). This is a clear reason why these substances should be banned from elite sports and even for leisure use to improve image.
Strong Objection
However, there is an argument by Savulescu, Foddy and Claytom (2004) that objects to the abolishing efforts of the government and the numerous sport bodies of PEDs. The author identifies the earliest form of elite sports doping as presented by American athlete Thomas John Hicks who won the marathon race at the Olympics in the summer of 1904 (Savulescu, Foddy and Claytom, 2004). The young athlete under current rules would have been disqualified by the athletics body that forbids the use of strychnine among athletes. The young athlete was given a dose of roughly one milligram (1mg) of strychnine as a means of reviving him to complete the race. The first does did not for long and his trainers had to give him a second dose. The effects were seen where the athlete collapsed at the finish line and it was noted that he would have probably died if a third dose was administered.
This was the earliest form of stimulating substances being used to cheat in sports. It was only until 1928 that the International Amateur Athletic Federation made an official ban against PED. Nevertheless, the continued use of these substances has been more effective as seen where the East Germany swimming team in the 1976 won 11 out of the 13 Olympic events that they would participate in (Savulescu, Foddy and Claytom, 2004). This was a result of the AAS agents that were administered by the government that prompted the athletes to sue the government. Despite continued bans created by the regulatory bodies in sport and the damming health risks associated with its use, their use is seen to be rife (Savulescu, Foddy and Claytom, 2004). Many will not be surprised if a popular athlete fails a doping test. An interview conducted on small groups of athletes identified that the respondents believed that the most successful athletes were consuming some if not all the prohibited substances.
Through the research, the authors believe that the efforts by the government and the regulatory bodies have failed to eliminate the banned substances. This has brought the researchers to conclude that possibly the most appropriate means of action is legalizing these drugs for use among sportsmen. This argument is based on the continued technological development that has taken place in the modern society (Savulescu, Foddy and Claytom, 2004). Numerous drugs have been manufactured to be similar to natural chemicals in the body of the athlete. These drugs have become less detectable through the various tests that are conducted by regulatory bodies. The erythropoietin (EPO) drug has been transformed into natural chemicals that boost the performance of an athlete’s body through mimicking natural processes (Savulescu, Foddy and Claytom, 2004). Through such cases, the authors believe that the goal of “cleaning” elite sports cannot be attained as the punishment by regulatory bodies is not as severe as the rewards gained through becoming a winner in any sport.
The practice of the elite sports has led the authors to believe that it is their various practices that have prompted the athletes to resorting to doping practices. This is where the members of the elite sports will earn tens of millions of dollars in prize money along with significant benefits with the endorsements and sponsorships that come along (Savulescu, Foddy and Claytom, 2004). Cheating using PEDs will only result in a few years or months ban from the sport along with a small penalty fee. According to the authors, this is a small penalty that majority of athletes are willing to take to receive the decade of success. Through various aspects such as sport spirit, genetic forms and prohibition attempts, the authors believe that it would be better off to allow the free use of the drugs in sports.
Defend Argument against the Objection
According to Savulescu, Foddy and Claytom (2004), the use of EPO has been identified to cause significant increase in the packed cell volume (PCV) of the athletes. Continued use of EPO may result in a PCV that is above average which is usually between 0.4 and 0.5. The occurrence may result in the poor health of the user and in high extremes the effect may be fatal. The authors clearly identify the health risks associated with the frequent use of PEDs in a quest to achieve sporting success. The authors have identified the driving motivation of majority of athletes in various sporting fields as the prize money associated with becoming the winner. This is identified that the use of these substances will propel them to achieve the success they desire. However, due to the health concern for the sportsman, it is important that continued bans be implemented on these substances (Deligiannis & Kouidi, 2012).
The authors also identify the lifting of bans on performance enhancement drugs as a means of supporting the spirit of sports. Hereby, human sports is identified as a creative sport where the use of logical reasoning is required to identify the improvements one needs to make to ensure they are a winner. In this case, the individual will not only depend on training and the genetic lottery of an individual but also the medical stimulation that is noted as quite effective (Savulescu, Foddy and Claytom, 2004). This argument is wrong because though it supports a single belief of achieving excellence in performance, the ethical aspect of the spirit of sport is ignored. This is presented as the case where members of the elite sport will require intense training practices that may lead them to success. However, the use of stimulating substances by some in the sport will ensure that an unfair advantage will be presented. The ban on these substances should continue to ensure the spirit of sport is carried on.
The authors identify that the practices of the regulatory bodies have prompted them to support the legalization of the PEDs. This is where despite athletes earning multi millions through their participation in elite sports once they are found to be involved in doping practices, they are only given small penalties. According to the authors, the efforts by the regulatory bodies have been futile hence this should lead to legalization of these drugs. This argument brings about the belief that through continued occurrence of an illegal activity, the regulatory bodies should yield to the practices of the people and legalize it (Savulescu, Foddy and Claytom, 2004). Such an action is seen to be contrary to the effective protection of athletes under the regulator body. The action of sport associations is to ensure that the health of the athletes is put first before anything else. This will lead to those failing doping tests serving considerable bans to ensure they detoxify their bodies of these chemicals. Additionally, the organizations should identify policy reforms that will enable effective implementation of the ban on PEDs.
Conclusion
The above discussion is a clear indication why performance enhancing drugs should be banned in the society. Both athletes and non-athletes have been identified to be critically involved in consumption of PEDs. This has created a significant health risk among these frequent users. Some of these health risks particularly psychological may be experienced after a significant amount of time has passed since the onset of consumption. These psychological effects are seen through depression, anxiety and anorexic disorders presented in the users. The physiological disorders are also presented as long term effects. This is where cardiovascular infarctions that may be presented among the users. These clearly indicate that need to reinforce the actions of the regulatory bodies in sports. Despite the failing efforts of these sport bodies, it is important that the their duties are not abandoned but rather improved to achieve a fair sporting society.
References
Deligiannis, A. P., & Kouidi, E. I. (2012). “Cardiovascular adverse effects of doping in sports.” Hellenic J Cardiol , 53 (6), 447-57.
Hope, V. D., McVeigh, J., Marongiu, A., Evans-Brown, M., Smith, J., Kimergård, A., ... & Ncube, F. (2013). “Prevalence of, and risk factors for, HIV, hepatitis B and C infections among men who inject image and performance enhancing drugs: a cross-sectional study.” BMJ open , 3 (9), e003207.
Kanayama, G., Brower, K. J., Wood, R. I., Hudson, J. I., & Pope, H. G. (2010). Treatment of anabolic–androgenic steroid dependence: Emerging evidence and its implications. Drug and alcohol dependence , 109 (1), 6-13.
Perry, P. J., Ip, E. J., Barnett, M. J. and Tenerowicz, M. J. (2011). “The Anabolic 500 survey: characteristics of male users versus nonusers of anabolic-androgenic steroids for strength training.” Pharmacotherapy , 31 (8), 757-766.
Pope Jr, H. G., Wood, R. I., Rogol, A., Nyberg, F., Bowers, L., & Bhasin, S. (2013). “Adverse health consequences of performance-enhancing drugs: an Endocrine Society scientific statement.” Endocrine reviews , 35 (3), 341-375.
Pope, H. G., Kanayama, G., Athey, A., Ryan, E., Hudson, J. I., & Baggish, A. (2014). The lifetime prevalence of anabolic‐androgenic steroid use and dependence in Americans: Current best estimates. The American Journal on Addictions , 23 (4), 371-377.
Savulescu, J., Foddy, B., & Clayton, M. (2004) “Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport.” British journal of sports medicine , 38 (6), 666-670.
