Associate Professor of Law at Temple University Beasley School of Law
Position:
Pro to the question "Should Performance Enhancing Drugs (Such as Steroids) Be Accepted in Sports?"
Reasoning:
"...we should give players something like a 'right to dope,' but 'tax' them through fines for using performance enhancing substances. (Heck, you could make a fine schedule, starting at $5 for Gatorade, $15 for a misting machine on the sidelines; $50 for a cortisone injection before a game; all the way up to $1,000,000 for uppers.) In this way, we’d get an optimal amount of steroid use, as individual players calculate the increased value (to them) of increased performance, when taking into account the fine.
Fines should be increased as the probability of detection decreases. Since well-publicized detection regimes seem to increase fan happiness and thus player earning potential, a naïve analysis would suggest that we have a relatively low fine schedule coupled with very tough enforcement. Thus, the NFL is efficient and the MLB is not. Not surprising: the NFL is a well-run business; the MLB is still relying on its eyes.
As I said, a naïve analysis. The problem is that we assumed that the criminalization of steroid use (or, more appropriately, its regulation by our quasi-governmental licensing entity, the league) is efficient."
"The Law and Economics of the Doping Scandals," ConcurringOpinions.com, Aug. 23, 2007
Experts Individuals with MDs, JDs, PhDs, or equivalent advanced degrees in fields relevant to performance enhancing drugs and sports. Also top-level government officials (such as foreign leaders, US presidents, Founding Fathers, Supreme Court Justices, members of legislative bodies, cabinet members, military leaders, etc.) with positions relevant to performance enhancing drugs and sports.
Involvement and Affiliations:
Associate Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law, 2007-present
Assistant Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law, 2004-2007
Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments
