Nothing is more reviled in sport now than doping. The US cyclist Lance Armstrong is not just bad – in the eyes of the media he is practically a monster: ‘singularly evil’, and ‘worse than shameless’. His body, once a modern miracle for beating cancer and winning the Tour de France seven times, is now ‘worthless’ and his founding of a successful anti-cancer charity is just ‘part of the shell game of appearance’.
Last year, the Australian Crime Commission reported widespread use of performance-enhancing drugs in Australia. Richard Ings, former head of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, pronounced: ‘This is not a black day in Australian sport, this is the blackest day in Australian sport.’ The same year, a report by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) highlighted the lack of effectiveness of drug-testing programmes. Dick Pound, the former head of WADA and the report’s author, added his own pugnacious gloss to its findings: ‘It ought to be a wake-up call. It ought to be a call to arms.’
We don’t know how common doping is, but we have some clues. Of 21 podium finishers in the Tour de France for the period 1999-2005, 20 are suspected or proven to have used illegal substances. For the longer period 1996-2010, the figure is 36 out of 45. Ahead of the London 2012 Olympics, 107 athletes tested positive for doping, and numerous athletes who passed tests throughout London 2012 have since been found to be doping, including the Russian swimmer Yulia Efimova, the US sprinter Tyson Gay (who admitted to it), and the Jamaicans Asafa Powell and Sherone Simpson. Other successful athletes were drawn from the pool of previously convicted drug cheats, including Alexander Vinokourov (Russia/cycling), Tatyana Lysenko (Russia/the hammer), Aslı Çakır Alptekin (Turkey/women’s 1,500-metre race), and Sandra Perković (Croatia/women’s discus) – all of them gold medallists in 2012.
The substances most commonly used by athletes today fall into three broad classes. The first class enhances normal physiology to improve training and recovery, and includes some anabolic steroids (such as testosterone) and growth hormone. The second enhances normal physiology to improve performance in competition, and includes blood doping and the use of human erythropoietin (EPO) – a naturally produced hormone that stimulates red blood-cell production, thereby improving the capacity of the blood to carry oxygen. Both of these can be called ‘physiological doping’. The third class includes unnatural substances that modify normal physiology to enhance training, recovery and performance during competition. It includes beta-blockers that reduce tremor and anxiety; diuretics, painkillers, anti-inflammatory drugs and cognitive boosters such as methylphenidate (Ritalin) and modafinil, as well as illegal recreational drugs such as cocaine and amphetamines. This is ‘non-physiological’ doping. Of all the substance listed here, only painkillers and anti-inflammatory drugs are currently legal.
Non-physiological doping is relatively easy to detect because it involves the introduction into the body of substances that are not normally present. Sensitive tests of blood or urine can pick these up. The first two classes of substance abuse are much more difficult to detect because they involve substances that naturally occur in the body. When small amounts are taken, within the population’s normal range, it is very difficult to tell whether the athlete is enhanced, or just lucky.
WADA sets the list of prohibited substances to which all sports must adhere. However, it is up to individual sports agencies to set the testing regimes. For example, cycling has a biological passport system, but soccer does not. And whereas testing for EPO might be important in an endurance sport, it might be less important in, say, bowling.
Still, to secure better conviction rates, there needs to be agreement about what makes doping illegal. WADA bans substances that meet two of these criteria: (1) they’re a danger to health; (2) they lead to performance enhancement; or (3) their use is contrary to the spirit of sport. The first criterion is uncontroversial; the second bizarre. Elite sport is explicitly about performance enhancement. Many performance-enhancing substances are legal: creatine, for instance (which delivers a 5-15 per cent increase in maximal power/strength), caffeine (increases time-to-exhaustion by 10 per cent) and nitrates in beetroot extract (increases time-to-exhaustion by 15-25 per cent in constant, high-intensity exercise). Armstrong himself boasted about his use of an oxygen tent. Team Sky, the British professional cycling team that brought Bradley Wiggins and Chris Froome to the winner’s podium in the Tour de France in 2012 and 2013 respectively, is today admired for its use of ‘marginal gains’ – tiny enhancements in equipment and clothing, as well as training and technique, which, added together, make a big difference to performance.
WADA’s real objection, as its Code states explicitly, is that ‘[d]oping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport’.
Sports authorities around the world are taking doping extremely seriously. The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority Amendment Bill 2013 gives ASADA greater powers to convict drug cheats. The new WADA Code, due in 2015, will emphasise the need for broader investigations, including support staff, as well as more traditional testing methods. After all, such methods formed the bulk of the US Anti-Doping Agency’s dossier against Armstrong, leading, in turn, to his confession.
At the same time, spurred by complaints from athletes as well as fans, some sports are increasing testing, particularly the more informative, but more invasive blood testing. For example, the International Tennis Federation announced earlier this year that the number of blood tests performed had quadrupled in 2013. Both tennis and the US National Football League followed cycling by introducing the ‘biological passport’. Such a passport records an athlete’s pattern of physiological values. If there’s any deviation from that pattern, even if it’s within the population’s normal range, further testing and possible prosecution can follow.
All kinds of doping could be eliminated if we assigned billions of dollars to the task and implemented 24-hour surveillance, and other intrusive restrictions on athletes, all of which is extremely unlikely. But there is a better way to reduce doping and cheating. As long as doping is against the rules, it counts as cheating. But rules can change. If they do, would doping still, in and of itself, be ethically wrong? Thinking about the values that ought to inform policy, I see no good reason to ban physiological doping. In fact, there are good reasons to dope in this way. Non-physiological doping is a different story and, thankfully, it’s much easier to detect.
Subscribe to Aeon’s Newsletter
Sport originally evolved as a way of showing off our genetic fitness. Displaying great speed, strength, intelligence, ingenuity and co-ordination in public demonstrated to potential mates your capability to survive and reproduce. It appears that we haven’t come far. One French study by Charlotte Faurie, Dominique Pontier and Michel Raymond published in Evolution and Human Behavior in 2004 reported that: ‘Both male and female students who compete in sports reported significantly higher numbers of partners than other students, and within the athletes, higher levels of performance predicted more partners.’ Perhaps because of the status bestowed by athletic prowess, sportsmanship – the spirit of sport – has come to embody the values we promote in society as a whole. As Dick Pound of WADA said: ‘You respect the rules, you respect your opponents, you respect yourself. You play fair. I think that bleeds over into life as well.’
The values behind the spirit of sport are defined by WADA as: 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; and community and solidarity.
Sport is meant to show humans ‘at their best’. It allows us to demonstrate determination, striving, struggling and conquering. Sport is also meant to capture the human spirit. That’s why, the argument goes, if doping were legal it would still be cheating, because sport would no longer be testing those fundamental human virtues and capacities, but would merely showcase the wonders of the modern pharmaceutical industry (or your other favourite supplier of dope).
Yet doping is not always contrary to these values. Consider the following four scenarios, the first two involving physiological doping, the third involving technological enhancement and the last, analgesics. They take place in an imagined world where there are no banned substances or procedures, and only one rule applies: you must not contravene the spirit of sport.
Ben is a 100-metre sprinter. He wishes to use steroids. These will enable him to recover more quickly from the muscle damage that intense exertion in training inevitably causes, so he will be able to push himself still further without injury. Steroids are of no use during competition, because their effects are slow to manifest, but they will enable him to train harder and longer before competition.
Lance is a cyclist who wishes to use ‘blood doping’ during a three-week cycle race. With 10 hours in the saddle a day, his blood-cell count will drop naturally from extreme exertion. A blood transfusion of his own blood (donated months before) will enable him to carry more oxygen and have greater endurance, counterbalancing the extreme toll of the race on his body.
Hank is an Iraq war veteran. He sustained severe ankle fractures that have not healed perfectly. He can limp only short distances, in pain. He requests bilateral amputations so he can compete using blades in the Paralympics.
David is an international soccer player in the World Cup finals. He suffers from chronic pain, caused by his career in football and the wear and tear that results. He wishes to use strong analgesics and anti-inflammatory drugs to continue through the competition without being hampered by his pain.
All of these cases involve performance enhancement. But which of them undermine the true spirit of sport?
Physiological doping agents used today enhance natural processes and capacities, and can be safely administered, under proper supervision. For example, steroids and EPO harness natural physiological processes. They don’t substantially change what people are capable of doing but simply optimise their physiology to achieve it. Nor do they transfer responsibility for the outcome to some external agent, such as a drug company. Steroids enable the athlete to train harder, but she still has to train harder to get a result. And she still has to try just as hard on the day to win. In short, the human element is as prominent as it is in ‘clean’ sport. Ben Johnson, Carl Lewis, Yohan Blake and other 100-metre champions are not real-life Popeyes: the pill does not create the muscle itself. These athletes have trained as hard, if not harder, than any athlete before them.
The US cyclist Tyler Hamilton, who in 2011 confessed to doping, achieved second place in one stage of the 2002 Giro d’Italia with a broken shoulder, coping with the pain by grinding his teeth. His reward was caps on 11 of those teeth. When he switched to blood doping, he noticed a remarkable phenomenon. His body felt the same screaming pain and exhaustion that marked the end of his physical reserves. But when he pushed on, he found he had more to give. His increased hematocrit (red blood cell count) was no easy ride. It simply gave him the ability to physically achieve more miles by continuing at the very edge of what he could mentally endure. That takes a courage and commitment that very few have.
Humans are not racehorses: they are their own masters. Performance enhancement embodies the spirit of humanity
I believe the virtues we want sport to test are not compromised by the kinds of doping Ben and Lance wish to engage in. Like all athletes, they will dedicate their lives to their sport. In fact, sport has always been more than a test of physical excellence. It is also a test of mental capacities. Witness the strategies in a game of tennis, or the ways that soccer players exploit the rules, or the ‘poker-face’ techniques that cyclists use to make opponents believe they feel no pain. Mental virtues such as creativity, determination, calm, ingenuity and cunning are as important as physical attributes.
These attributes are also tested in training and preparation. How to train, for how long, when and, perhaps hardest of all, how to give 100 per cent at each session? The answers have become increasingly sophisticated, with measures of oxygen consumption, blood sampling, computer evaluation, wind chambers and other devices to maximise training. It is impossible to measure today’s greats against yesterday’s, even without doping. Training, nutrition, and equipment design have all been fine-tuned at a cost of millions of dollars. Our physiology is not immune to this tinkering: where once athletes were advised to avoid water as a dead weight, adequate hydration is now understood to be key. Where once they ate whatever food they could digest, today they have dosed 100-calorie gels.
Central to human progress (in life, as in sport) has been our ability to understand the world and ourselves, and modify these for the better. If this is admirable in life, why is doping against the spirit of sport? Doping expresses the spirit of sport. To be human is to be better. Humans are not like racehorses, flogged by the whip of the jockey: they are their own masters. The choice to be better is an expression of that, and so performance enhancement embodies the spirit of humanity.
This brings us to Hank, who prefers technology to partially functioning normal human anatomy. In this case, his choice for elective amputation can be seen as ‘rehumanising’ rather than ‘dehumanising’ – choosing to be a different kind of human. I see no reason why Hank should not be able to compete in what we currently term disabled sport. While the voluntary amputation of functioning limbs is extreme, a rare body integrity disorder has led a handful of people to request such amputations. But consider ‘Tommy John’ surgery, which releases the ulnar collateral ligament in the elbow and replaces it with a tendon: some observers claim it enhances pitching ability.
At present, blades used by amputees such as the South African sprinter Oscar Pistorius are not superior to normal human anatomy. But in time, bionic limbs will outstrip human anatomy in terms of performance. When disabled athletes become the modern cyborgs, ‘running’ the 100 metres might be much more interesting than natural running, but the performances would no longer be substantially human.
Consider now our final doper, David, who wants to use analgesics and anti-inflammatory drugs. I’d argue that this is against the spirit of sport: it’s ‘mental doping’ and, as such, it undermines our humanity.
mental doping undermines courage, determination and ‘toughness’– our very nature as human agents – and should be banned
What is mental doping? Mike Tyson, the US heavyweight boxer, revealed in his autobiography Undisputed Truth (2013) that he took cocaine prior to many of his fights because he was addicted to the substance. But cocaine can help to master fear and pain, and those are precisely the emotions that a champion boxer must conquer, as well as being fast and strong. If mental doping is the use of substances to change our willpower, desires, and perception of pain, then using cocaine counts as mental doping.
There are many other forms of mental doping. An essential test of archery, shooting or snooker is the ability to control one’s nerves. Propranolol, widely used by classical musicians to improve performance, reduces anxiety and tremor. Stimulants such as modafinil (a wakefulness and attention promoter) has recently been used in sports such as running, shot put and baseball, and stimulants similar to amphetamines have long been used in baseball, cycling and other sports. These are all forms of mental doping. Since they undermine the need for courage, determination and ‘toughness’, our very nature as human agents, they should be banned.
Analgesics, anti-inflammatory drugs and local anaesthetics are ubiquitous in rugby and American football, and are used during competition to enable athletes to continue to perform, and perform better. This is dangerous: athletes get worse injuries than they would have if they’d played with the pain. These drugs are also addictive. The US National Football League is currently being sued by more than 500 ex-players over the use of such painkillers, which has left many addicted, and others suffering side effects from the drugs, or from playing through serious injuries.
Because analgesics and anti-inflammatory drugs are not naturally occurring in the body, it is technically easier to pick up the use of such exogenous agents in blood or urine tests. So if doping bans were narrowed to focus exclusively on non-physiological agents and practices, they’d be easier to enforce.
But what about performance-enhancement technology? Already, such technology is challenging our existing ethical frameworks. In transcranial electrical stimulation (TES), a light electrical current is placed over specific areas of the brain via a portable stimulator. It has been used to improve learning, including numeracy, but can also be used to enhance motor skills, co-ordination and other qualities necessary in sport. Should TES-assisted training be banned? One argument is that it merely enhances normal learning: as an analogue of good diet or sleep, it is not dehumanising. But if TES were used to change mental attributes, such as determination or pain tolerance, it could be classified as ‘mental doping’.
The US military has a vigorous programme of mental and physical enhancement. It is already developing technologies that enable soldiers to process cues from the periphery of their visual field, which we are normally aware of only subconsciously. This kind of technology could be used to enhance performance in games such as soccer or rugby. Soldiers will likely be the first cyborgs. But military technology has a way of spilling over to civilian use, as the internet has done. What to do when undetectable agents alter our basic psychology is an ethical question, both for sport and for life in general. It forces us to ask: what kind of people should we be?
caffeine is now off the banned list, partly because nearly everyone is normally ‘caffeinated’
In fact, we already face such questions. When stimulants were banned from baseball, there followed an explosion of ADHD diagnoses among baseball players and therapeutic-use exemptions for the use of cognitive performance-enhancing substances such as methylphenidate (Ritalin), usually used for children who cannot concentrate and focus. I’ve argued that such mental doping is against the spirit of sport. However, if such use becomes ubiquitous and safe, part of the fabric of society, it might not matter in the same way. This is what happened to caffeine. It was initially banned as a performance enhancer. It is now off the banned list, partly because it is safe enough but also because nearly everyone is normally ‘caffeinated’.
As science affords us ever more possibilities for human enhancement, we need to evolve our ethical frameworks rationally. If we value reason, creativity and ingenuity, this argues in favour of some forms of doping that express the human drive to be better. If physiological doping were legalised, for example, it would allow the supervised use of steroids, growth hormone and blood doping, within physiological limits.
But doping that departs from optimising normal physiology, especially that which pushes us into different realms of existence, is another matter. Paradoxically, it is mental enhancement that poses the biggest threat to sport, not physical enhancement, which either does not undermine sport or is readily detected. And if we did one day permit ‘rehumanising’ practices in sport – such as the use of bionic legs – the future might not be one of able-bodied and disabled Olympics, but of the human and superhuman Olympics.
Syndicate this Essay
BioethicsHuman EnhancementSports & GamesAll topics →
is the Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics at the University of Oxford. His latest book is Unfit for the Future: The Need for Moral Enhancement (2012), co-authored with Ingmar Persson.
Athletes and Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports
- :: 10 Works Cited
- Length: 4514 words (12.9 double-spaced pages)
- Rating: Excellent
Abstract: Since the beginning of sports competition, athletes have always looked for some kind of an edge over their competitors. They will do whatever it takes to be one of the elite and that includes injecting supplements into their bodies to make them bigger, stronger, and faster. Steroid use is probably one of the most common drug misuses in sports competition. Athletes found that with anabolic steroids one could become a better athlete twice as fast. Not until 1975 was the drug first banned from Olympic competition because of the health risks it produced. Shortly thereafter, the rest of the sports world did not allow anabolic steroids as well. With the use of steroids no longer permitted athletes began to look for other alternatives. On the rise is two substances called creatine and androstenedione, both of which are sold over the counter. These two performance enhancers have only had minimal testing done on them, excluding the long-term effects, simply because they haven't been around long enough. Creatine and androstenedione have been said to produce results like steroids without the side effects. The truth is they do produce side effects and irregular muscle growth. By banning the use of performance enhancing drugs, just like steroids, sports competition will have a much healthier and fairer environment to participate in.
Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports
The use of steroids and performance enhancing drugs is a common trend that is currently fascinating athletes all over the world. Athletes who are using these drugs are damaging the sport and harming their bodies at the same time. Seeking a greater athletic physique and ability, athletes turned to the use of steroids. Once the dangers and possible health risks arose, athletes then turned to performance enhancers. Two specific supplements have taken the sports world by storm and now are being used by athletes of all ages. They are androstenedione and creatine. It took years until people began to understand how dangerous steroids really were. These performance enhancers, like androstenedione and creatine are going to produce the same results.
The use of performance enhancing supplements has long played a role in athletics, especially after the utilization of drug testing was introduced during the 1972 Olympics.
How to Cite this Page
| Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Sports Essay - When people think of sports, people might wonder if the greatest people in sports used performance-enhancing drugs. Steroids build mass and strength and increase tissue to boost endurance (Szumski 11). Athletes use drugs in sports to build mass and strengthen a person’s bones, increase oxygen intake, work tissues, help pain, stimulate a persons body, reduce a person weight, and to hide the fact that a person is using other drugs (Szumski 12). Things that are considered steroids or an illegal body building drugs are, Anabolic Steroids, Beta-2 agonists, human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) , luteinizing hormone (LH), Human Growth Hormone (HGH), Insulin-like growth factors, and insulin (Szumski... [tags: steroids, endurance, anti-doping agency]|
:: 6 Works Cited
|Sports and Performance Enhancing Drugs Essay - ... Some of the biggest sports (in order) that use sports enhancing drugs are 1. Baseball, 2. Track, 3. Football. Speed is another big drug in sport due to my research. It’s ability to keep you motivated and more hype is causing players in the professional leagues to use it. When you use speed you just become more skits and on the go, so it would allow you an advantage on the other people you are currently playing. Again Football, Track, and Baseball are the most common sports who use a performance enhancement drug.... [tags: athletes, baseball, football, steroids, drugs]||1224 words|
|The Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports Essay example - ... This is a valid argument, but the risks that come with the use of performance enhancing drugs are unnecessary and avoidable, whereas the risks in playing sports cannot be evaded but can surely be minimized, for example wearing protective and specialized gear while practicing a certain sport.1 Some would argue that the use of performance enhancing drugs should be legalized but has to be regulated and used properly and safely under medical supervision, this indeed would minimize the risks involved in the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports and it would potentially increase the performance level of an athlete or a sportsperson, but this however does apply pressure to those athlete... [tags: athtletes, caffeine, steroids]||1105 words|
| Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Sports Essay - Performance-Enhancing Drugs in Sports In all areas of sports, professional, college, and even high school, there is widespread illegal use of performance-enhancing drugs. Although there are many reasons for athletes to choose to use these drugs, the cost of such use, both to the athlete and to society can be extraordinarily high. It is important to understand why performance-enhancing drugs are used and what are the consequences of their use to the athlete and society. One of the reason athletes choose to use performance-enhancing drugs is to bulk up.... [tags: Sports Steroids Drugs Essays]|
:: 3 Works Cited
|Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports Essay - Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports Performance Enhancing Drugs are a big temptation in any athlete's life. Are performance enhancers as bad as they are made out to be. Melissa Winkller, and author of the Vegetarian Times in New York states, "Sport supplements are at best a waste of time." Agree or not, the history and facts of performance enhancers will tell you what these drugs can do to your body; the good, the bad and the ugly. Ant decision a person makes that warrants putting a substance into their bodies can destroy not only your reputation, but your life as well.... [tags: Illegal Drugs Steroids]||1402 words|
|Essay about Performance Enhancing Drugs In Sports - Performance enhancing drugs should be eliminated from all sports because they create an unfair competitive advantage. I am against the use of Performance Enhancing Drugs in sports because it is a worldwide problem that takes the integrity out of the game. There are so many people involved from trainers, players and coaches. In the past athletes played for love of the game, today however, the players have so much more at stake then just being able to play the game because they love it. Athletes will use any means necessary to get performance enhancing drugs(PED).... [tags: Steroids Drugs, argumentative, athletics]||1571 words|
| Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports Essay - Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports When involved in sports, you have to be competitive. You need to win more than anybody else. However, athletes are taking winning to the extreme. As the use of performance enhancing drugs is becoming more popular amongst athletes, many of them do not understand the risks involved in taking these drugs. Many people are looking for a quick way to build muscles, or to get stronger the fastest way possible. Using these performance aids may very well be a quick fix for many athletes, but taking the drugs is unethical and dangerous.... [tags: Steroids Drugs Sport Athletes Essays]|
:: 6 Works Cited
|performance enhancing drugs in sports Essay - Performance Enhancing Drugs: Introduction The Tour de France is considered the world’s most competitive bicycle race. Each summer top cycling teams from around the world compete in the three-week event, which sends riders on a grueling, multi-stage course through the mountainous countryside of Ireland, France, and Belgium. In 1998, the image of Tour de France cyclists as athletes at the peak of their natural abilities was tarnished by allegations of widespread performanceenhancing drug use among competitors.... [tags: essays research papers]||1930 words|
| The Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports Essay - The Use of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports Is the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports dangerous. To what degree do these drugs really enhance strength, size, training ability, and muscular performance. Not only are the answers to these questions still unclear, they are the subjects of deep controversy. In order to understand why we are confronted with the problem of performance-enhancing drug use in athletics today, we must look at the history of the development of anabolic steroids: a group of powerful synthetic chemical compounds that resemble the natural male sex hormones (Schwarzenneger 722).... [tags: Papers Steroids Athletics Essays]|
:: 4 Works Cited
| Athletes and Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports Essays - Abstract: Since the beginning of sports competition, athletes have always looked for some kind of an edge over their competitors. They will do whatever it takes to be one of the elite and that includes injecting supplements into their bodies to make them bigger, stronger, and faster. Steroid use is probably one of the most common drug misuses in sports competition. Athletes found that with anabolic steroids one could become a better athlete twice as fast. Not until 1975 was the drug first banned from Olympic competition because of the health risks it produced. Shortly thereafter, the rest of the sports world did not allow anabolic steroids as well. With the use of steroids... [tags: Argumentative Persuasive Essays]|
:: 10 Works Cited
Drugs In Sports Performance Enhancing Drugs Athletes Health Risks Androstenedione Anabolic Steroids
Athletes will always be looking for an advantage or something that will give them an edge on competition without being sanctioned. One author contends, "What is suprising is that 25 years after the introduction of supposedly rigorous drug testing of Olympic athletes, the use of banned performance-enhancing substances has apparently become more widespread, and effective, than ever" (Bamberger, Yaeger). The majority of high school athletes I have been around believe without the use of performance enhancing supplements they cannot keep up with competition. This can be easily linked to the popularity of performance enhancers being used by professional athletes and the highly competitive atmosphere of high school athletics.
As the rewards become greater, athletes continually look for ways to improve their chances of becoming champions. A majority of them have turned to drugs, believing that drugs will give them the edge on their opponents. Drugs are supposed to be given to people who are ill. Taking them to better one's athletic performance is dangerous, sometimes deadly, and considered by most to be cheating. Drug misuse in sports competition is not only unfair but it jeopardizes the name of the sport. This is why the use of steroids and performance enhancing drugs must be banned starting at the high school to professional levels of play in preventing unfair advantages and harm to the bodies of the athletes who use them.
Athletes see producing more muscle mass as being better, this is why athletes start using steroids. Steroids, sometimes called "juice", "gear", or "roids" are probably the best-known drugs of abuse in sports competition. Anabolic steroids were first developed during World War II for medical purposes, not to alter the physique and ability of athletes. Anabolic steroids are the derivatives of the male hormone testosterone. Testosterone starts the maturing of the reproductive system in puberty and the anabolic effect helps the body retain protein, which aids in the development of muscles. There are a variety of steroids with differing degrees, but it's the anabolic steroid that attracts the athletes because of the great increase in muscle mass and strength.
Anabolic steroids are manufactured in a pill and liquid form that can be injected into the body. A user will take steroids for a period of time called a cycle, which usually lasts about two months. The individual will either stop taking them or reduce the amount that he or she is taking before starting the next cycle. This is so the body will not become used to the drug. If the athletes knew their clearance time for an oral or injectable drug they could plan the cycle to end with maximum benefit and less risk of detection (MacAuley 211).
The most commonly used form of anabolic steroids is the water-soluble injection. This is because the side effects that came with the oral form were discovered to be harmful to the liver. The fact is any kind of anabolic steroid use is not free of side effects, and a price will be paid with both forms. Both males and females experience serious side effects that makes one gender more like the other.
Men who use the drug actually experience a "feminization" effect with a decrease of sexual function. There are other side effects that men may encounter when taking anabolic steroids; reduced sperm count, impotence, development of breasts, shrinking of the testicles, and difficulty or pain while urinating. On the other hand, women often experience a "masculinization" effect. Which include facial hair growth, deepened voice, breast reduction, and menstrual cycle changes. With extensive use of anabolic steroids both sexes can experience acne, bloated appearance, rapid weight gain, clotting disorders, liver damage, premature heart attacks and strokes, elevated cholesterol levels, and weakened tendons (Rogak 22-25). All of these side effects may range from unsightly to life endangering.
The use of anabolic steroids by adolescents is very disturbing and is increasing. Scientists from Pennsylvania State University conducted one survey in 1988 and they interviewed 3,403 male high school students and found that 6.6 percent of them have used or were using steroids (Lukas 17). At the high school from which I graduated, the use of steroids was popular amongst a large group of kids who were about four years older than me. The student athlete that comes to mind was an all-star football player. I can remember seeing him in the weight room lifting an incredible amount of weight looking like he had no thought of what really was taking place to his body. Anabolic steroids can halt growth prematurely in adolescents, because the drug closes the growth centers in their bones. Once these plates close, they cannot reopen, so the adolescents who choose to use steroids may end up shorter than they should have been.
Not only do anabolic steroids cause physical side effects, they also cause behavioral side effects as well. The user may become hyperactive and unusually irritable. Some athletes take steroids to become more aggressive. This aggression cannot be turned on and off whenever desired and is commonly known as a "roid rage," an uncontrollable fit of anger. Athletes who under go a "roid rage" may hit things or people, brakes things, or even sexually harass females. Aggression can become so bad one author describes, "One steroid-user in Boston, Massachusetts, became uncontrollably angry when another car driver "cut him off" on the street. He got out and smashed the other car's window with a crowbar" (Mohun 34). Out of the group of guys in my high school who were using steroids I can remember two of them having these rages. They would get extremely mad and beat people up for very petty reasons.
Just like any other drug, long term steroid users and steroid abusers may experience the characteristics of addiction. These may include cravings, difficulty stopping steroid use, and withdrawal. When regular steroid users stop taking the drug they experience withdrawal pains, and when they start the use again the pain goes away. The steroid users have difficulty stopping use even though they know the drug is bad for them. Recently I ran into one of those students from my high school and he hasn't changed one bit, he is still very big and has a terrible temper.
There are a number of different reasons why people choose to use anabolic steroids. Most athletes choose to use the drug to help them play their sport better. Others use steroids to either prevent an injury or help them heal from one. Some athletes decide to use steroids to simply improve their appearance and feel better about their bodies.
The risk people take when using anabolic steroids is very high in harming their bodies. People have died from steroid use. Professional football star Lyle Alzado took steroids beginning in 1967 and in 1992 he passed away from brain cancer. Long-term steroid abuse deteriorates our immune system that fights off viruses, bacteria, and the occasional cancer cell. A young body builder at the age of twenty-six died of liver cancer from a variety of anabolic steroids. There have also been two other reports of death in the result of kidney cancer because the athletes had reportedly been taking steroids (Mohun 33). If authorities actually enforce the use against steroids we wouldn't have individuals like the ones at my high school. More importantly these individual wouldn't be dying prematurely in their life. With such well known side effects about steroids, more and more athletes are turning to the unfamiliar products of creatine and androstenedione.
Since the first Olympics, athletes have been looking for ways to get an edge on the competition. Dietary supplements have been one strategy, but until recently, primarily hard-core fitness enthusiasts used them. Nowadays athletes of all ages are going to nutritional stores to purchase supplements that are supposed to improve one's athletic performance with out any risk of harming their bodies, or so they think. In today's society athletes are starting to use on muscle enhancing drugs at earlier ages. Coaches and parents are encouraging kids to start using supplements as soon as they reach the high school level of play. There are colleges all around the country whose athletic department will supply these supplements for their athletes and encourage its use. One of the supposedly safest forms of these supplements is creatine.
Creatine was first identified in 1935 but wasn't introduced as a supplement until six years ago (Winters 44). Creatine is a nutrient that is naturally found in the human body, just like steroids. It is an amino acid produced in the liver, kidneys and pancreas. There are three different amino acids that make this supplement up and they are arginine, glycine, and methionine. It can also be acquired in the diet through animal proteins, milk and fish. Creatine helps provide the same energy our muscles need to create movements that are powerful and explosive as steroids do.
"Some studies show creatine supplements do enhance sports performance, but only in activities that require repeated short bursts of high-intensity energy, such as sprints and weight lifting (Environmental Nutrition 7). I don't understand why athletes of any other sports want to take a supplement that is going to bulk them up and most likely slow them down. So why do Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire use this performance-enhancing product? The answer is because Sosa believes that in taking creatine after his games it allows him to keep his weight and strength up (Legal). Mark McGwire takes creatine because he believes it aids him in recovering faster from vigorous daily weightlifting. Another reason is because it is legal unlike steroids and they are bulking up their muscles if they like it or not, just like steroids.
The use of creatine has an increasing appeal among teen athletes because they can increase the size of their physique while trying to improve their performance. High school athletes all over the country are experimenting with creatine. One year they are an average athlete, and the next year they come back as an all-star. Steve Henson of the Los Angeles Times reported that student athlete David Neill was just an average football player his junior year. In the off season he hit the weight-room very hard and started taking creatine. The following fall he returned forty pounds heavier. By the seasons end David Neill had earned all-star honors and surprisingly a college scholarship to boot.
Creatine is supposed to increase water content in the muscles therefore giving the muscle greater size. David Neill increased his weight forty pounds by putting on water weight along with his newly acquired muscles. To put on that much weight in less than one year, one would think he had taken a large amount of creatine and spent a fortune. There is no question, he did. "Teenage athletes have spurred creatine's sales, which have nearly quadrupled in two years to an estimated $180 million, according to the Nutrition Business Journal" (Henson), each athlete is spending around twenty to forty dollars a month on their supplies. Not only does this prevent an unfair advantage to the athletes who don't use creatine, but it is now unfair to the once competitive athletes who cannot afford to spend the money on supplements. This is a great example how creatine presents unfair advantages to the athletes who choose not to use the drug. If the use of this legal steroid were banned before David Neill had used it, he wouldn't have had the chance to take the potential scholarship of perhaps somebody more deserving.
Adolescents figure that, instead of risking their life with the dangerous and illegal use of steroids, they can receive the same results from supplementing creatine into their diet. Creatine is still under debate about whether or not it is completely safe. One thing is for sure, the long term side effects are unknown. As one author confirms, "...all of these studies were conducted for a period of no more than one month...they do not specifically measure how individuals respond to creatine use over the course of several months or years" (Sahelian, Tuttle 21). This should frighten a lot of people because athletes could use steroids and not until years later would they experience the harmful side effects. Just for that reason some individuals and Universities will decide against use of the product. If you think about it, these athletes who continue to use creatine basically trust what the manufacturers of the product are telling them and not what certified physicians are saying. Creatine does not sound like an appealing or safe substance for anyone to put into their body.
Still, creatine is widely used amongst the collegian level of competition as well. At the University of Washington, "About 60 percent of the players on the Husky football use creatine during the offseason" (Allen). At this level the football players know about the lack of knowledge that comes with taking creatine. Colleges all over the world are testing creatine and other performance enhancing drugs for harmful side effects. Unfortunately until there are life threatening consequences athletes will continue to use this product.
Although the long-term effects have yet to be found, there has been reported cases of short-term effects that can be related to some creatine users. One researcher states, "Anecdotal reports of muscle cramping, diarrhea and dehydration abound, along with two published cases of kidney dysfunction" (Environmental Nutrion 7). One place creatine is produced is in the kidney's, and adding more of something that the body already produces is more than likely to have a harmful effect. Steroids did the same thing, they attacked portions of the body to which it was derived from.
My friends in high school who were taking this muscle enhancer complained of getting frequent headaches and one friend complained of getting acne on his back. All these side effects are different with each individual who chooses to take creatine and as time goes on people are going to start getting proven life threatening side effects. If the substance were to be banned, all this would be avoided, and people wouldn't have to sit and wait to see what causes people to become ill. If this process of forbiddance doesn't take place, athletes will continue to feel pressure to use the supplement.
Most teenagers begin using creatine because people around them are using the drug. They may see someone in the weight-room that is using it and raising his performance above theirs or see a teammate who is using it and having the same outcome. This person will probably feel left behind and strive to keep pace. From this, some experts believe that athletes will start to feel that they need something artificial to aid them in prospering in competition and this may lead to the use of anabolic steroids or anything that is going to improve ones ability (Henson).
"Studies have shown that roughly a third of individuals trying creatine supplementation appear unable to absorb the extra amounts into their muscles and, as a result, experience no improvements in muscle mass or athletic performance" (Tarlach 56). Most of these individuals are experiencing the side effects without seeing any form of positive result. Most likely they keep pumping the supplements into their body at a greater amount hoping for some kind of a positive outcome and this is where the most danger comes to play. Without knowing what creatine might do to your body in the long run should be frightening enough, but doubling or even tripling the dosage is the most dangerous thing an athlete can do. Athletes will soon get tired of waiting for the benefits and turn to a more improved supplement, which has a greater amount of unknown information. For many of them the answer is androstenedione, which isn't at all any better for the human body.
Androstenedione is a hormone found in animals, plants such as pine pollen, and the adrenal glands and gonads of humans. "Andro," as it is referred to by the athletes who use it, is controversial because the body turns the supplement into the male sex hormone testosterone through enzymes within the liver (Almond). With this newly acquired uplift in testosterone, athletes are now able to train harder, longer, and build muscles at a rapid pace. Basically, androstenedione is a steroid converted by the liver and some experts do consider it to be an anabolic steroid. The drug's ability to raise the level of the male hormone is seen outside of baseball as cheating and potentially dangerous. The International Olympic Committee, National Collegiate Association and the National Football League all find the supplement to be cheating and have banned the use within their sport.
"Don Catlin, director of the Olympic-accredited UCLA drug-testing laboratory, said the molecular structure of androstenedione so closely resembles testosterone that it is difficult to tell them apart" (Almond). If you can put more testosterone into your body's natural ability you are going to see increased muscle mass and overall size that other athletes would dream of producing. Just like how steroids increased one's testosterone, androstenedione ultimately does the same thing but legaly.
This supplement is extremely powerful and if you take enough of androstenedione at one time it can be like pumping strait testosterone into your body. Androstenedione comes in a capsule form and is sold over the counter at nutritional outlets all over the county because it is considered a dietary supplement. Considering the use of andro as dietary supplement is very interesting because it goes into the body and is inactive. Not until the liver aids the drug does it become active and produce tissue just as anabolic steroids do. Andro, just like creatine has not been studied for long but it seems to be a greater harm for the body because it so closely resembles anabolic steroids.
Androstenedione's increase in testosterone offers the powerful benefits similar to those of the supplement creatine. The only difference is that the side effects can be much greater. Having more testosterone that your body normally produces can cause problems that are related to anabolic steroids. Aggression, acne, and hair loss is common with androstenedione. With any sudden increase in muscle mass you can come across shriveling in the testicles or sterility (Winters 44). Just like steroids, over a longer period of time testosterone can cause cancer, heart and liver disease. These are very serious side effects, so it would make sense to ban the use of the supplement. Its not like you can go out and purchase testosterone over the counter, at least not without a triplicate prescription (Legal). So why should you be able to go out and purchase something like andro over the counter?
There have always been dangers associated with drugs that boost your testosterone level. Just because not a lot of research has been done on androstenedione does not makes it safe. The major problem with this is that superstar athletes are taking this supplement and showing tremendous results like Major League Baseball's home-run record holder Mark McGwire. This country has roughly six million students who participate in high school sponsored sports. For many of them, professional athletes like Mark McGwire are a major role model. If he is taking a supplement that has improved his performance, just think of the impact on these younger athletes training habits. One thing for sure about the product is that adolescents should not take androstenedione because very little is known on how it will effect their hormonal balance (Almond). There is no way young athletes are going to stop taking this drug just because people don't know how it is going to effect them. All they know is that Mark McGwire is using it and he is pounding sixty to seventy home runs a year. To them that means it is safe.
Recently Major League Baseball has put the use of androstenedione under review for this very reason. Mark McGwire has taken a lot of flack on his use of the substance. He reported that he stopped his use last June, that is probably because users are supposed to cycle their dosage, just like steroids, and the two month cycle had ended. Some people like to argue that he would not hold baseballs thirty seven year old home run record if he wasn't currently taking androstenedioene. A lot of other people disagree, especially all the high school athletes standing in line at their local nutrional store with a bottle of the unknown substance called androstenedione, hoping on becoming baseballs next hero.
The normal testosterone in teenage boys has gotten them in enough trouble. Just imagine if they started taking something that increases the level of testosterone just because the most powerful hitter in professional baseball did. Not only could we have angry teens that couldn't control their temper, we could have teenage baseball players with stunted growth and abnormally large breasts.
So far there has been no creditable scientific data that suggests androstenedione is a schedule three drug. A schedule three drug is illegal to posses without a prescription (Almond). What Mark McGwire did last season was one of the single greatest feats ever achieved in baseball and it was perfectly legal within baseball's drug policy. He is a true power hitter don't get me wrong. But with the controversy on his record and having a teenage son who also plays baseball maybe he should consider putting down the substance that has allegedly aided him towards the record. He should prove to the rest of the sports world that androstenedione did not effect his performance. McGwire takes andro to build muscle mass and to aid recovery, and as a power hitter this is exactly what he needs to succeed. Another power hitter Andres Galarraga believes, "You have to be careful what you take. It could cause secondary problems with your body" (Legal).
Knowing all this I can't figure out why anyone would risk following the lead of "BigMac," Sammy Sosa, or any other athlete who uses a supplement to supposedly aid his recovery or boost his performance. While some manufacturer's claim that andro works just as good as steroids with out any side effects, others refuse to sell the performance enhancing drug because they don't see it safe. "GNC, a national chain of nutritional outlets, no longer sells the product because of the scarcity of data about its safety..." (Almond). Although some stores refuse to sell this product, there is always going to be something new out there that will find its way around being illegal and probably show better results. This is why the banning of all performance enhancing drugs should be upheld.
The major problem with androstenedione and creatine monohydrate is that they both lack research, so people just assume they are safe. Another problem is they both are considered to be dietary supplements. Because they are labeled as dietary supplements they don't have to meet the Federal Drug Administration's guidelines for safety (Winters 44). This is not the most comforting thing to know when people are supplementing something into their bodies to alter the way it develops.
The only safe way for an athlete to avoid problems of side effects from steroids, creatine, and androstenedione is to not take anything at all. The only way in preventing athletes from doing this is by banning the use of all performance enhancing drugs. By simply telling the athletes that they might die in twenty years from the possible side effects doesn't work. That has already been proven with steroids. If you tell an athlete that they will not be able to play the game that they love, then athletes will stop the use and the harm that they are doing not only to themselves, but to the name of the sport as well.
Almond, Elliot, "Are muscle enhancers fair game?" Seattle Times. August 28, 1998: n.pag. Online. Internet. Available WWW: http://www.seattletimes.com/
Allen, Percy, "Husky notes: Some players use Creatine during offseason training"
Seattle Times. September 25, 1998: n.pag. Online. Internet. Available WWW:
Bamberger, Michael and Don Yaeger, "Over the edge." Sports Illustrated. April 14,
Cable News Network/Sports Illustrated. Legal in baseball. August 22, 1998. Available
"Creatine Use by Athletes Overshadows Potential to Aid Muscle Disorders" Environmental Nutrition. October 1999: p7
Henson, Steve, "Power Powder" The Los Angeles Times. July 29, 1998: n.pg. Online.
Internet. Available WWW: http://www.latimes.com/
Lukas, Scott E., Steroids. Springfield, NJ: Enslow Publishers, Inc., 1994.
MacAuley, Domhnall, "Drugs in Sports." British Medical Journal. July 27, 1996. p211
Mohun, Janet, Drugs, Steroids, and Sports. New York, NY. Franklin Watts, 1988.
Rogak, Lisa A., Steroids: dangerous game. Minneapolis, Lerner Publications Company, 1992.
Sahelian, Ray, and Tuttle, Dave, Creatine: Nature's Muscle Builder. Garden City Park, New York, Avery Publishing Group, 1997.
Tarlach, Gemma M., "Creatine controversy: misleading coverage taints dietry Supplement." Drug Topics. February 2, 1998. p56.
Winters, John, "Bottled Beefcake." Playboy, January 1999. p44.