Athletes and the unfair advantage of banned substances

This is a fascinating article in which very smart people, including university professors and others, split into two camps. They offer reasoned arguments for why using steroids and other banned substances is or isn’t ethical, and whether athletes should be allowed to use them or whether they should remain banned. Enjoy the read!

Athletes and banned substances: first, the arguments of those who believe that using banned substances is not unethical or wrong in any way and is, if anything, even justified:

Bennett Foddy, a professor at several prestigious universities, made the following claim in 2005:

“It makes no difference whether you improve your blood values through altitude training, an altitude tent or EPO. Yet the last of these is banned. Some athletes already naturally have a larger cell volume, so is that an advantage simply thanks to good luck? Some can afford an altitude tent and some can’t, so is that fair? Nature isn’t fair either. Ian Thorpe’s oversized feet give an edge that no other swimmer has, no matter how much they train. Likewise, some gymnasts are more flexible than others, some basketball players are taller than others, and so on. By legalizing banned substances we would in fact equalize conditions and even out the “playing field”. By legalizing banned substances we would eliminate the effects of genetic inequality. Using substances that are currently on the banned list is far from being unfair; quite the opposite, deregulating doping and taking a more relaxed view of it would mean more equal conditions.”

Norman Fost, a professor at the University of Wisconsin and director of its medical ethics program, said the following in 2008:

“There is no convincing, clear argument to support the claim that using banned substances is unfair. If there were, training and coaching would have to be banned as well. A competition is unfair if an athlete has access to certain conditions, means or opportunities that others do not. Equal opportunities can be ensured more effectively not by banning but by taking a more relaxed attitude to the matter.”

Robert Simon, PhD, a professor of philosophy at Hamilton College, put it this way in 2004:

“Many people think or perceive that illegal performance enhancers give an unfair advantage, but we should ask whether these perceptions have a real basis and whether such opinions are justified and based on convincingly proven arguments. When addressing this topic, we can draw analogies with the use of sports equipment among athletes. If one competitor in a golf tournament used a ball that clearly flies better and farther than other balls, even when the other balls are hit with the same strength, the tournament would arguably be unfair. One competitor would clearly succeed with less effort (gain an advantage), and not thanks to superb hitting skill but simply because of better equipment (in this case, the golf ball). A similar situation arises if an athlete were to use steroids, for example: they would probably gain the same kind of advantage, which would be unfair.
But that is only one side of the situation. Even in the best case, it actually remains unclear whether the tournament really was unfair. Indeed, because one of the players used different (better) balls, they had advantages, but since the ball was clearly available to the other competitors who used standard equipment as well, what makes that advantage unfair?
Competing athletes are forced to compete under conditions that differ in every respect: different training opportunities, coaching, training equipment, nutrition options, genetic predispositions… all of these are aspects that hugely affect performance, and the variability and differences they create among athletes could very well be considered highly unfair and unjust.
Until we can say why the advantages provided by banned substances are more illegitimate than the advantages arising from the other conditions mentioned above, claims that using these substances is unethical are premature, unfounded and unacceptable.”

Sharon Ryan, PhD, chair of the Philosophy Department at West Virginia University, took this view in 2008:

“Because of financial means, and even luck and chance, some athletes will always have better opportunities. They have better chances to buy supplements, hire coaches, bring in nutrition specialists, and secure training opportunities, information, equipment and even better lawyers. Even the fact that some athletes have more free time to train than others. Some are simply born smarter, faster, sharper and stronger. Athletes never compete on equal terms, whether or not they use banned substances; the “playing field” will never be level… and that is precisely what is unfair.”

To be continued…

Translated by Janar Rückenberg

Source:Turg.Fitness.ee

Come train with us! ArtGym