Abstract The use of drug testing in sports has long been a matter of debate.

Scholars such as Loland (2002) and Simon (2007) argue its importance due to the negative consequences performance-enhancing substances can have on athletes and the community. While critics of drug testing, such as

Hoberman (1995) and Tamburrini (2007) argue that drug testing constitutes an unjustifiable form of paternalism. Despite such critiques, this reports attempts to explain why drug testing is a worthwhile endeavour, taking into consideration arguments that oppose the use of such practice. These arguments are based on the common arguments that drug testing maintains the spirit of sport, establishes competitive balance and fairness, and protects the health of the athletes and spectators. In addition, the report concludes with some recommendations that could be beneficial for future management and execution of drug testing in sports.

Drug-Testing: A Worthwhile Endevour

After the controversy surrounding the 1996 Atlanta Olympics as well as the Tour de France Festina team affair in 1998, the widespread use of performance enhancing drugs in sport was confirmed (Adair et al 2011). In response to such events the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999 was established. Since then, relatively strict anti-doping regimes have been applied to all competitive sports, in and out of competition (WADA, 2003). However, their policies and testing measurements have been contested in terms of their effectiveness in controlling drug-use among athletes, and the effects on the attitudes of the athletes and the public (Hoberman, 1992). This paper opposes the idea of opening the door for drug-use in sport and removing drug testing, but takes into consideration counter arguments with valid points of view. Three main arguments are used to justify why drug-testing is a worthwhile endeavour despite the criticism. These arguments are: how drug testing maintains the spirit of sport, establishes competitive balance and fairness, and protects the health of the athletes and spectators. Finally, the report concludes with some

recommendations that could be beneficial for future management and execution of drug testing in sports, and even for ruling out opposing attitudes towards anti-doping policies.

Drug testing maintains the spirit of sport, or as defined by WADA (2009) what is intrinsically valuable about sport. Scholars like Miah (2004) argue that this definition is too broad, and defining such term will always create conflicting points of views (Gleves, 2010). This argument could be countered by research done by other scholars, who concur with the description WADA gives to what is intrinsically valuable (Simon, 2007; Loland; 2002; Gleves, 2010; Connor & Mazanov, 2010). They agree with the view that sports should be a celebration of the human spirit, body and mind (WADA, 2009). Drug testing, not only helps maintain such celebration, but also prevents it to turn into a spectacle rather than a subject of admiration. According to Posner (2007) the source of why human being love sports is because of the delight sport offers. Sport is the representation of human innate

hierarchies, such as height, strength, agility, physical coordination, beauty, brilliance and talent (Coleman & Lambelet Coleman , 2008). This is the reason why humans admire geniuses in sport, athletes such as Roger Federer, Pele, Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods. They reflect a mix of extraordinary natural talents and unusual effort, which with the use of drugs would be distorted and overridden (Duke, 2008). This argument is countered by Tamburrini (2007), as he argues that the use of performance enhancing drugs have everything to do with the essential purpose of the athletic contest: to expand the limits of our capacities. Konig (1995) also supports the use of performance enhancing drugs by arguing that the constitutive demand of the sport discipline is to push towards human performance capacity. Although both arguments could have valid points, the problem comes when those limits of our capacity are pushed too far, so far that competitors who dope leave behind records that are unbeatable for clean athletes without the use of drugs (Duke, 2008). For these reasons, athletes such as former world champion track and field athlete, Marion Jones engaged in the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs during the 2000 Sydney Olympics, where she was denied the title of the worlds fastest woman ever (Duke, 2008; The Observer, 2004). Another critic of anti-doping testing argues that performance-enhancing drugs and techniques have the potential to expand self-knowledge (Brown, 1980). These drugs could indeed expand our knowledge but would change the spirit of sport. Sport should be a test of human biological potential, no a test of the body to an external chemical agent (Simon, 2007). The use of drugs would not only reduce the athletes responsibility and credit for athletic performance and achievements (Hemphill, 2009) but could also change sports into a spectacle. A spectacle consists of amazing audiences regarding human achievement. On the other hand, sports require human physical achievement. Drug testing would prevent sports to become a spectacle where there is no human physical achievement and instead a spectacle showing a chemical achievement (BETA, 2011; Duke, 2008 & Sandel, 2007). Establishing competitive balance and fairness by the use of drug testing is all about making sure there is no cheating. Defining cheating could be difficult because it is said to be, at least in some

respects, in the eye of the beholder (Duke, 2008 & George, 2000). For instance, some critics of the anti-doping regulations argue that the use of a performance-enhancing drug with no definite or potential adverse health effects should be fair to use (Duke, 2008). This argument could be countered by taking as an example the decisions of why steroids and HgH are considered cheating, while altitude simulators are not. Without taking into consideration the health-risks associated with these performance-enhancing techniques, steroids permit athletes to train harder and recover faster from training and Injury compared to naturally doing so without their use. These improvements are what Duke (2008) call exponential improvements. These are improvements that would not be naturally possible without drugs or improvements achieved beyond what their DNA could express (Duke, 2007). The same happens with HgH, which helps the muscle and bones to develop beyond what their natural effort or DNA could express (Duke, 2007). As a result, athletes that use any of these drugs are cheating because they not only have an unfair advantage over competitors, but are also changing the conditions of play without their consent (Duke, 2007; ..). Former 1500-meter champion Jeff Atkinson, had a similar point of view regarding drug use when he once said track field is about running around in circles as hard as you can do that.If you want to go faster you can get a bicycle. Using drugs is just like using a bicycle, its not you (Gambaccini, 1990). These arguments could also be countered by the suggestion that athletes who use drugs work harder than clean athletes because these drugs require more difficult training (Duke, 2007). Regarding how much training is required, there is an advantage over clean athletes, and even if that advantage is measured by seconds or even hundredths of a second, it makes a difference among top athletes (Duke, 2007). That small advantage is what could determine a clean athlete to be part of an Olympic team, being a world-record holder or even win a medal. So as a result, the effort of athletes who use drugs is illegitimate because without the drugs the results could be different (Duke. 2007). On the other hand, although altitude simulators could enhance athletes performance it is not cheating. This is because unlike steroids or HgH, their effects on the body have the same as the effects of natural altitude (Duke 2007). Altitude simulators do not and cannot cause the body to be more and

perform differently than its genes would otherwise allow (Duke, 2007). For some critics of antidoping regulations, banning some substances but allowing others, is a problem(). They argue that issues of fairness and equity could be solved if all the athletes could have free access to enhancers (Coomber & Cashmore, . This argument can be countered by the fact that if performance enhancers were permitted, athletes would be left with the de facto choice of not taking them and becoming (placing) worse, or taking them and becoming better(Cook & Frank, 1995; ). Drug testing not only protects the health of athletes, it protects the health of the public as well. According to Mitchell (2007), not enough empirical support is available to support the position that performance-enhancing drug are unhealthy for athletes, and that the risks to health that do exist could be eliminated if the drugs could be purchased legally, rather than in black markets where they are unregulated. If these drugs could be purchased legally, the therapeutic dose of some performance enhancing drugs could be safe only if the athlete really needs it. HgH for example, can be legally obtained with a prescription limited to specific conditions that athletes generally do not meet ( Barclay & Lie, 2005). And even if athletes somehow could get the prescription without needing the drugs, regulated therapeutic doses can be overdoses for those who do not need it (Posner, ;;;) . And because therapeutic doses are not sufficient to enhance performance, majority of athletes are notorious for exceeding them (Duke, 2007). Some scholars could oppose this by arguing that the risks associated with these compounds are exaggerated (REFERENCE). But despite these opinions it is proven that exceeding doses of some of these drugs could have fatal consequences ( Monterosso & Sabini, 2005; Munby, 2010). 'rEPO' for example, can kill athletes if its misused, It thickens the blood, often resulting in thrombosis and stroke. You have mud instead of blood,You could be dead in a month ( ACSM, ..) Steroid use is associated heart disease, cancer, liver damage, acromegaly and explosive anger. And these and other performance-enhancing drugs can have side effects that will become apparent in the future (Farah, 2002; Mitchell, ). The argument that even without drugs, sports are never entirely safe and that danger and risk is part of high performance sport, has a valid point (Spedding & Spedding, 2008). But risking life and limb (Hemphill, 2009)

during competition is not the limit to the risks, fact is that drugs not only have dangerous risks for athletes but the community as well. Given the popularity of sports in most societies, successful athletes are viewed as strong role models not only to young athletes, but to young children in general who seek to develop their own moral codes by taking example in them (Mitchell, 2007). For this reason the proposition that children and young athletes engage in risky behaviours, including doping, when they are influenced to do so by their role models, is supported by various research (Mitchell, 2007; Duke,200; Dawson, 2001; Long & Sanderson, 2001; Payne, Reynolds, Brown & Fleming, 2003; Vescio, Wilde & Crosswhite, 2005). In conclusion, because an athlete using enhanceperforming drugs can coerce other athletes and children into doing the same, drug testing and other drug bans are a worthwhile endeavour (Hemphill, 2009).

The proposal to end the ban of performance-enhacing drugs must be considered, at least for the foreseeable future as , one of the less realistic policy options. It will make the government be seen as socially irresponsible. The likely outcome of os fuch a policy decision would be strong governmental pressure to re-impose the ban, reinforce it if necessary by the withdrawal of government funding for sport ( Smith & Waddington,

Based on the propositions that drug-testing maintains the spirit of sport, establishes competitive balance and fairness, and protects the health of the athletes and spectators, some recommendations could be taken into consideration for future management and implementation of drug-testing in sports. Anti-drug bodies such as WADA, should establish stronger channels of communications with pharmacautical and research facilities where performance enhancing drugs are being developed, in order to demonstrate them the importance of banning these substances.

Also, more strict regulations should be implemented not only to the athlete that engages in drug but to all else involved.

Because sometimes their own coaches and leagues, do not mind the use of such drugs as long as they do not get caught. At the moment, only the athlete is punished. Also, a zero tolerance policy should be considered because sometimes athletes use drugs because the success outweighs the costs of being penalized for a limited time. Maybe if the laws were changed to life time ban from the sport, the use of drugs would dramatically drop. In addition, there should be more focus and consideration for the clean athletes that do not win because of the winner taking drugs. The athlete that gets caught because of winning under the influence of drugs should get a penalization of remuneration to the athlete that lost the chance to win and get the monetary and sponsoring athlete that the cheating athlete got because of that victory.

References
Adair, D., Smith, A. & Stewart, B. (2011). Drivers of Illicit Drug Use Regulation in Australian Sport. Sport Management Revie, 14(3), pp. 237-245. American College of Sports Medicine (2003). Steroids Threaten Health of Athletes and Integrity of Sport Performance: American College of Sport Calls for Increase Vigilance in Identifying Steroid Use. Retrieved April 28 from http://www.acsm.org. Barcley and Lei, 2008 BETA, 2011, Brown (1980). Ethics, Drugs and Sport. Coleman Jr., & Lambelet Coleman, D. (2008) The Problem of Doping. Duke Law Journal Connor, J. & Mazanov, J. (2010). Rethinking the management of drugs in sport. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 2:1, 49-63 Cook, Frank 1995 Coomber, & Cashmore
11 Dawson RT. Drugs in sport the role of the physician. J Endocrinol 2001; 170(1): 55-61.

Duke, 2008 Farah, M. E. (2002). Emerging Ethical Issues in Neuroscience, 5, 1123-1129 Gambaccini, 1990 George, C.C. (2000). The Notion of An Ideal Audience in Legal Argument. 34 Hemphill, D. (2009). Performance enhancement and drug control in sport: ethical considerations. Sport in Society. Vol. 12, Iss. 3 Hoberman, J. (1995). Listening to Steroids. Wilson Quarterly: 35-44 Hoberman, J. (1992). Mortal Engines: The Science of Performance and the Dehumanization of Sports. New York: Free Press Konig (1995).
Long, J., & Sanderson, I. (2001). The social benefits of sport: Where is the proof? In C. Gratton & I. Henry (Eds.), Sport in the city: The role of sport in economic and social regeneration (pp. 185203). London: Routledge. Payne, W., Reynolds, M., Brown, S., & Fleming, A. (2003). Sport role models and their impact on participation in physical activity: A literature review. Melbourne: VicHealth. Vescio, J., Wilde, K., & Crosswhite, J. (2005). Profiling sport role models to enhance initiative for adolescent girls in physical education and sport. European Physical Education Review, 11(2), 153170.

Loland, S.(2002). Fair Play in Sport: A moral norm system. New York: Routledge. Mitchell 2007 Monterosso & Sabini Munby, J. (2010). Drugs in Sport. Scottish Medical Journal. The Observer. (2004) Tarnished Star of the Track. London. Retrieved Postner, M.J. (2007 Sandel , 2007 Simon, R. (2007). Good competition and drug-enhaced performance. Ethics in Sport, 2nd Edition, IL: Human Kinetics: 245-52 Smith, A. & Waddington, I. (). An Introduction to drugs in sport: Addicted to Winning? Pp 213 - 220 Spedding, C. & Spedding, M. (2008). Drugs in sport: a scientist-athletes perspective: from ambition to neurochemistry. Br J Pharmacol. 154(3): 496 501 Tamburrini, C. (2007). Are doping sactions justified? Amoral relstivist view. Doping in Sports: Global ethical Issues. New York: Routledge: 5-23 WADA (2003). World Anti Doping Code art 4.3. Retrieved April 16, from http://www.wadaama.org/rtecontent/document/code-v3.pdf;

WADA (2009). Educational Awareness Toolkit. Retrieved April 28, from http://www.wadaama.org/Documents/Education_Awareness/Toolkits/WADA_TTK_Youth_2009_EN.pdf

Michael J. Sandel,M.J (2007) The Case Against Perfection: Ethics in the Age of Genetic Engineering: Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 162 pp. ISBN: 0-674071927-X, 12.95 pb
WADA (2003)