The Shady Persecution of Doping: Performance Enhancement Drugs and Meaning in Sport

This project deals with the debate around performance enhancement drugs, utilizing a philosophical approach to meaning in sport to shed light on the topic

The summer in sports

It is my position that Rafael Palmeiro became the King of Performance Enhancement Drugs when he first appeared in a Viagra commercial. Nothing has happened in the past few days to change that view

ETIKA DOPINGA: IZMEĐU PATERNALIZMA I DUŽNOSTI

The most plausible line of anti-doping argumentation starts with the fact that performance enhancing substances are harmful and put at considerable risk the health and the life of those who indulge in the overwhelming promises these substances hold. From a liberal point of view, however, this is not a strong reason neither to morally reject doping altogether, nor to put a blanket ban on it; on the contrary, allowing adult, competent and informed athletes to have access to performance enhancement drugs is often showcased as a liberty-related right of noninterference. In this article I will first discuss doping from the liberal point of view, especially in the light of the harm principle as it was introduced by Mill and elaborated by his successors, most notably by Joel Feinberg. Then I will examine whether – and to what degree – one’s decision to receive performance enhancement drugs would mean to use humanity in one’s own person only as a means, which would be self-defeating in the light of Kantian ethics. From this I will move one step backwards to what I consider as the core question concerning the ethics of doping, the one that is logically prior to any other in my view, and concerns the consistency of the thesis that doping may be compatible with sport. I will argue that there is an inherent logical antinomy between doing sport and using performance enhancement drugs, one that presents any argumentation in favor of doping as essentially self-contradictory.Najuvjerljivija linija anti-doping argumentacije počinje činjenicom da su tvari za poboljšanje performansi štetne i da predstavljaju značajan rizik za zdravlje i život onih koji se upuštaju u prevladavajuća obećanja koja ove tvari sadrže. S liberalnog stajališta, međutim, to nije jak razlog niti da moralno odbacimo doping u potpunosti, niti da ga zabranimo; naprotiv, omogućavanje odraslim, kompetentnim i informiranim sportašima pristup lijekovima za poboljšanje performansi često se smatra oglednim primjerom prava povezanim sa slobodom nemiješanja. U ovom ću članku najprije raspraviti o dopingu s liberalnog stajališta, posebno u svjetlu načela štete jer ga je Mill uveo i razradio njegov nasljednik, ponajviše Joel Feinberg. Zatim ću ispitati hoće li - i u kojoj mjeri - nečija odluka o primanju lijekova za poboljšanje performansi značiti korištenje ljudskosti u vlastitoj osobi samo kao sredstvo, koje bi bilo samopobijajuće u svjetlu kantovske etike. Od ovoga ću napraviti korak unatrag do onoga što smatram temeljnim pitanjem etike dopinga, onim koje je po mom mišljenju logično prije bilo kojeg drugog, a tiče se dosljednosti teze da doping može biti kompatibilan sa sportom. Ustvrdit ću da postoji inherentna logička antinomija između bavljenja sportom i korištenja lijekova za poboljšanje performansi, koja predstavlja bilo kakvu argumentaciju u korist dopinga kao suštinski samo-kontradiktorne

The Ethics of Doping: Between Paternalism and Duty

The most plausible line of anti-doping argumentation starts with the fact that performance enhancing substances are harmful and put at considerable risk the health and the life of those who indulge in the overwhelming promises these substances hold. From a liberal point of view, however, this is not a strong reason neither to morally reject doping altogether, nor to put a blanket ban on it; on the contrary, allowing adult, competent and informed athletes to have access to performance enhancement drugs is often showcased as a liberty-related right of noninterference. In this article I will first discuss doping from the liberal point of view, especially in the light of the harm principle as it was introduced by Mill and elaborated by his successors, most notably by Joel Feinberg. Then I will examine whether – and to what degree – one’s decision to receive performance enhancement drugs would mean to use humanity in one’s own person only as a means, which would be self-defeating in the light of Kantian ethics. From this I will move one step backwards to what I consider as the core question concerning the ethics of doping, the one that is logically prior to any other in my view, and concerns the consistency of the thesis that doping may be compatible with sport. I will argue that there is an inherent logical antinomy between doing sport and using performance enhancement drugs, one that presents any argumentation in favor of doping as essentially self-contradictory

Perceptions of banned drugs in athletics in relation to sport participation, gender, and socioeconomic status

The purpose of this study was to examine college athletes\u27 perceptions regarding illegal drugs in sport related to sport (team/individual), gender, and socioeconomic status. It was hypothesized that male, team sport, and higher socioeconomic athletes would view drug use in sport as more appropriate. A demographic data sheet and King Drug Doping in Sport Questionnaire (KDSQ) (King, 1991) was administered to 93 athletes in CHAMPS/Life Skills classes at an Eastern Division I institution. To scale reliability and construct validity, Cronbach\u27s alpha coefficients were obtained and a principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation was run. Findings revealed weak Cronbach alpha coefficients, and discrepancies related to factor loading. Two 2 x 2 MANOVAs (gender/sport and socioeconomic status/sport) were computed. Findings revealed no statistically significant differences in perceptions in relation to sport, gender, and socioeconomic status. The findings are discussed in relation to the existent literature on the perceptions of drug use in sport

On the distribution of career longevity and the evolution of home run prowess in professional baseball

Statistical analysis is a major aspect of baseball, from player averages to historical benchmarks and records. Much of baseball fanfare is based around players exceeding the norm, some in a single game and others over a long career. Career statistics serve as a metric for classifying players and establishing their historical legacy. However, the concept of records and benchmarks assumes that the level of competition in baseball is stationary in time. Here we show that power-law probability density functions, a hallmark of many complex systems that are driven by competition, govern career longevity in baseball. We also find similar power laws in the density functions of all major performance metrics for pitchers and batters. The use of performance-enhancing drugs has a dark history, emerging as a problem for both amateur and professional sports. We find statistical evidence consistent with performance-enhancing drugs in the analysis of home runs hit by players in the last 25 years. This is corroborated by the findings of the Mitchell Report [1], a two-year investigation into the use of illegal steroids in major league baseball, which recently revealed that over 5 percent of major league baseball players tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in an anonymous 2003 survey.Comment: 5 pages, 5 figures, 2-column revtex4 format. Revision has change of title, a figure added, and minor changes in response to referee comment

NCAA Drug Testing: Finding a Constitutional Balance

This was reprinted, with permission, from the Spring 1986 issue of the Sports Lawyers Newsletter. The paper reviewed court cases about drug testing of students and whether or not the NCAA had a right to drug test athletes under the purview of the U.S. Constitution and based on legal precedents

Competition, Gender Equality, and Doping in Sports in the Red Queen Effect Perspective

The nature of sports is characterized by a strong competitive component that generates inequalities among athletes at different levels, specifically in relation to gender, technology, and doping. These inequalities can be represented according to the Red Queen effect perspective, which has been previously hypothesized in other competitive environments (evolutionary biology and economics, for instance). The Red Queen effect considers each competitive environment to require a constant effort to maintain a position of competitive advantage in order reach the best result possible. Therefore, the aim of the current paper is to provide an innovative perspective for the understanding of competition in sports, identifying factors (i.e., physical appearance for gender equality, socioeconomic status of a sport team for technology, and antidoping rules for doping) influencing athletes’ possibilities to win a competition. Concerning gender differences, the disparity between genders reflects a lower coverage in sports news, and media are more likely to focus on female athletes’ physical appearance than their performance in sports. Therefore, women struggle more with increasing their visibility and in affirming their status as an athlete. On the other hand, the introduction of science and technological innovations in sports has generated economic interests in sport competitions, which reached superior performance levels compared to the past. Teams that cannot afford financial burdens of technological innovation risk being left out from sport competitions. Finally, doping creates a Red Queen environment since antidoping rules catch a small portion of athletes using performance enhancement drugs

Spartan Daily, October 11, 2007

Volume 129, Issue 26https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/10398/thumbnail.jp

Doping prevention: Exploring coaches’ experiences and opinions of their role.

Objectives: To explore coaches’ perceived roles in doping prevention and investigate their previous experiences of working with athletes on doping related matters. Design: A cross-sectional online survey design was adopted. Methods: UK-based coaches (n=28) from various sports and coaching domains completed a self-devised web-based questionnaire. This consisted of thirty-eight questions divided into four sections (Demographics, Awareness, Experiences and Opinions). Data was analysed via non-parametric tests where applicable. Results: Almost half of the coaches (n=12, 43%) had never been approached by their athletes to discuss doping-related topics. Yet, 86% of coaches felt that they had to encourage an anti-doping viewpoint. Coaches working in the performance development domain were approached more often than those in participation domains. Coaches reported that athletes approach them because they value their opinions, believe they are knowledgeable and will tell them what to do (i.e. make the decision for them). Coaches also reported that athletes might not approach them because they gain support from elsewhere. When approached (n=16), nutritional supplements (n=15, 94%) and prohibited substances/methods (n=14, 88%) were most commonly discussed. Conclusions: Findings indicated that coaches are a source of anti-doping information or advice for athletes. When approached, there was a diverse exchange between the coach and athletes regarding the use of licit and illicit means of performance enhancement. Although coaches within the performance development domain were most commonly approached, coaches from other domains acknowledged that they have a role in doping prevention. Further research should explore coaches’ role expectations, including how anti-doping influences their every-day practice