BACKGROUND The use of steroids by professional athletes has become a major problem in the last few years.

In the past, the NFL, MLB and IOC, have all had great difficulty monitoring their athletes for the use of performance enhancing drugs. More recently, this problem has become even worse with the new era of designer drugs that are being circulated out of a California based company in the United States. Marion Jones (2000 and 2004 American Olympian), Jason Giambi (New York Yankee Slugger), Barry Bonds (Single Season Home Run Record Holder), and even Lance Armstrong (7 Time Winner of the Tour de France) have all been linked to some type of performance enhancing drug scandal.

Drugs in Sport
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) Medical Code states "doping contravenes the ethicsof both sport and medical science ... doping consists of the administration of substancesbelonging to prohibited classes of pharmacological agents or the use of various prohibitedmethods, or both".Misuse of drugs in sport is not new. Athletes have always expressed a need for speed, but someinterpret this pharmacologically. The first documented report was in 1865, in swimming, when anunnamed drug was used to enhance performance in a canal race in Amsterdam. In 1955, 20% of cyclists in a French cycle race tested positive for drugs. Stimulants and anabolic steroids are themost common drugs implicated. In 1967, a British cyclist died under the influence of amphetamine during the 1967 Tour de France.In a study in West Glamorgan, 38.8% of body builders admitted to taking anabolic steroids toenhance their physique and performance. Similarly, in an American study, 54% of male bodybuilders were abusing anabolic steroids. Of the 671 cases of drug abuse logged by the UK DrugTesting Programme, 273 involved stimulants while anabolic agents were implicated in 169 cases.Ben Johnston, the Canadian track athlete and former Olympic gold medal winner, was banned for abusing stanozolol; interestingly he now plays American football, a sport not policed for doping.The expulsion of Chinese swimmers from the 1998 World Swimming Championships in Perthalso received worldwide media coverage.Doping is back in the news again this month. A leading UK track athlete, of Lucozade fame, wasallegedly reported to be getting more of a fizz from the anabolic steroid, nandrolone, and a top USsprinter, who attributed his astronomically high testosterone levels to "pleasing his wife" the nightbefore the drug test, was banned.Review of the UK drug testing programme reveals that sports most commonly implicated areathletics, cycling, rugby, football, powerlifting and weightlifting.

One Step Ahead Methods of doping are becoming more advanced. According to Domhnall MacAuley, editor of theBritish Journal of Sports Medicine and former international rower, "tesing is becoming even moresophisticated, yet athletes seem to be at least one step ahead". Currently, the greatest concern tosports authorities are the new "sports designer drugs", the peptide hormones, predicted to be thescourge of the 2000 Olympic games in Sydney. These pose a particular problem in that theycannot be detected by currently available testing methods. Similarly, the prohibited method of blood doping is almost impossible to detect.However, not only is doping in sport against all principles of fair competition, it can also bedangerous to an athlete's health. In July of this year, the Irish Sports Council (ISC) wasestablished to promote sports development in Ireland. Part of the remit of the ISC will be toevolve effective antidoping procedures; education and research into doping in sport will also bepart of their agenda. How do Athletes obtain Drugs? Athletes may obtain drugs through three main networks: their physician, the black market and theproximity network.Many GPs prescribe drugs unwittingly, for what they trust is a genuine complaint.Many drugs, in particular the hightech agents are purchased on the black market.

Use of performance enhancing drugs in sport

Insports,the use of performance-enhancing drugsis commonly referred to by the disparaging term "doping", particularly by those organizations that regulate competitions. The use of performance enhancing drugs is mostly done to improve athletic performance. This is why manysports ban the use of performance enhancing drugs. Another similar use of medical technology iscalledblood doping, either byblood transfusionor use of the hormoneerythropoietin(EPO). The use of drugs to enhance performance is considered unethical by most international sportsorganizations and especially theInternational Olympic Committee, although ethicists have arguedthat it is little different from the use of new materials in the construction of suits and sportingequipment, which similarly aid performance and can give competitors advantage over others. Thereasons for the ban are mainly the alleged health threat of performance-enhancing drugs, theequality of opportunity for athletes and the supposedly exemplary effect of "clean" ("doping-free")sports in the public.This entry concerns the use of performance-enhancing drugs by humans. The use of such drugsis also common in horse racing and other equestrian sports, and ingreyhound racing. Origin of the term "doping" There are many suggestions as to the origin of the word doping. One is that it is

derived fromdop an alcoholic drink used as a stimulant in ceremonial dances in 18th century SouthernAfrica . Another suggestion is that the word comes from the Dutch word doop (a thick dippingsauce) that entered American slang to describe how robbers stupefied victims by mixing tobaccowith the seeds of Datura stramonium, known as jimsonweed, which contains a number of tropane alkaloids, causing sedation, hallucinations and confusion . By 1889, dope was used inconnection with the preparation of a thick viscous preparation of opium for smoking, and duringthe 1890s this extended to any stupefying narcotic drug. In 1900, dope was also defined as apreparation of drugs designed to influence a racehorses performance

History
Texts going back to antiquity suggest that men have always sought a way to work harder or atleast to suffer less as they were doing so. When the fittest of a nation were selected as athletesor combatants, they were fed diets and given treatments considered beneficial Scandinavianmythology saysBerserkerscould drink a mixture called "butotens", perhaps prepared from the Amanita muscaria mushroom, and increase their physical power a dozen times at the risk of "going crazy". In more recent times, the German missionary and doctor Albert Schweitzer wrote of Gabonin the early 19th century: "The people of the country can, having eaten certain leaves or roots, toil [ pagayer ] vigorously all day without feeling hungry, thirsty or tired and all the timeshowing a happiness and gaiety."A participant in an endurance walking race inBritain, Abraham Wood, said in 1807 that he hadused laudanum, or opium, to keep him awake for 24 hours while competing against RobertBarclay Allardyce. By April 1877, walking races had stretched to 500 miles and the following year,also at the Agricultural Hall inIslington,London, to 520 miles. The Illustrated London News chided:It may be an advantage to know that a man can travel 520 miles in 138 hours, and manage tolive through a week with an infinitesimal amount of rest, though we fail to perceive thatanyone could possibly be placed in a position where his ability in this respect would be of anyuse to him [and] what is to be gained by a constant repetition of the fact.The crowd loved it, however, and 20,000 a day came to watch . That encouraged promoters torepeat the races, at the same venue but with cyclists. They were the fastest humans on earth..."...and much more likely to endure their miseries publicly; a tired walker, after all, merely sitsdown - a tired cyclist falls off and possibly brings others crashing down as well. That's muchmore fun".The fascination with six-day bicycle races spread across the Atlantic and the same appeal tobase instincts brought in the crowds in America as well. And the more spectators paid at the gate,the higher the prizes could be and the greater was the incentive of riders to stay awake - or bekept awake - to ride the greatest

distance. Their exhaustion was countered bysoigneurs (the French word for "carers"), helpers akin to seconds inboxing.Among the treatments they supplied was nitroglycerine, a drug used to stimulate the heart after cardiac attacks and which wascredited with improving riders' breathing. Riders suffered hallucinations from the exhaustion andperhaps the drugs. The American championMajor Taylor refused to continue the New York race,saying: "I cannot go on with safety, for there is a man chasing me around the ring with a knife inhis hand."Public reaction turned against such trials, whether individual races or in teams of two. One reportchided:An athletic contest in which the participants 'go queer' in their heads, and strain their powersuntil their faces become hideous with the tortures that rack them, is not sport, it is brutality. Itappears from the reports of this singular performance that some of the bicycle riders haveactually become temporarily insane during the contest... Days and weeks of recuperation willbe needed to put the racers in condition, and it is likely that some of them will never recover from the strain.The American specialist in doping, Max M. Novich, wrote: "Trainers of the old school whosupplied treatments which had cocaine as their base declared with assurance that a rider tired bya six-day race would get his second breath after absorbing these mixtures." John Hoberman, aprofessor at the University of Texas in Austin, Texas, said six-day races were "de factoexperiments investigating the physiology of stress as well as the substances that might alleviateexhaustion." Strychnine at the Olympics These "de facto experiments investigating the physiology of stress as well as the substances thatmight alleviate exhaustion" weren't unknown outside cycling.Thomas J. Hicks, an American born in England on January 7, 1875 won theOlympic marathon in 1904. He crossed the line behind a fellow American, Fred Lorz,whose concept of marathon- running extended to riding half the way in a car. But nor did Hicks compete without outside help.His trainer, Charles Lucas, pulled out a hypodermic and came to his aid as his runner began tostruggle.I therefore decided to inject him with a milligram of sulphate of strychnine and to make him drink a large glass brimming with brandy. He set off again as best he could [but] he neededanother injection four miles from the end to give him a semblance of speed and to get him tothe finish. DRUGS IN SPORTS Taking supplements as a way of improving physical or mental performance in sports is probably as old as sports themselves. Competitors in the ancient Greco-Roman games were known to eat animalsparts, such as horns or the secretions of testes, which they thought would give them the strength of bulls, for example. It is also probable that Greeks used plants and mushrooms to help performance or accelerate the healing process. In the modern era, as sports became professionalized, evidence of the systematic application of stimulants appeared during the six-day cycle races in Europe. Riders used caffeine and ether to delay fatigue. Sprint cyclists preferred nitroglycerine, a chemical later used combined with heroin, cocaine etc.

The first known death of an athlete, which was related to drugs, was after a cyclist had taken a speed ball of heroin and cocaine. The most famous early case of drug abuse, however, occurred in the 1904 Olympic Games in St. Louis. Marathon winner Thomas Hicks, of the USA, collapsed after the race as throughout the race he was repeatedly given doses of strychnine and brandy. After returning from the 1952 Olympics, US weight-lifting coach Hoffman started searching for a hormone that would help gain in weight and strength as he was convinced that the successful Soviet team had used some hormone stuff. The product he got was Dianabol, an anabolic steroid first produced in 1958. During the 1950s and 1960s, there were no rules forbidding the use of pharmaceuticals and, as the news of Dianabol spread among sportsmen, cyclists, skiers and other athletes realized the importance of the substance and used it. If there was a turning point in attitudes towards the use of drugs in sport, it was in 1967, when Tommy Simpson, aged 29, collapsed and died during Tour de France. He was taking amphetamines to ease the strain of long-distance cycling. There is irony in the fact that sports medicines role nowadays is to eliminate the use of the very products that medicine developed to help improve performance. Simpsons death prompted the introduction of testing, which came into being at the 1968 winter Olympics. The case that unquestionably changed interest in drug use to hysteria was the case of Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson from the 1988 Seoul Olympics after he had won the 100 metres in a world record 9.79 seconds. An anabolic steroid was detected in his urine sample; he was stripped of his gold medal and his time was erased form the records. Following the Johnson affair, lists of prohibited substances lengthened so that even many products that are normally purchased in drug stores were banned. BANNED SUBSTANCES Anabolic steroids A compound which is considered to be responsible for the construction of muscle mass. From the 1940s androgens were used to treat problems associated with trauma, burns, surgery and radiation therapy. Stimulants The basic effect of stimulants is to get messages to a complex pathway of neurones in the brainstem that are responsible for maintaining consciousness. The nervous system is stimulated, speeding up heart rate and raising blood pressure. Narcotic analgesics Painkillers are used normally in life, but in sports especially tolerance to pain is needed

and injuries are common. Beta blockers Originally used by patients with irregular heartbeats, beta blockers relieve stress by controlling the level of adrenaline and lowering the heart rate. They are used by showbusiness performers. Diuretics These substances cause the kidneys to produce more urea and speed up waste disposal process. They are used for reducing fluid levels by competitors in weight-controlled sports.

PRO Performance Enhancing Drugs CON Performance Enhancing Drugs

1. Health

Risk

PRO: "If each of us ought to be free to assume risks that we think are worth
taking, shouldn't athletes have the same freedom as anyone else? In particular, if athletes prefer the gains in performance allegedly provided by the use of steroids, along with the increased risk of harm to the alternative of less risk and worse performance, what gives anyone the right to interfere with their choice? After all, if we should not forbid smokers from risking their health by smoking, why should we prohibit track stars or weightlifters from taking risks with their health in pursuit of their goals?" Robert Simon, PhD Professor of Philosophy at Hamilton College Fair Play: The Ethics of Sport 2003 CON: "Performance enhancers, like steroids and other forms of doping, have a negative effect on long-term health. For then users of these enhancers are hurting themselves in the long run without on the average improving their shortterm rewards from athletic competition, as long as competitors also use harmful enhancers. This is the main rationale for trying to ban steroids and other forms of doping from athletic competitions." Gary Becker, PhD Professor in the Departments of Economics, Sociology, and the Graduate School of Business at the University of Chicago "Doping in Sports," Becker-Posner blog Aug. 27, 2006 2. Seeking an "Unfair" Advantage PRO: "There is no coherent argument to support the view that enhancing performance is unfair; if it were, we would ban coaching and training. Competition can be unfair if there is unequal access to particular enhancements, but equal access can be achieved more predictably by deregulation than by prohibition." Norman Fost, MD, MPH Professor and Director of the Medical Ethics Program at the University of Wisconsin "Steroid Hysteria: Unpacking the Claims," American Medical Association Journal of Ethics Nov. 2005

CON: "Remember that athletes don't take these drugs to level the playing field, they do it to get an advantage. And if everyone else is doing what they're doing, then instead of taking 10 grams or 10 cc's or whatever it is, they'll take 20 or 30 or 40, and a vicious circle simply gets bigger. The end game will be an activity that is increasingly violent, extreme, and meaningless, practiced by a class of chemical and or genetic mutant gladiators. The use of performance-enhancing drugs is not accidental; it is planned and deliberate with the sole objective of getting an unfair advantage." Richard Pound, BCL Former President of the World Anti-Doping Agency Intelligence Squared US debate titled "We Should Accept Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Competitive Sports," moderated by Bob Costas Jan. 15, 2008 3. Drugs vs. Technology PRO: "Sport is for enjoyment and competition, and usually aims to improve; but what is the difference between increasing skill and performance by training, and taking drugs? If it is the use of personal effort rather than outside help, then what of ropes, crampons and oxygen for climbing? What of advanced training by teams of sports physiologists who wire athletes to equipment monitoring heart, muscle, brain and nerves to optimise activity; or teams of sports psychologists improving your responses and neutralising those observed in competitors? What of dieticians tampering with foods and additives - drugs by any other name - to improve performance? What is more 'fair' - the use of a team of sports specialists or a simple pill? What is the difference between training at altitude and taking erythropoietin to achieve a similar effect? And why are the strips of adhesive plaster on the nose - absurdly believed to increase oxygen intake - more acceptable than a drug which reduces airway resistance?" Sam Shuster, PhD Emeritus Professor of Dermatology at Newcastle University "There's No Proof That Sports Drugs Enhance Performance," The Guardian Aug. 4, 2006 CON: "When used by fully trained, elite athletes, [performance-enhancing] drugs can improve performance to a much greater extent than any combination of the most intensive, sophisticated, and costly nonpharmaceutical interventions known to modern sports science. Scientifically based training regimens, special diets, and complex physiological and biomechanical measurements during exercise and recovery cannot match the enhancing effects of drugs... Thus, drug use in a subgroup of athletes who -- even in the absence of drugs -- are able to compete at an elite level causes their separation into a distinct athletic population, distanced from 'natural' humans by a margin determined by the potency of the drug combinations that are used."

Timothy Noakes, MD, DSc Discovery Health Professor of Exercise and Sports Science at the University of Cape Town "Tainted Glory," New England Journal of Medicine Aug. 26, 2004 4. Coercion PRO: "Why should we think that those who take drugs to remain competitive with the drug users are coerced into doing so? No one is forced to become a competitive athlete. The pressures that the non-drug users may well feel are no different than any other pressures that come with committing oneself to playing the game at a relatively high level of competition. If some athletes spend much more time in the weight room than others and thereby build their muscular strength to levels significantly higher than their opponents, those opponents who want to remain competitive may feel compelled to also put in more time with weights. But there is nothing unethical or immoral about the situation that should lead those interested in maintaining sportsmanship to forbid or severely regulate weight training..." Peter A. French, PhD Director of the Lincoln Center for Applied Ethics at Arizona State University Ethics and College Sports 2004 CON: "One athlete's decision to use performance enhancing drugs also exerts a powerful effect on the other athletes in the competition. As reported by Sports Illustrated, half of all recently surveyed Olympic athletes admitted that they would be willing to take a drug -- even if it would kill them eventually -- as long as it would let them win every event they entered five years in a row. This type of 'win at any cost' mentality is pervading sports at all levels of competition and results in athletes feeling coerced to use substances just to remain on par with other athletes." National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse "Winning at Any Cost: Doping in Olympic Sports," National Commission on Sports and Substance Abuse Report Sep. 2000 5. Effectiveness of Drug Testing PRO: "According to the IOC [International Olympic Committee] director general... the fact that only eight athletes out of 11,000 Olympic competitors tested positive is proof that 'the war on doping is being won.' But the argument that the small number of athletes testing positive is indicative of the low prevalence of doping is nonsense. The number of positive tests is an extremely poor indicator of the prevalence of doping... There is general recognition among those involved in elite level sport that those testing positive represent only the tip of the iceberg. It is impossible to estimate precisely how big that iceberg is, but it is clearly very large...

Firstly, drug-using athletes often beat tests because they have access to specialized medical advice from sports physicians... Secondly, there is evidence of collusion between dope-using athletes and senior officials. Positive tests have been 'lost' at several Olympics." Ivan Waddington, PhD Visiting Professor at the University of Chester and the Norwegian School of Sport Sciences "Olympic Tests for Drugs Need a Shot of Candor," International Herald Tribune Oct. 4, 2000 CON: "The detection methods are accurate and reliable. They undergo rigorous validation prior to being introduced... WADA is, of course, keenly interested in the efficiency, as well as the effectiveness, of the global anti-doping system and supports research to help enhance testing efficiency... Working collaboratively with national anti-doping agencies such as the U.S. AntiDoping Agency (USADA) in the sharing of information has uncovered the designer steroid THG, and WADA-certified laboratories continue to keep a watchful eye for previously unknown doping agents... The I.O.C. retains ownership of the athlete's samples (blood and urine) for eight years following the Olympic Games... During the ensuing eight years, if a technique is developed that would enable the detection of a prohibited substance... the stored specimen could be tested for that specific substance and the athlete would be held accountable." Gary I. Wadler, MD Chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) Prohibited List and Methods Sub-Committee "Dr. Gary Wadler of the World Anti-Doping Agency Gives His Answers to Your Questions (Part I)," New York Times June 26, 2008 6. Legalizing Performance Enhancing Drugs PRO: "We believe that rather than drive doping underground, use of drugs should be permitted under medical supervision. Legalisation of the use of drugs in sport might even have some advantages. The boundary between the therapeutic and ergogenic - i.e., performance enhancing - use of drugs is blurred at present and poses difficult questions for the controlling bodies of antidoping practice and for sports doctors. The antidoping rules often lead to complicated and costly administrative and medical follow-up to ascertain whether drugs taken by athletes are legitimate therapeutic agents or illicit.

Furthernore, legalisation of doping, we believe, would encourage more sensible, informed use of drugs in amateur sport, leading to an overall decline in the rate of health problems associated with doping. Finally, by allowing medically supervised doping, the drugs used could be assessed for a clearer view of what is dangerous and what is not... Acknowledging the importance of rules in sports, which might include the prohibition of doping, is, in itself, not problematic. However, a problem arises when the application of these rules is beset with diminishing returns: escalating costs and questionable effectiveness." Bengt Kayser, MD, PhD Professor of Exercise Physiology, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva Alexandre Mauron, PhD Professor of Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Geneva Andy Miah, PhD Reader in New Media and Bioethics at the School of Media, Language, and Music at the University of the West of Scotland "Viewpoint: Legalisation of Performance-Enhancing Drugs," The Lancet Dec. 2005 CON: "There are several reasons to ban performance-enhancing drugs: respect for the rules of sports, recognition that natural talents and their perfection are the point of sports, and the prospect of an 'arms race' in athletic performance... The rules in each sport in effect determine which characteristics among all possible sources of difference influence who wins and who loses... Rules are changed at times to preserve a sport. Basketball banned goaltending swatting the ball away just as it was about to go into the hoopwhen players became so tall and athletic that they could stand by the basket and prevent most shots from having a chance to go in... Sports that revere records and historical comparisons (think of baseball and home runs) would become unmoored by drug-aided athletes obliterating old standards. Athletes, caught in the sport arms race, would be pressed to take more and more drugs, in ever wilder combinations and at increasingly higher doses... The drug race in sport has the potential to create a slow-motion public health catastrophe. Finally, we may lose whatever is most graceful, beautiful, and admirable about sport..." Thomas H. Murray, PhD President of the Hastings Center "Sports Enhancement," chapter in From Birth to Death and Bench to Clinic: The Hastings Center Bioethics Briefing Book for Journalists, Policymakers, and Campaigns

2008-2009 7. Sportsmanship PRO: "How, exactly, does the spirit of sport forbid gene transfer but not carboloading? The [WADA] code doesn't say. It defines the spirit of sport as 'ethics,' 'fair play,' 'character' and a bunch of other words that clarify nothing. The definition includes 'courage' and 'dedication.' Doesn't it take more courage and dedication to alter your genes than to snarf a potato? Human growth hormone appears on WADA's 'Prohibited List' of substances and methods, even though the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists have vouched, to varying degrees, for its safety. Evidently growth hormone violates the spirit of sport, but stuffing yourself with steaks doesn't." William Saletan Journalist for the Washington Post "How High Is Too High in Turin?," Washington Post Feb. 19, 2006 CON: "Anti-doping programs seek to preserve what is intrinsically valuable about sport. This intrinsic value is often referred to as 'the spirit of sport'; it is the essence of Olympism; it is how we play true. The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind, and is characterized by the following values: Ethics, fair play and honesty. Health. Excellence in performance. Character and education. Fun and joy. Teamwork. Dedication and commitment. Respect for rules and laws. Respect for self and other participants. Courage. Community and solidarity. Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport." World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) World Anti-Doping Code Mar. 2003 8. Athletes

as Role Models

PRO: "Survey data actually shows that teen steroid use has mirrored the use of other illicit drugs over the years. It went up mildly in the 1990's, and has since either dropped off slightly, or leveled off since 2000. It's likely that the same trends that govern cocaine or marijuana use govern teen steroid use far more than what's happening in the sports pages. In fact, a study released last year, and one of the few studies to actually attempt to find out what motivates teen boys to take steroids, found that the most reliable indicator of steroid use was a teen's own self, self esteem and body image. The suggestion, and I think we can all agree it's pretty intuitive, is that teenage boys who do take steroids do so not because they want to look like Barry Bonds or Mark McGwire, but because they want to look good for teenage girls." Radley Balko Senior Editor of Reason magazine Intelligence Squared US debate titled "We Should Accept Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Competitive Sports," moderated by Bob Costas Jan. 15, 2008 CON: "For many male high school athletes, pro athletes are major influences. They are the role models. They choose the jersey numbers of their favorite professional players. They emulate their training regimens. They emulate their style of play. And they are influenced by their drug use. When a professional athlete admits to using steroids, the message young athletes hear is not always the one that is intended. Young athletes often believe that steroid use by their role models gives them permission to use. That it is simply part of what one must do to become an elite athlete." Greg Schwab Testimony for the hearing "Steroid Use in Professional Baseball and Anti-Doping Issues in Amateur Sports" before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee on Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce, and Tourism June 18, 2002 9. Sports Fans PRO: "In America's major league sports, particularly football and baseball, the widespread perception of drug use does not seem to have had a negative impact on audience interest. The fascination of watching Mark McGwire break the home-run record in 1998 was undiminished by his overt use of nandrolone (not a banned substance in baseball), which stimulates the body to produce more of its own steroids.

And do spectators believe that the number of US football players weighing 300lb, which has risen from 10 in 1986 to more than 300 today, is solely through muscle build-up achieved by eating the concentrated protein contained in egg whites? The estimate of a former professional is that at least 30% of US major-league football players are taking steroids; most people say that the figure is much higher. Fans are not put off by this, and players say they would trade a longer life for a chance of glory." Lincoln Allison, DLitt Founder of the Centre for the Study of Sport in Society at Warwick University "Faster, Stronger, Higher," The Guardian Aug. 9, 2004 CON: "To the extent that the public perceives that a PED [performance enhancing drug] reduces the role of skill and replaces it by chemically induced brute strength and endurance, it is likely to lose interest in the sports in which it is used. The harm would be primarily financial, but this in turn could lead to the demise of professional leagues and contests... Sporting events would increasingly become tests of rivals' access to good pharmaceutical technology and knowledge and their bodies' ability to use these chemicals efficiently. Even though skill, strategy, and effort would still play a central role in athletic success, pharmaceutical technology and athletes' bodily responses to it would also play a significant role. It is not that people are not interested in science fairs; it is just that people expect sport to be a different kind of test, one in which athletes' own qualities are the major determinants of success." Nicholas J. Dixon, PhD Chair and Dykstra Professor of Philosophy at Alma College "Performance-Enhancing Drugs, Paternalism, Meritocracy, and Harm to Sport," Journal of Social Philosophy May 27, 2008 10. Hall of Fame Induction PRO: "Let's stop pretending that the Baseball Hall of Fame is a real-life fantasy world -- a place where we celebrate only the people and events we can all unanimously agree deserve to be celebrated -- and transform it into an institution that reflects both the good and bad of the sport. Wait -- wasn't that Cooperstown's mission all along? Shouldn't it be a place where someone who knows nothing about baseball can learn about its rich history? Isn't it a museum, after all? If that's the case -- and I say it is -- then how can we leave out Pete Rose, the all-time hits leader and most memorable competitor of his era? And how can we even consider leaving out McGwire, Barry Bonds and Sammy Sosa, the three most memorable hitters of the 1990s? We're supposed to stick our heads in the historical sand and pretend these people were never born?"

Bill Simmons Columnist for ESPN "A Hall of Justice," ESPN The Magazine Jan. 15, 2007 CON: "It doesn't matter whether the player's production, either home runs or hits, was drug enhanced once, twice or ten times. It doesn't matter; it's still cheating and impugning the integrity of the game and the player's accomplishments... Those great players currently enshrined in the Hall of Fame achieved that honor strictly on the merits of their god-given talents and not by utilizing artificial means to enhance their accomplishments. The game has been tarnished by steroid charges, and the issue of enshrinement in baseball's Hall of Fame of players who have used steroids, regardless of their career statistics, is a critical issue that may well impact the standards and integrity of the Hall of Fame itself." Lou Gorman Former General Manager of the Boston Red Sox High and Inside: My Life in the Front Offices of Baseball

CASES Doping in association football

Unlike individual sports such as bicycling, weight-lifting, and track and field, football (soccer) isnot widely associated with performance enhancing drugs. Like most high-profile team sports,football suffers more from an association with recreational drugs, the case of Diego Maradonaand cocainein 1991 being the best known of those. Football has however been criticised for not sanctioning players implicated in performanceenhancing drug scandals. Most recently,Operation Puertoimplicated approximately 50 cyclistsand 150 sportspersons of other sporting codes, including several "high profile soccer players".While the cyclists were named and pursued by the governing bodies of cycling, none of thesoccer players were named or punished for their involvement in the doping ring