There is a controversial debate about the use of performance-enhancing drugs, including techniques like oxygen tank. The use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports can be traced back in third Olympiad when an athlete by the name Thomas Hick successfully won the marathon after being injected with strychnine in the middle of the race. The first time the use of performance-enhancing drugs was banned by the International Amateur Athletic Federation was in 19238. Despite the ban, the number of athletes using performance-enhancing drugs is increasing. The emerging trends show that the use of performance-enhancing drugs and techniques will not go away soon, but the world should stand strong against the use of steroids as they create unfair advantage and pose a lot of health risks to athletes.
Critics of the use of performance-enhancing drugs argue that it should not be allowed because it creates unfair advantage in sports. Creating a level playing field for all athletes is one of the main and critical principles of any sporting activity ( Reardon & Creado, 2014) . The basic of any sporting activity is that it should be fair to all athletes. At the same time, sports require players to heavily rely on their natural talents like speed, endurance, and skills to successfully compete with their colleagues. Therefore, the main basis for opposing the use of performance-enhancing drugs is that such behaviors distort the level playing field in athletics, leading to unfair advantage. The main objective of using performance-enhancing drugs like steroids is to gain an advantage over colleagues in athletics.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Apart from creating unfair advantage, performance-enhancing drugs pose a lot of health risks to athletes. Studies have shown that the use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids have a long-term health effects on athletes. Steroids are associated with health risks like depression, kidney problems and chronic diseases like cancer ( Pope et al., 2013) . Therefore, athletes are putting their health in a lot of risks in the long run in order to gain short-term gains or rewards.
The ability of an athlete to perform well in a sport largely depends on his or her ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles. Drugs like EPO and steroids catalyze the red blood cell production that increases the supply of oxygen in the muscle, leading to enhanced performance ( Savulescu, JFoddy & Clayton, 2004) . Consequently, there is a lot of evidence to prove performance-enhancing drugs and techniques create unfair advantage and they pose a lot of health risks to athletes. For instance, Tyson Gay was celebrated as the fastest runner only to be realized later that he was using performance-enhancing drugs. As early as 1988, Ben Johnson tested positive for stanozolol when he was participating in the Seoul Olympic Games. Apart from individuals, states have also been encouraging their athletes to use performance-enhancing drugs to gain advantage in the competition. A good example is in 1960s when East German athletes were systematically injected with anabolic steroids to win the games ( Pope et al ., 2013) . Therefore, it is clear that athletes are motivated to use performance-enhancing drugs to gain unfair advantage.
A number of athletes have also suffered due to the use of drugs like Steroids. Kevin Hall, one of the greatest American sailors, suffered from cancer that completely destroyed his reproductive organ after using steroids to enhance his performance ( Collins et al ., 2012) . At the same time, some of the East German female athletes who used steroids were forced to change their sex after excessive use of performance-enhancing drugs. Others also suffered from cancer, kidney problems, and depression that made their lives miserable, several years after they won medals in 1960s. Hence, athletes who use performance-enhancing drugs are exposed to a lot of health risks.
However, there are people who strongly oppose the argument that the use of performance-enhancing drugs and techniques create unfair advantage in athletics. Instead, supporters of the use of performance-enhancing drugs maintain that steroids enhance genetic equality in sports. Some athletes naturally have high packed cell volumes (PCVs) that enable them to perform better in athletics. At the same time, there are athletes who have body makeup that gives them unfair advantage in sports. For example, Ian Thorpe has been found to have enormous feet that give him advantage than any other swimmer. Besides, Finnish skier Eero Maentyranta also managed to win three gold medals in 1964 due to the fact that he had genetic mutation that enabled him to naturally have about 40-50% more red blood cells than the average athletes ( Savulescu, JFoddy & Clayton, 2004) . As a result, these athletes were able to naturally perform better than their counterparts. Therefore, to enhance genetic equality in sports, athletes should be allowed to use performance-enhancing drugs.
With regard to the health risks associated with steroid, supporters of the use of performance-enhancing drugs argue that athletes should be allowed to use drugs that are safe and banned from using unsafe drugs. They argue that use of 0.5 of EPO does not pose any health risks to athletes ( Savulescu, JFoddy & Clayton, 2004) . The main argument is that drugs should be banned because they are harmful but not because they improve performance.
Even though the people supporting the use of performance-enhancing drugs and athletes may have valid concerns, allowing athletes to use steroids is unfair and risky. The argument that some athletes are genetically advantages is true but it should not be used to allow the consumption of steroid, as human beings cannot be the same in all aspects. People who are genetically disadvantaged should be encouraged to engage in strategic and systematic trainings to be at par with their counterparts who are advantaged. It is not possible to eliminate genetic inequality in athletics by encouraging those who are genetically disadvantaged to use steroids. To maintain their top positions, genetically advantaged athletes will also use steroids, leading to endless problem.
In addition, it is not possible to control the amount of steroids that athletes consume once the use of performance-enhancing drugs and techniques are allowed in athletics. Athletes will be forced to take higher doses of steroids to perform better than their colleagues, leading to excessive use and numerous health risks. For instance, instead of taking the recommended 0.5 of EPO, athletes may end up using 0.6 and above. Therefore, the only way to reduce health risks associated with performance-enhancing drugs is to ban their use in athletics.
In conclusion, to reduce unhealthy competition in sports and to safeguard the health of athletes, the world should not tolerate the use of performance-enhancing drugs and techniques. It is important to uphold the core principles of sports such as level playing field regardless of the development of technologies, especially medical technologies. Sport issues like genetic inequality cannot be eliminated by allowing athletes to use drugs like steroids. Hence, the use of steroids in sports should be banned to promote fairness and to protect the health of athletes.
References
Collins, D., MacNamara, A., Collins, R., & Bailey, R. (2012). Why Athletes say No to Doping? Examining the reasons underpinning athletes’ decision not to dope. World Anti-doping Agency, 3(2), 1-65.
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.
Reardon, C. L., & Creado, S. (2014). Drug abuse in athletes. Substance abuse and rehabilitation , 5 , 95-121.
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.
