The first Olympic athlete ever to be disqualified for doping was Hans-Gunnor Lijenwall,

in 1968 (ProCon.org). Since then, over 100 athletes have been disqualified from the Olympics

for the same reason (ProCon.org). The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is the current

organization that regulates drug use in sports. The WADA has a list of banned drugs for each

sports that it regulates. Drugs are placed on the ban list if they have health risks, enhance

performance, or aren’t in the spirit of the sport (Hughes). While it makes sense to ban certain

drugs with health risks, there are many reason to allow performance enhancing drugs. The rules

about doping in sports should be changed to allow more drugs, because the current rules prevent

athletes from bettering themselves, and can’t create an equal game.

One reason many athletes dope is that they want to make themselves the best they can

possibly be, and drugs can help them. Many athletes have already trained their bodies to the max

they can be- without drugs. After a point, though, drugs are the only way to improve (Noë).

This means that athletes will want to do drugs, and it will be difficult to dissuade them. Also, it

has been shown that a higher percentage of athletes use drugs compared to non-athletes (Smith

et. al). This shows that there is a connection between being an athlete, and doing drugs. The

connection is that athletes are more likely to use drugs, because they want to be the best they can

be.

Another reason the WADA’s current rules should be changed is because they are in place

to keep the playing field balanced, but they already don’t work, as many sneak past the tests.

Some claim that allowing drugs would make sports unfair, but athletes sneaking past the tests

already make it unfair. An example of an athlete sneaking past the test is Jason Grimsley, a

pitcher for the Arizona Diamondbacks. In 2006, he admitted to having used drugs for several
prior years (Curry). During that time, anyone playing the Arizona Diamondbacks would have

been at an unfair disadvantage. And the problem isn’t just confined to Jason Grimsley. Another

baseball player claimed that 50% of all baseball players had done drugs (ProCon.org). With that

many players getting past the drug tests, it would be easier to stop the tests, and let everyone use

drugs, making sports fair.

A tertiary reason to change the rules about drugs in sports is that since athletes believe the

best way to better themselves is to dope, they won’t stop trying to dope. Athletes care about how

good they are, and they are always trying to improve. Merely putting rules in place will not stop

them. They have no reason to be opposed to drugs. Many athletes that don’t dope use

supplements, and non-banned drugs (Smith et. al). This shows that even athletes that don’t dope

aren’t opposed to drugs on a moral level. Also, athletes are clever. Going back to Jason

Grimsley, he got past the tests by using HGH, a substance that Major League Baseball wasn’t

testing for (Curry). This shows the ingenuity of athletes. They are constantly looking for ways

to better themselves, and ways to get past the tests. Instead of wasting money trying to stop

them, the WADA should allow them to dope, and educate them on the risks.

Many people say that drugs shouldn’t be allowed in sports because they can be hazardous

to the health of the athletes. They claim that even if athletes want to take drugs, and know the

risks, they still shouldn’t be allowed to. However, this reasoning is flawed, because playing

sports is inherently more dangerous than not playing sports (Noë). If these people truly cared

about athlete’s health, they should be campaigning to ban sports, not drugs. Also, this argument

is commonly used to defend the current system, but the WADA allows some drugs that are

dangerous to the health of athletes, such as alcohol (Hughes). This shows that it is
counterproductive to use this argument to support the current rules. Sports would be dangerous

with or without drugs, so why not allow drugs?

Another argument against drugs in sports is that they are unnatural. The people making

this argument claim that it is not right to try to better yourself by using certain substances

(Haines). There are many problems with this view. The first is that athletes are already using

unnatural methods to increase their performance, such as carbo-loading. To carbo-load, athletes

do a run the week prior to their event, to deplete the glucose in their cells. They then use a low

glucose diet for the next week, to starve their cells of glucose. A few hours before their event,

the athlete eats foods high in glucose, which tricks their cells into accepting unnatural levels of

glucose (Noë). This is only one of the many unnatural things athletes do to better themselves.

Why shouldn’t drugs be allowed, if other unnatural things are? Another reason this argument is

flawed is because the training athletes do makes the unnatural (Noë). There is a certain level of

fitness a normal human being can achieve, but athletes push part that barrier, making themselves

greater than they normally would be. Since athletes are already unnatural, and do unnatural

things, why should drugs be banned because they are unnatural? They shouldn’t; they should be

allowed.

To conclude, there should be more drugs allowed in sports, because the current

restrictions hold athletes back and cannot create a level playing field. If drugs aren’t prohibited,

it could improve athlete safety. Athletes could get drugs through official channels, not a shady

man in an alley, preventing many doping deaths. This situation of athletes who doped being

prevented from winning is similar to Pete Rose being denied the hall of fame because he
gambled. Both should be changed. To change the rules, a majority must be in favor of change.

So spread this article around, support drugs in sports, and eventually, the rules will change.
 Works Cited
Curry, Jack. "A New Front in Baseball's Drug War." ​The New York Times.​ The New York
Times, 07 June 2006. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

Haines, Jack. "Performance-enhancing Drugs-fair or Unnatural?" ​The Playwickian.​ N.p., 19 Feb.

2014. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

Hughes, David. "The World Anti-Doping Code in Sport." ​Australian Prescriber​, vol. 38, no. 5,
Oct. 2015, pp. 167-170. EBSCO​host,​
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=110232430&site=ehost-live.

Noë, Alva. "Legalize It: An Argument For 'Doping' In Sports." ​NPR.​ NPR, 06 Aug. 2012. Web.
05 Apr. 2017.

ProCon.org. "Doping Cases at the Olympics, 1968-2012 - Drug Use in Sports." ​Should
Performance Enhancing Drugs (such as Steroids) Be Accepted in Sports?​ ProCon.org, 8 May
2016. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

ProCon.org. "Historical Timeline - Drug Use in Sports." ​Should Performance Enhancing Drugs
(such as Steroids) Be Accepted in Sports?​ ProCon.org, 8 Aug. 2013. Web. 05 Apr. 2017.

Smith, Aaron C. T. and Bob Stewart. "Why the War on Drugs in Sport Will Never Be Won."
Harm Reduction Journal,​ vol. 12, 10 Nov. 2015, pp. 1-6. EBSCO​host,​
doi:10.1186/s12954-015-0087-5.