Philosophy Now Forum

Darrin Belousek considers different ethical perspectives on drugs in sport.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/102/Pro ... cing_Drugs

Philosophy Now wrote:Darrin Belousek considers different ethical perspectives on drugs in sport.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/102/Pro ... cing_Drugs

Most so-called 'performance-enhancing drugs' are not taken to 'enhance performance' but to heal quicker. Major sports are extremely tough even on a 25-year-old body. I say let them use them!

http://youtu.be/d4os7Wa8gtM

The sport which, more than any other, has been troubled by drugs and the ethical dilemmas they present has been professional cycling. Drug use of one kind or another was endemic in the sport for much of its history, but it was the prevalence in the nineties and noughties of EPO and other means of 'blood doping', i.e. artificially boosting levels of oxygen in the blood, which really caused problems.

In the early days before the authorities suspended those with suspiciously thick blood, there was the risk of heart attacks. Competitors were effectively no longer human, but a new type of being capable of flying up mountains like they were rolling along the flat. It was their doctors who should have been on the podium. Even team members with no personal ambition had to dope just to keep the pace - and their jobs. Their Kantian sense of autonomy was undoubtedly compromised - to pick up on one of those 'Kantian Objections' in the article. It wasn't until the introduction of 'biological passports' in 2008 that some credibility was restored to the sport.

Combating doping is often done in the name of fairness, but I would say - other than the dangers to health - the biggest problem with drugs in sport is the way they compromise sport's essential unfairness. Sport is a rigorous test of, a celebration of, natural ability - and there is nothing fair about that. Significantly, the top two finishers in last year's Tour de France were both born and raised at high altitude. Such is the way to have naturally oxygen-rich blood. Nothing fair about it - but it is what makes them exceptional individuals, along with other natural attributes and a lot of hard work, dedication and the practical and moral support from those around them.

Dunce wrote:The sport which, more than any other, has been troubled by drugs and the ethical dilemmas they present has been professional cycling. Drug use of one kind or another was endemic in the sport for much of its history, but it was the prevalence in the nineties and noughties of EPO and other means of 'blood doping', i.e. artificially boosting levels of oxygen in the blood, which really caused problems.

In the early days before the authorities suspended those with suspiciously thick blood, there was the risk of heart attacks. Competitors were effectively no longer human, but a new type of being capable of flying up mountains like they were rolling along the flat. It was their doctors who should have been on the podium. Even team members with no personal ambition had to dope just to keep the pace - and their jobs. Their Kantian sense of autonomy was undoubtedly compromised - to pick up on one of those 'Kantian Objections' in the article. It wasn't until the introduction of 'biological passports' in 2008 that some credibility was restored to the sport.

Combating doping is often done in the name of fairness, but I would say - other than the dangers to health - the biggest problem with drugs in sport is the way they compromise sport's essential unfairness. Sport is a rigorous test of, a celebration of, natural ability - and there is nothing fair about that. Significantly, the top two finishers in last year's Tour de France were both born and raised at high altitude. Such is the way to have naturally oxygen-rich blood. Nothing fair about it - but it is what makes them exceptional individuals, along with other natural attributes and a lot of hard work, dedication and the practical and moral support from those around them.

anyone who believes that a biker could win seven tours de france principally because of PED is deluded.

Melchior wrote:anyone who believes that a biker could win seven tours de france principally because of PED is deluded.

We don't know just how much of a factor they were in the era to which you refer. They were pretty blatantly decisive in 1996 before the 50% haematocrit limit was brought in.