1

Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport from an Ethical Approach

“In everyday language, used as an adjective, ‘natural’ characterizes something belonging

to or coming from nature, that is, something that is not constructed, produced, or modified by

humans. Used as a noun, references to ‘a natural’ point to a person born with extraordinary

abilities and developmental potential, such as a gifted athlete” (Loland 9). With regards to

professional sport competitions, a fine line exists between balancing an athlete’s organic talent

and utilizing technologies to enhance human capacities and perform incredible feats.

Performance enhancing drugs are medicinal substances that are used illicitly to augment athletic

achievement (Malve 1). Because competitive sporting eliminates or compensates for inequalities

of external conditions, the utilization of performance enhancing technologies threatens the

principle of fairness upon which the world of sport was built. Although one might argue that

doping (an additional term used to define the use of performance enhancing drugs) levels the

playing field for athletes with a lack of raw talent, permitting the utilization of artificial

pharmaceuticals in athletic events does not come without significant repercussions. The use of

performance enhancing substances in professional sport competitions within the United States of

America is a perplexing controversy that relies heavily on support from an ethical and moral

understanding of the matter.

The use of performance enhancing substances in professional sport competitions

immorally represents a tolerance toward artificial athleticism. As opposed to relying on the

conventional, natural developments of adaptation to training, performance enhancing substances

act as “biochemical shortcuts” by precisely transforming the human physique (Murray 1).

Adhering to arduous exercise agendas demonstrates tremendous diligence, perseverance, and a

commitment to confront adversity in the pursuit of a profitable goal (Murray 1). Comparably,
 2

Jennifer Flynn, associate professor of bioethics in the division of community health and

humanities at Memorial University, contends that the direct impact of performance enhancing

technologies on an athlete’s biological structure omits the “rigors of athletic training and the

pressures of performance” (29). In order to attain superior athletic achievement within moral

grounds, one must foster “discipline, sacrifice, and the tolerance of physical discomfort” through

the exertion of immense athletic effort (Flynn 29). Sigmund Loland, professor of sports

philosophy and ethics at the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, also asserts that, “…sport

deals with a particular kind of human excellence within which the admirable development of

natural talent is a constitutive part” (13). Pam R. Sailors, associate dean of humanities and public

affairs at Missouri State University, declares that the consumption of performance enhancing

drugs in the context of professional sporting is impermissible because such use fails to comply

with the notion of “physiological authenticity” (16). Alternatively stated, athletes who willfully

violate anti-doping policy can not be accredited for enhanced athletic achievement because

legitimacy requires a natural means of improvement (Sailors 16). Not only does doping create an

aura of suspicion regarding the validity of an athlete’s performance, but it also results in a

tremendous loss of respect from even the most avid consumers of professional sporting

entertainment. By utilizing performance enhancing drugs unbeknownst to the public, an

immense misconception is established between what is genuine and what is fraud. Defying the

abilities of the human body through the illicit use of medicinal substances not characteristic to

nature bypasses the necessity for strenuous training regimens. However, Sigmund Loland

provides an alternate perspective to the argument of natural versus synthetic by eloquently

contending that, “…elite athletes spend thousands of hours enhancing capacities and perfecting

skills that have little or no direct functional or ‘natural’ values: throwing or kicking a ball with
 3

power and precision, skating on ice according to particular aesthetic ideals, or developing

swimming endurance and skills” (9). Rather than advocating against the use of artificial

technologies in professional sport competitions, Loland reasons that all extraordinary athletes

participate in vigorous training procedures to attain a level of expertise that is far beyond the

natural capabilities of humans.

The use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sport competitions unethically

generates an environment of inequality, disparity, and partiality among rival athletes. Thomas H.

Murray, former president of the Hastings Center and director of the Center of Biomedical Ethics

in the School of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University, claims that “…sport’s rules and

practices reflect underlying beliefs and values about fairness, the wonders and frailties of our

bodies, and the crucial importance of virtues in bringing natural talents to competitive fruition”

(2). If sports were to be interpreted as athletic experiments, then it is essential that they must not

be corrupted by extraneous variables. Taking into consideration the existence of international

anti-doping legislation, Silvia Camporesi, lecturer in bioethics and society at the King’s College

London, and Michael J. McNamee, professor of sports science at Swansea University, argue that

the use of performance enhancing agents “represents a perversion of athletic talent and a

contamination of the integrity of the contest” (5). “…PEDs [performance enhancing drugs]

hijack natural athletic performance by providing an additive advantage that is not controlled by

the athlete, and therefore their intentional use to enhance performance represents a violation of

the spirit of sport” (McCradden and Cusimano 26). Doping threatens the fierce competition of

professional sport entertainment that countless citizens of the United States observe with great

enthusiasm. When adversaries compete under the influence of performance enhancing

substances, opposing athletes who refrain from the consumption of illegal pharmaceuticals are
 4

put at an extraordinary disadvantage. A conflict exists between this practice and the spirit of

sport in which athletes are impartially ranked upon their unfeigned athletic achievement and

performance.

The use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sport competitions welcomes

athletes to a plethora of potential safety concerns and adverse health conditions. Impressionable

individuals are oftentimes deprived of protection from the dispute that emerges when the

athlete’s long-term health is not the target of the agents being introduced (Camporesi and

McNamee 2). Because athletes frequently lack knowledge on the safety and effectiveness of the

substances they are consuming or the technologies they are subjected to, it is of extreme

importance to analyze the perils that doping introduces to the health and well-being of athletes

(Nikolopoulous et al. 1). In order to escape the humiliation that arises as a consequence of the

abuse of performance enhancing drugs, Harshad O. Malve, a medical pharmacologist, reasons

that health care professionals must expand their comprehension of exercise physiology and the

pharmacology of agents conducive to increased athletic success (1). In the admirable spirit of

sport, the health and well-being of sensational athletes is a chief component that must be

preserved. However, the aspiration for athletic accomplishment beyond the limits of human

potential often threatens this cherished safety. By frequently consuming illicit pharmaceuticals

without the guidance of medical professionals, it is not uncommon for individuals to suffer from

a variety of pernicious side-effects.

The use of performance enhancing substances in professional sport competitions within

the United States of America is a perplexing controversy that relies heavily on support from an

ethical understanding of the matter. The unnatural, unsafe, and unfair nature of performance

enhancing technologies counters the spirit of sport that so fantastically embodies the
 5

quintessence of American athletics since the beginning of its conception. To remedy this issue,

the United States federal government in conjunction with the World Anti-Doping Agency

(WADA) can implement strict measures to punish professional athletes for the use of

performance enhancing technologies and encourage individuals proficient in sports to refrain

from utilizing artificial products linked to increased athletic achievement. If the United States of

America hopes to recover the cherished spirit of sport, action must be taken to rid athletics from

this unnecessary evil and revert sport to an era of genuine, pure, and honorable competition.

Word Count - 1280

 6

Works Cited

Camporesi, Silvia, and Michael J. McNamee. “Performance Enhancement, Elite Athletes and

Anti Doping Governance: Comparing Human Guinea Pigs in Pharmaceutical Research

and Professional Sports.” Philosophy, Ethics & Humanities in Medicine, vol. 9, no. 1,

Feb. 2014, pp. 1–17. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1186/1747-5341-9-4.

Flynn, Jennifer. “Effort? Natural Talent? More on the Normative Structure of Sport.” American

Journal of Bioethics, vol. 18, no. 6, June 2018, pp. 28–29. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1080/15265161.2018.1459946.

Loland, Sigmund. “Performance-Enhancing Drugs, Sport, and the Ideal of Natural Athletic

Performance.” American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 18, no. 6, June 2018, pp. 8–15.

EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/15265161.2018.1459934.

Malve, Harshad O. “Sports Pharmacology: A Medical Pharmacologist’s Perspective.” Journal of

Pharmacy & Bioallied Sciences, vol. 10, no. 3, July 2018, pp. 126–136. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_229_17.

McCradden, Melissa D., and Michael D. Cusimano. “Optimized or Hijacked? The Moral

Boundaries of Natural Athletic Performance.” American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 18, no.

6, June 2018, pp. 26–28. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1080/15265161.2018.1459947.

Murray, Thomas H. “‘Natural’ Talents and Dedication—Meanings and Values in Sport.”

American Journal of Bioethics, vol. 18, no. 6, June 2018, pp. 1–3. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1080/15265161.2018.1474014.

Nikolopoulos, Dimitrios D., et al. “Doping and Musculoskeletal System: Short-Term and

Long-Lasting Effects of Doping Agents.” Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology, vol.

25, no. 5, Oct. 2011, pp. 535–563. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1111/j.1472-8206.2010.00881.x.

 7

Sailors, Pam R. “Performance-Enhancing Drugs and Moral Line Drawing.” American Journal of

Bioethics, vol. 18, no. 6, June 2018, pp. 16–17. EBSCOhost,

doi:10.1080/15265161.2018.1459952.