Tiu1
Bailey Tiu Ms. Gardner English 10, Period 1 7 April 2014 Doping in Sports: The Negative Impact on the World of Sports To many people, professional athletes serve as role models, heroes, and idols in their life. However the use of performance enhancing enhancin g drugs (PEDs) by professional athletes has led man y people to question whether or not these athletes are truly elite. A 2012 quote by Tom Murray, says that “The fir st st hard truth about elite sports is that it’s relentless competitiveness, and the tiny margins that separate winners from also-rans, press athletes not to surrender an ything that gives them an edge” edge” (1). The argument for the positive p ositive reasons for use of PEDs is obvious in David Ewing Duncan’s, Duncan’s, article that stated “research has suggested that these meds help injured athletes to better heal” heal” (1). What both Murray and Duncan are noting in their articles are valid points of view. However, the key difference between their views is that Murray is saying that P EDs are being used to artificially to be better than their elite competition while Duncan is just stating stating that PEDs have some positive use during recovery. These drugs, such as steroids, should should not be used without proper regulation because taking steroids to help an athlete perform better while completely healthy has unknown long-term effects. The usage of PEDs or steroids is already banned from almost all professional sports such as baseball and cycling, yet athletes continue to use these drugs to enhance their natural
Tiu2
capabilities. capabilities. The story of Lance Armstrong has Tom Murray stating that “Some critics say the problem isn't athletes who break the rules but the rules themselves specifically, the prohibition on doping. Lance Armstrong's supporters are running out of plausible defenses” defenses” (1). (1). Because of athletes like Lance Armstrong, not only are fans retreating from loving the sport of cycling, but people are beginning be ginning to doubt all athletes – athletes – clean clean or not – not – whether whether they are a fraud or a true elite athlete. For instance, in today’s Major League Baseball (MLB), if an up and coming baseball player like Mike Trout were to hit over 50 homeruns in a season, the average fan may wonder if Trout is on steroids. steroids. Referring to Baseball’s Almanac, the the average number of home runs for a home run leader in MLB over the past 5 years (2009-2013) is 39 home runs in a season. Compare that to a 5 year span during MLB’s steroids era (1998-2002) (1998-2002) in which the average home run leader achieved 61 homers in a typical season. In addition to fans questioning if an athlete is cheating or not with PEDs, another key reason why there should be more regulation on PEDs is because athletes won’t confess to taking PEDs on their own accord “I find it very hard to believe that every doper out there suddenly decides to quit on his own accord” accord” (Routley 3). 3). If leagues and our national government do not do something to stress the importance of clean athletes then cheating athletes will simply think that it is appropriate to take drugs such as steroids, stimulants, and painkillers. Clearly, those athletes that cheat will not stop themselves unless something impactful gets in their way. Some would argue that the only way to significantly reduce the usage of PEDs is to bring professional sports leagues and the government together to develop a meaningfully way to regulate it. For example, what if a professional baseball player gets caught taking PEDs? He is suspended or banned from league. If the government got involved and enforced regulation, this player not only would be
Tiu3
banned from the league but he would also have to serve time in jail. This added consequence would likely make athletes to think twice before using PEDs. Some experts and reporters have different opinions on the topic of taking PEDs. Reporters such as Tim Cowlishaw and David Ewing Duncan have done research and written about the varying ideas surrounding the use of PEDs by athletes such as Lance Armstrong (Cycling), Alex Rodriguez (Baseball), and Lyndsey Vonn (Skiing). One key point in their research noted that “We don't know exactly know what anabolic steroids do and don't do to people 10 to 20 years after they are used” us ed” (Cowlishaw 2). 2). This big unknown should be enough reason for athletes to stay away from PEDs but without proper regulation; those athletes are just thinking of today and not what it might cost them when they are older. older. The issue of using PEDs to better the performance of an athlete has not been properly addressed and more data is needed. There isn’t really an argument an argument for the use of PEDs. Cowlishaw attempts to persuade his readers to support PEDs by using the fallacy of “avoiding the question.” Meaning that since we are unsure of what PEDs may do to people in 10 to 20 years, they might be OK in the long run. David Ewing Duncan highlighted support for the use of PEDs in an article he wrote, "An Easy Way to Improve the Olympics: Make Performance Enhancements..." (Article 1). Duncan also noted that, “After all, research has suggested that these meds help injured injured athletes to better heal” heal” (1). (1). What Duncan is referring referring to is PEDs as meds or medicines. medicines. Even if the recovery time for athletes are shortened, we can’t fully believe fully believe Duncan’s statement is completely co mpletely true because referring back to what Cowlishaw said, we don’t know what drugs such as steroids can do to a person 10 to 20 years from now. Yes, PEDs can temporarily “help injured athletes to better heal” yet, we don’t fully understand the long-term effects.
Tiu4
The intake of PEDs has built up a huge controversial issue between athletes and investigators. Yet there is one specific group of people that make professional sports the way they are today: Fans! Fans are one reason why the issue of intake of PEDs is under so much controversy. “What if fans don't care if a player is using performanceperformance-enhancing drugs?” (Duncan 1). In another statement, Duncan contradicted himself by saying that PEDs can help better heal and suggests that it can quicken the recovery time. The question could be why wh y would he want someone like Lyndsey Vaughn to quicken her recovery time? Could it be so she can get back on the slopes sooner? Maybe to compete again sooner? Or perhaps so that she can perform and do what she does best – best – entertain entertain the fans through competition sooner. That entertainment for fans can draw millions of people to stadiums stadiums and television to watch athletes compete. These millions of fans and viewers may point to money as a reason for why athletes would risk using PEDs. The money involved in sports are very real and the competition fierce. For instance, a baseball player that has a good season with over 40 home runs might get a new contract for millions. The other side of the coin is that he gets hurt, gets cut from the the team and is out of the league. So money could definitely be a serious driver for athletes risking risking PEDs. All the debate about whether or not athletes should be allowed to take PEDs should concern the authorities that have power and authority to make a difference and make a final decision. Both opinions on intake of these drugs should be respected yet, like reporter Will Routley stated, “What have they done to improve the sport?” On one hand PEDs can be useful like when Lyndsay Vonn could have taken drugs such as these to quicken her recovery time of injury. Although, on the bad side, if an athlete takes a drug like steroids and is completely healthy and only wants to immensely improve his or her concentration or strength, then that is an
Tiu5
example of why PEDs should be banned. Although the biggest downside to athletes might be the unknown around what PEDs may do to their health long-term, getting caught is usually very public and it can hurt their reputation as a professional thus costing them money, sponsorships, or their job. Athletes have the right to do what they believe is right for them, especially in the United States. Evaluating whether or not to allow any athlete, especially professional athletes, to take PEDs such as steroids is a topic that can have a huge impact to the sports world. world. It’s unlikely that we will see a major change in the number of athletes taking PEDs in secret. Changing what happens when athletes are caught taking PEDs are in the hands of health officials, the government, professional leagues, and fans. Those groups have to be involved involved in order to solve this significant problem.
Tiu6
Allenby, Braden. "After Armstrong's Fall, the Case for Performance Enhancement." Washington Post 2012 2012 oct 28: B.4. Web. 7 May 2014. . Cowlishaw, Tim. "If All PEDs Were Legal, It Wouldn't Be Cheating--Would It?" Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 2013 Post-Gazette 2013 feb 07: A.6. Web. 7 May 2014. . Duncan, David Ewing. "An Easy Way to Improve the Olympics: Make Performance Enhancements..." Newsweek Enhancements..." Newsweek 2014 2014 feb 21: N.p. Web. 7 May 2014. . Koller, Dionne. "USADA for Everyone." Baltimore Everyone." Baltimore Sun 2013 Sun 2013 jan 20: A.27. Web. 7 May 2014. . Murray, Tom. "Why Sports Needs Rules Against Doping." Washington Post 2012 2012 nov 24: A.15. Web. 7 May 2014. . Routley, Will. "Dopers Are Not Victims." Vancouver Sun 2012 Sun 2012 nov 06: C.9. Web. 7 May 2014. . Young, Geisler. "Home Runs Year-by-Year Leaders on Baseball Almanac." Home Home Runs Year-byYear Leaders on Baseball Almanac. Almanac. Baseball-almanac, 2000. Web. 07 May 2014.