Global Breaking News - Monday, December 23, 2024

Should Doping Be Allowed?

This week a judo fighter became the first athlete to be expelled from the Olympics for failing an in-competition doping test, in his case, for marijuana. And on Tuesday, it was announced that the defending 50k Olympic race walking champion, Alex Schwazer, was expelled after testing positive for the blood booster erythropoietin, or EPO. Meanwhile, the “unbelievable” times of one swimmer have raised suspicions of doping. But has doping become so common that we shouldn’t even bother with testing, or are the dangers to athletes and fair competition so great that enforcement must continue?
* expel = 축출(제명)하다; 퇴학시키다/ doping test = 금지 약물 검사/ race walking = 경보/ test positive = 양성반응을 보이다/ enforcement = 시행, 집행

 도핑(금지 약물 복용)이 너무 보편화되어 우리는 더 이상 검사도 신경쓰지 말아야 하나요?
아니면 선수와 공정한 경쟁에 너무 큰 위험이라서 도핑 검사는 계속 되어야 하나요?

1. Ban What Is Dangerous, Legalize What Is Not
The distinction we draw between the substances that should be allowed or prohibited says a lot about our own arbitrary assumptions.
 
2. Testing Levels the Playing Field
A victory on the athletic field should be a triumph for the athlete, not the feat of a high-priced chemist working in a laboratory.
 
3. Permit Doping So We Can Monitor It
The ban on caffeine was lifted in 2004. We should allow for more performance enhancing drugs, as long as they are safe.
 
4. Clean Competition Is Safest
We must include athletes in this debate, and educate them about the risks. After all, they are the ones being offered the drugs.
 
5. Overscheduled Pros Could Use a Boost
If properly regulated, human growth hormone could allow athletes to play longer and stronger, which is what today's fans expect.
 
6. Fine the Dirty, Reward the Clean
Instead of focusing on just the cheating athletes, we should do something to reward the clean ones and give athletes an incentive to abstain.

Sample Essay

Permit Doping So We Can Monitor It

The war on drugs in sports is failing and must inevitably fail. Paradoxically, the zero-tolerance approach to doping is ruining sports. We should allow drugs in competitive sports for three reasons.

First, the ban is ruining the mood and spirit of the game. It’s hard to enjoy any sports narrative if we don’t know who is clean and who isn’t.

Second, the ban is actually bad for the health of the athletes. They currently use undetectable substances and methods with no medical supervision or responsibility. How can this be monitored?

Third, the ban is unfair. Honest athletes don’t have access to safe enhancement methods. Cheaters have the competitive advantage.

Throughout human history, athletes have tried to use various substances to improve their performance. Some doping agents have been permitted – like caffeine, which increases time to exhaustion by 10 percent. But this wasn’t always the case. Athletes used to get stripped of their medals when they tested positive for it. It is legal today because it is safe enough.

As evidenced by the lifting of the caffeine ban in 2004, we should relax the drug ban even more, allowing for performance enhancers in adults (not children) if the drugs satisfy three criteria:

1. They should be safe enough. Safety should be judged relative to the risks of the sport, which are considerable. American football can cause quadriplegia. Medical supervised administration of steroids poses nothing like that kind of risk.

2. The drugs taken should be consistent with the spirit of the sport in question. Steroids do not add some magical ability; they simply enhance the effects of hard training and accelerate recovery from injury. However, beta-blockers to reduce tremors would compromise sports that test the athlete’s nerve, like archery and shooting.

3. The intervention should not dominate or dehumanize performance. Robotic limbs would substantially remove the human element to running. But steroids, growth hormone and blood doping mimic natural processes.

We have the science to enhance athletic performance safely. We should use it.