Anabolic steroids mimic our bodies natural hormones, specifically male sex hormones, and have legitimate medical uses to treat anemia, asthma, bone pain from osteoporosis, muscle loss, and postmenopausal symptoms, among other ailments. Athletes use the drugs illicitly to achieve endurance increases, fat loss, muscle recovery increases, and muscular size and strength increases. However, the drugs carry serious side effects including but not limited to: abnormal menstrual cycles, aggressiveness, brain tissue damage, depression, hypertension, impotence, liver dysfunction, mania, and testicular shrinkage or atrophy
PRO
Proponents of allowing athletes to use anabolic steroids argue that athletes are going to dope regardless of the rules so steroids should be allowed, that allowing steroids could reinvigorate boring or languishing sports, and that athletes using steroids doesn’t lessen, but may increase, the entertainment value.
CON
Opponents of allowing athletes to use anabolic steroids argue that anabolic steroid use is dangerous and can cause serious side effects (including addiction and death), that steroid use is not setting a good example for youth sports, and that sports should encourage clean play for the fairness and spirit of the game.
Read More about This Debate:
Should Anabolic Steroid Use Be Accepted in Sports?
Sources:
Maryville University, “Understanding and Preventing Steroid Abuse in Sports,” online.maryville.edu, Apr. 14, 2021
ProCon.org, “Banned Performance Enhancing Substances & Methods,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, Apr. 9, 2021
ProCon.org, “Should Anabolic Steroid Use Be Accepted in Sports?,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, May 10, 2021
2. Blood-Doping and Erythropoietin (EPO)
Blood-doping refers to any method, including using the enhancement drug erythropoietin (EPO), to increase red blood cells. EPO can be used medically to treat anemia, among other applications. Athletes use blood-doping illicitly to increase endurance and reduce fatigue. However, blood-doping has been found to “thicken” blood, increasing the chances of hypertension, blood clots, stroke, and heart attacks.
PRO
Proponents of allowing athletes to blood-dope argue that blood-doping is already so prevalent that banning it now would lessen the sport, that the methods are safe for athletes, and that the same effects can be achieved by working out at high altitudes.
CON
Opponents of allowing athletes to blood-dope argue that blood doping is dangerous and can lead to athletes’ deaths, that normalizing blood-doping is asking athletes to risk their lives to play a sport, and sport doesn’t need more athletes that break the rules.
Read More about This Debate:
Should Blood Doping and Erythropoietin (EPO) Use Be Accepted in Sports?
Sources:
ProCon.org, “Banned Performance Enhancing Substances & Methods,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, Apr. 9, 2021
ProCon.org, “Should Doping and Erythropoietin (EPO) Use Be Accepted in Sports?,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, May 10, 2021
Elizabeth Quinn, “Erythropoietin (EPO) and Blood Doping in Sports,” verywellfit.com, Mar. 26, 2020
Stimulants are drugs that speed up parts of the body and brain, directly affect the central nervous system, and increase heart rate, blood pressure, metabolism, and body temperature. Medical uses include the treatment of allergies, asthma, ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), common colds, headaches, and nasal congestion. Athletes use the drugs illicitly to increase alertness, competitiveness, responsiveness, and weight loss. However, side-effects of the drugs include addiction, aggression, anxiety, hypertension, brain hemorrhage, coma, convulsions, dehydration, heart attacks, insomnia, stroke, tremors, and even death.
PRO
Proponents of allowing athletes to use stimulants argue that Air Force pilots, long haul truckers, and others use stimulants without stigma, and that their use does not lessen the integrity of the game.
CON
Opponents of allowing athletes to use stimulants argue stimulants are dangerous, can result in death, and do nothing to promote the health of the athlete, and that the cultural acceptance of stimulant use should change.
Read More about This Debate:
Should Stimulants Use Be Accepted in Sports?
Sources:
Australian Academy of Science “Stimulants in Sport,” science.org.au (accessed on Apr. 19, 2021)
ProCon.org, “Banned Performance Enhancing Substances & Methods,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, Apr. 9, 2021
ProCon.org, “Should Stimulants Use Be Accepted in Sports?,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, May 10, 2021
Human growth hormone (HGH) is naturally produced by humans to control how the body grows into adulthood. Medical uses for children include growth hormone deficiency, Prader-Willi syndrome, Turner syndrome, idiopathic short stature, and growth deficiency. Medical uses for adults include hormone deficiency, radiation therapy, or trauma. Off-label uses on HGH are illegal and can result in felony convictions in the United States, but athletes use the drug illicitly to improve muscle mass and performance. However, side effects of HGH include joint pain, muscle weakness, diabetes, carpal tunnel syndrome, enlarged heart, and hypertension.
PRO
Proponents of allowing athletes to use HGH argue that HGH can be used safely by athletes to repair injuries and that adult athletes should be able to make their own choices about their bodies.
CON
Opponents of allowing athletes to use HGH argue that any doping is cheating and doping allows a culture of coercion, bribery, unsafe medical practice, and unsportsmanlike conduct.
Read More about This Debate:
Should Human Growth Hormone (HGH) Use Be Accepted in Sports?
Sources:
Mayo Clinic, “Performance-Enhancing Drugs: Know the Risks,” mayoclinic.org, Dec. 4, 2020
ProCon.org, “Banned Performance Enhancing Substances & Methods,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, Apr. 9, 2021
ProCon.org, “Should Human Growth Hormone (HGH) Use Be Accepted in Sports?,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, May 10, 2021
USADA, “Growth Hormone in Sport: What Athletes Should Know,” usada.org, Feb. 13, 2019
Techno-Doping as a technological augmentation that confers an advantage to the athlete, be it a specially designed shoe, a bike motor, or limb protheses that specifically offers an advantage over other athletes in the same competition. While the issue currently revolves around athletes who are otherwise impaired (including Oscar Pistorius who wears “cheetah” prosthetic legs, future iterations of the debate could involved able-bodied athletes who otherwise augment their bodies and athletes who improve their equipment, such as bicycles.
PRO
Proponents of allowing athletes to techo-dope argue that the advancements could push the sports and athletes in interesting ways, and that audiences not only don’t oppose new technology, but will be excited to see sports and athletes play a reinvigorated game.
CON
Opponents of allowing athletes to techno-dope argue that doping is doping and all doping is unfair, that the advancements disadvantage athletes who refuse to dope, and that tech moves sport too far away from the accomplishments of the human body.
Read More about This Debate:
Should Techno-Doping Be Accepted in Sports?
Sources:
ProCon.org, “Should Techno-Doping Be Accepted in Sports?,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, May 10, 2021
Gene-doping is a still-experimental manipulation of cells or genes to improve athletic performance. Gene therapy came about in the 1990s and entered popular culture via “Schwarzenegger mice,” which had been treated for muscle wasting conditions and ended up with twice the normal amount of muscle after gene manipulation. While currently more science fiction than reality, WADA has already banned the practice in athletes. The benefits and drawbacks medically are still hypothetical.
PRO
Proponents of allowing athletes to gene-dope argue that the enhancements could breathe new life into boring sports, could allow more categories of participation, and could be finely tuned to help athletes with specific issues such as muscle twitches.
CON
Opponents of allowing athletes to gene-dope argue that doping is doping and all doping is unfair, and that gene-doping is basically science fiction that has numerous and serious ethical concerns such as parents altering fetuses in vitro to produce super athletes.
Read More about This Debate:
Should Gene-Doping Be Accepted in Sports?
Sources:
Nick Busca, “Should Athletes Be Allowed to Enhance Their Genes?,” onezero.medium.com, Apr. 29, 2019
ProCon.org, “Banned Performance Enhancing Substances & Methods,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, Apr. 9, 2021
ProCon.org, “Should Gene-Doping Be Accepted in Sports?,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, May 10, 2021
Marijuana is frequently banned by sports organizations, yet the drug’s status as performance-enhancing is questioned. Further complicating the issue is that marijuana, as a medical or recreational drug is legal in most US states. Athletes take the drug illicitly to reduce anxiety, pain, and reliance on opioids. Side effects include appetite increase, balance and coordination impairment, concentration loss, drowsiness, motivation loss, panic attacks, and weight gain. If smoked (rather than consumed via edible), side effects can include bronchitis and cancer of the lung, throat, mouth, and tongue.
PRO
Proponents of allowing athletes to consume marijuana argue that the benefits for athletes are well-documented, that the drug is better than opioids, and that the ban is a continuation of an unjust drug war.
CON
Opponents of allowing athletes to consume marijuana argue that all athletes should not play under the influence of any drug, that marijuana is not legal everywhere the players play, and the benefits are questionable.
Read More about This Debate:
Should Marijuana Use Be Accepted in Sports?
Is Marijuana a Performance-Enhancing Drug?
Sources:
ProCon.org, “Banned Performance Enhancing Substances & Methods,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, Apr. 9, 2021
ProCon.org, “Legal Recreational Marijuana States and DC,” marijuana.procon.org, Apr. 12, 2021
ProCon.org, “Should Marijuana Use Be Accepted in Sports?,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, May 10, 2021
Doping was partially criminalized in the United States by the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act of 2019. The Act penalizes participants in international sports (in which at least one American athlete and three athletes from other countries are participants) who engage in a doping scheme. The Act does not penalize athletes who have been caught doping. The Act also does not apply to American sports such as the NFL or NBA.
PRO
Proponents of criminalizing doping argue that doping is generally linked to other crimes such as money laundering and corruption, and clean athletes are being literally robbed of endorsement deals and other financial gains when doped athletes win.
CON
Opponents of criminalizing doping argue that the governing bodies of sports (such as WADA and USADA) should be all the enforcement needed for doping, and criminalization could cause major political and diplomatic rifts between countries.
Read More about This Debate:
Should Doping Be Criminalized?
Sources:
ProCon.org, “Should Doping Be Criminalized?,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, May 10, 2021 US
Congress, “H.R.835 – Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act of 2019,” congress.gov, Mar. 11, 2020
9. Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs)
A therapeutic use exemption (TUE) is a waiver for an athlete to use a banned drug when that drug is medically necessary, such an athlete with ADHD taking Ritalin, which is a banned stimulant.
PRO
Proponents of therapeutic use exemptions argue that athletes need medical attention just like everyone else and the TUE is approved by the governing body, lessening the risk of illegitimate TUEs.
CON
Opponents of therapeutic use exemptions argue that the athletes with TUEs are abusing the system and only taking the drugs to gain an advantage, and that clean play must be the same clean play for everyone.
Read More about This Debate:
Should Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) Be Allowed for Injured or Ill Athletes?
Sources:
ProCon.org, “Should Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) Be Allowed for Injured or Ill Athletes?,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, May 10, 2021
USADA, “Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs),” usada.org, Apr. 26, 2021
As of May 12, 2021, no baseball player who has been publicly accused of using PEDs has been allowed entry into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. The debate over whether to allow such players into the Hall of Fame has raged since the “Steroid Era” of baseball, from the late 1980s through the late 2000s, when a number of players were caught and accused of using steroids.
PRO
Proponents of allowing players accused of steroid use into the hall of fame argue that it’s impossible to determine who used and who did not use steroids, that even with steroid use the players being excluded are some of the greatest to ever play the game, and the morality argument is hollow when known abusers and other law-breakers are in the hall of fame.
CON
Opponents of allowing players accused of steroid use into the hall of fame argue that cheaters should not be honored with the sport’s highest award available, the accused players’ statistics are overblown and dishonor the clean players’ performances, and a standard should be set for clean play not only for current players but for generations of baseball players to come.
Read More about This Debate:
Should Baseball Players Who Have Used Banned Substances Be Voted into the Hall of Fame?
Sources:
ProCon.org, “Should Baseball Players Who Have Used Banned Substances Be Voted into the Hall of Fame?,” sportsanddrugs.procon.org, May 10, 2021
