Consuming Drugs in Sports - Essay Example

Drugs in Sports Introduction: The area of human activity that is associated with a dramatic spurt in the quality and quantity of performance enhancing drugs is the arena of sports. The performance levels required to succeed at the highest levels of sport are at the limits of human endeavor and with so much competition and money involved in the success associated with sports, there is the strong temptation to indulge in the use of performance enhancing drugs to gain the required edge and be a part of fame and financial gain that success in sports brings (Savulescu, Faddy, & Clayton, 2004). The issue of performance enhancing drugs in sports has become an issue of concern in society (Stamm, et al, 2008). Society is perplexed, as it is buffeted by several questions on the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports. Some of these questions pertain to ethical issues and individual liberty. Others pertain to the important values in society built over time and the threat that the use of performance enhancing drugs have on these values in society, particularly so when the use of performance enhancing drugs in reality do not advance the good of the sport, or the sports person, or society (Stamm, et al, 2008). In 2003, the World Anti-Doping Agency came out with the Anti-Doping Code, which is the framework for preventing the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports or doping in sports. It is against this backdrop that Savulescu, Faddy, & Clayton, 2004, have presented an article “Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport”, arguing in favor of permitting the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports. This article attempts a response to this article calling for the continuation of the ban on the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports. Background: Prior to proceeding to the response let us evaluate some of the more popular performance enhancing drugs used in the arena of sports and the stand of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) on the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports. Sporting events are of varied kinds and so the demands for enhanced performance are also varied for example the demands for enhanced performance vary from that of a weight lifter to that of a long distance runner. In the weight lifter muscle strength or lifting power is the critical element in determining the performance, while in the long distance essentially it is the staying power or the endurance that is critical to the performance (Scott, et al, 2004). This makes for a variety of performance enhancing drugs that are used in sports. There is however one factor that links all these different performance drugs and that is the fact that all these drugs came into being as therapeutics for the treatment of diseases or conditions to return to normality or as near normality through their use (Wilhelm & Mario, 2007, 636,). Hence the basis of all drugs employed for performance enhancing has a pharmacological basis that has been and continues to be beneficially employed in humankind. This is why the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports also known as doping in sports has been defined as “the administration to sportsmen or sportswomen, or the use by them, of pharmacological classes of doping agents or doping methods” (Definition of doping). Substances and Methods Used in Performance Enhancement: This definition tells us that there are two ways to enhance performance in sports and have been classified separately. List of banned substances: Stimulants Narcotics, both natural and synthetic Anabolic agents Diuretics Peptide and glycoprotein hormones and analogs. List of banned methods: Blood Doping Pharmacological, chemical or physical manipulation. (Doping and Sports). Stimulants that are normally associated with use for performance enhancement include amphetamines, cocaine, and caffeine. The primary purpose of their use is to reduce fatigue during endurance events, improve concentration and increase aggression. The use of stimulants does have adverse side effects that are associated with the central nervous system and cardiovascular system (Lund & Perry, 2000 page number). Testosterone is an older pharmacological agent that has been employed primarily in treating men having androgen deficiency. Anabolic steroids are the synthetic derivates of testosterone with a range of medical applications. However this group of pharmacological agents has been misused through heavy dosages to build muscles to enhance performance in power oriented sports like weight lifting and in body building. A major issue with the misuse of anabolic steroids is the increased risk of premature death arising from several causes like cardiac failure (Handelsman, 2006 page number). The advent of bio-technological approaches has been considered a boon in the treatment of diseases. The benefit of this technology is that it gives the means to produce peptide and protein based hormones that have significantly enhanced the efficiency of treatment regimens in several serious diseases. Some examples of the benefits of peptide and protein based hormones are in the more efficient treatment of anemia, dwarfism, and diabetes through the use of erythropoietin, human growth hormone, and various forms of insulin respectively. These biological approaches are now being misused in the field of sports in the belief that they also enable the means to enhanced performance to provide a cutting edge in competitions (Thevis, Thomas & Schanzer, 2007 page number). Insulin is produced in the body and is essential to glycogen synthesis in the body. The lack of adequate levels of insulin leads to the condition of diabetes and for the treatment of this condition insulin is synthesized. A new and worrying development in the field of sports is the use of insulin as an anabolic agent to increase muscle mass essentially by athletes associated with power sports or body building. The rationale behind this use of insulin is that it promotes the synthesis of glycogen, fatty acids and proteins enabling the entry of glucose and amino acids into the muscle cells and promoting the development of muscle mass. The potential risk with this misuse of insulin is hypoglycemia leading to severe brain damage (Lund & Perry, 2000). Human growth hormone is a polypeptide hormone that is used in the treatment of children that are unable to produce enough human growth hormone on their own. Human growth hormone is used by athletes to enhance their performance as it is believed that human growth hormones can give the benefits of anabolic steroids with less of detection of the misuse, though its effectiveness in enhancing physical performance is still unproven. Sports persons also tend to believe that human growth hormone is less likely to produce side effects as it is a hormone, but misuse of the human growth hormone has been known to cause acromegaly, cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and peripheral neuropathy (Saugy, et al, 2006). Blood doping is used to enhance performance in sports persons and is the practice that involves intravenous infusion of blood to increase the capacity to carry oxygen, which is particularly useful in sports events, where an edge can be gained by enhancing endurance. (Robinson, et al, 2006). Erythropoietin is a hormone that is produced in the human body that increases the production of red blood cells within the body. Recombinant human erythropoietin has been developed and is used in the treatment of anemia and several illnesses. Recombinant human erythropoietin is used to increase the concentration of red blood cells in the body and this practice has gradually replaced blood doping, as it minimizes risk and the complexities involved in blood transfusions. The health risks in the misuse of erythropoietin stem from the increased viscosity of blood due to the increased concentration of red blood cells and increases the potential development of hypertension, increased clotting of blood resulting in coronary, pulmonary, or cerebral-vascular occlusions (Robinson, et al, 2006). These are some of the commonly employed drugs to enhance performance in sports. Emerging drugs with a high potential for misuse due to their performance enhancing properties and the possibility to avoid the currently employed detection tests are on the horizon and these emerging drugs include androgen receptor modulators, growth hormone secretagogues, hypoxia-inducible factor stabilizers, and erythropoietin mimetics (Thevis & Schanzer, 2007, 36). A significant factor in the use of drugs to enhance performance is that no drug singly satisfies the numerous demands of a sportsperson that includes increased staying power, sustained effort during training, and elimination of stress. Thus quite often a cocktail of different drugs are used, employing more scientific means by sportspersons with more money, while those with less money do with the less expensive and more freely available cocktail of drugs. The problem with the use of this cocktail of drugs is that it significantly increases the potential health risks involved with each of the performance enhancing drugs used in the cocktail (Doping and Sports). World Anti-Doping Agency and the Anti-Doping Code: Combating the use of drugs to enhance performance in sports or doping in sports is the essential function of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). In 2003 WADA had come out with a universally agreed and accepted code against doping in sports known as the World Anti-Doping Code. This document is the foundation on which the framework for universally accepted anti-doping policies, rules, and regulations within sports organizations and among public authorities have been created (World Anti-Doping Code). WADA justifies the requirement for an Anti-doping code as the programs attempt to retain all that is “intrinsically valuable” to sports. It goes on to expand the intrinsic value of sports as the “spirit of sport”, which can be summed up as “how we play true”. In the perception of WADA, playing true involves the celebration of the human mind, spirit and body, which are enshrined in values, which in the words of WADA are: “Ethics, fair play and honesty. Health. Excellence in performance. Character and education. Fun and joy. Teamwork. Dedication and commitment. Respect for rules and laws. Respect for self and other participants. Courage. Community and Solidarity” (World Anti-Doping Code). The use of any of the doping substances or doping methods is contrary to these values that constitute the spirit of sport in playing true and hence cannot be a part of sport (World Anti-Doping Code). Response to the Article: In the article “Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport”, Savulescu, Faddy, & Clayton, 2004, present the present sorry state of the pervasive nature of doping in sports and present their perspective that the ideals as envisaged by WADA are just not attainable, and hence performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sports. This is their side of the picture, but every issue has two sides to it and let us evaluate whether it is their side of the picture that makes better sense. Pervasiveness of Doping in Sports: According to the authors doping in sports commenced nearly eight decades ago, as early as the third Olympics, and since then has been the steady slide into more frequent instances of use of performance enhancing drugs. The authors themselves suggest that change from amateur sports to professional sports, leading to the large amount of money available to the top athletes has brought about this state of affairs. “The lure of success is great, but the penalties small” (Savulescu, Faddy, & Clayton, 2004, p. 666). This identification of the cause of the pervasiveness of doping in sports, also suggests that a mistake was made in being less restrictive and allowing money to overwhelm the intrinsic values of sports. The authors Savulescu, Faddy, and Clayton, 2004, call for a less restrictive environment for sports with regard to doping in sports, yet at the same time identify the cause for increased doping in sports, as the relaxation that allowed professionalism in sports to vanquish amateur sports. Let’s take the case of the Olympics, where in 1986 the International Olympic Committee changed its rules to allow professional athletes to compete on the justification that all the great male and female athletes needed to be part of the Olympics. The consequence has been the increased use of performance enhancing drugs at the Olympics, whereby the enhanced quality of the Olympics has been marred by doping scandals (OLYMPIC CHANGES: DOLLARS AND SENSE). The lesson of “the lure of success is great, but the penalties small” has been learnt. (Savulescu, Faddy, & Clayton, 2004, p. 666). Do we have to repeat such a mistake again and condemn sports to a destiny of ignominy by encouraging doping in sports? Cheating: The authors claim that besides the lure of money, the growing efficiency of doping drugs like anabolic steroids tempts sport persons into cheating for enhanced performance. Using Kjetil Haugen’s game theory model the authors further go on to claim that unless the probability of catching athletes was raised to improbable levels, or the returns for doping in sports was reduced to unacceptably low levels, then it could be predicted that all athletes will resort to doping in sports. This inevitability of doping in sports according to the authors should be rewarded by allowing doping in sports (Savulescu, Faddy, & Clayton, et al, 2004). There are several issues. The first is that cheating is an unfortunate aspect in every society. It runs against the grain of fair play. Just because it is there and will continue to remain in society do we remove the curbs that society has brought to bear on cheating? Let us take the example of private enterprise. The reverberations of poor corporate governance and cheating the occurred in private enterprises like Enron still echo in our society (Curall & Epstein, 2003). Does that mean we remove the curbs that have been put in place and allow the greed of some individuals to dominate our society? On the contrary society has only strengthened its position on curbing the recurrence of such occurrences, not that it will not happen again. It will as long as greed remains a failing in the character of an individual. So doping should not be allowed and rather discouraged for in the words of Alain Garner the Medical Director of WADA “to encourage doping may be beneficial for their promoters, but not for sport and athlete health” (Garnier, 2006). The next issue is that should we allow doping in sports, it will not be long before demands arise for the same attitude of society to other areas of competitive activity. Let us see how this translates to the field of education as it is an area wherein the mental capabilities of an individual get tested. Drugs for cognitive enhancement are available like memory boosters and given the benefits that accrue from enhanced performance in competitive tests, cheating is a likely outcome. This makes out a case for allowing doping for enhanced mental performance similar to what the authors have done in the case of doping in sports. Would the authors support this too or would they baulk at it saying there is a difference in interfering with physical performance and performance of the brain? The purpose in curbing of cheating is to deny the greed of the individual. The only way the problem of cheating can be addressed is through the institution of controls and sanctions (Schermer, 2008, 87). This is exactly what WADA has done in an attempt to curb cheating in sports. The authors suggest that there is rampant use of doping in sports and that the means to detect doping in sports is not efficient enough to increase the probability of catching erring athletes, and so doping is to be allowed in sports. This is a defeatist attitude. Where is the resolve or the strength of character in such a society that runs away from a situation that requires greater effort and dedication for discovering the means to catch erring athletes, as new emerging technologies give them new ways for doping. It is this attitude that needs to continue in society and will continue to do, if we do not let a defeatist attitude creep in and destroy the resolve against doping in sports. As new technologies emerge that have a potential threat to be used as doping agents, so too must efforts go on in finding testing methods to detect their misuse. This is exactly what is going on now, as can be seen from the efforts of sports testing laboratories to find unambiguous testing means towards the detection of the newly emerged doping agents as a result of biotechnological advances, leading to new pharmacological agents like peptide hormones (Thevis, Thomas & Schanzer, 2007). Sports provides several character strengths to society and the never say die attitude of a sports person is considered a strong characteristic of any society. Let us remain strong in our resolve to fight against doping in sports and not allow a weakness of a resolve in society to weaken the very spirit of sport. The Spirit of Sport: The main thrust of the authors is to negate the spirit of sport as embodied by WADA to pave the way for doping in sports. The authors differentiate between animal sports and sports involving humans on the basis of creativity and the judgmental ability of a human being to decide on what is best. Further by allowing biological manipulation, the playing field is rid of “the genetic lottery”, which plagues the sports arena, making the playing field level (Savulescu, Faddy, & Clayton, 2004). How true is the claim that allowing biological manipulations level the playing? This question is best answered in the words of Alan Garnier, who says “To pretend that allowing doping would induce an equal playing field is not simply absurd; it is morally wrong and irresponsible. To accept doping would allow the use of economic resources and scientific expertise to decide competition, and only those with access to those resources and expertise would win. Can one imagine a wider inequity in this world than that of scientific knowledge and availability of medicines?” (Garnier, 2006). Economic resources already play a large part in winning in modern sports. A look at any medal tally in major sporting events will confirm this. The only aspect that really levels the playing field is the genetic advantage that athletes from poorer nations derive. Long and short distance runners from poor East African countries like Kenya and Ethiopia have a genetic advantage in endurance events of running that sees them win medals in this segment of athletics. In a similar vein, athletes of West African origin enjoy success in sprint events. In most of the other forms of competitive athletics economic resources and technology provide the cutting edge and it is the rich nations that win most of the medals (Scott, et al, 2004). Is it the aim of the authors to remove even this small level of competition that arises from poorer nations in their terms of leveling the playing field? Or is there a tinge of racism in this call for leveling the playing field by removing the advantage of genetics through the employment of doping in sports? Yet again, have the authors considered the possibility of athletes already enjoying a genetic advantage enhancing this advantage through doping in sports? (Savulescu, Faddy, & Clayton, 2004). The history of the advances and development of the human species has shown that many of these have occurred due to the advances of science and technology enriching some of the nations and allowing them to dominate world economics through what is known as the developed world to the detriment of the under developed world. Two classes of world society have resulted. The under developed world continues to remain under developed due to their inability to advance science and technology on their own on one hand and insufficient economic resources to access the advances in science and technology (Ahmed, 2007). Hence the benefits of the advances in science and technology will remain in the realm of the developed for a long time to come. Access to the technological advances that allowed for the better doping drugs and methods will not be possible for the poorer nations, leading to greater discrimination than leveling the playing field. There is yet a greater threat to society that lurks in the background in allowing doping in sports. In the leveling of the field perspective of the authors, which looks at the creation of super athletes through doping in sports, lurks the threat of the creation of a class of humans with super human abilities to excel in one aspect of social activity, namely sports. Yet sporting events do not only consist of the test of human physical ability alone. Chess is a sport that tests mental capability. Doping in sports cannot be just restricted to the realm of physical activity alone, and it will not be long before mental capability enhancing drugs become a part of the chess scene tending to create a class of humans with superlative mental capabilities. Extension to other competitive arenas like beauty contests and the like would follow shortly and it will not be long before those in control of other spheres of human activity, like the military, take to creating super humans. In short, society would be divided into the super humans indulging in doping and the normal humans. How long would it take for the normal human being to be vanquished from earth? The memories of Hitler and the super human race still linger in the minds of people (Krupp, 1998). It is therefore no wonder that Garnier, 2006, points out that allowing doping in sports is “not simply absurd; it is morally wrong and irresponsible”. Health: The authors themselves agree that the health aspects of the individual are a priority in the use of doping of sports, and should be allowed, if there is no “excessive risk” associated with its use, and based on the choice of the athlete. The operative words are “excessive risk”. Evaluation of the several of the more frequently drugs and methods of doping in sports demonstrates that there is limited evidence in support of the benefits that accrue from doping in sports, and many of the drugs and doping methods rely more on the beliefs and perceptions of the individual. Whereas, there is ample evidence supporting the risks associated with the doping drugs and doping methods. Risk benefit ratio is essential to medical practice, wherein the benefits to the health of the individual should far outweigh the risks associated in prescribing and use of pharmacological agents. When there is only risk associated or should we say “excessive risk” with doping in sports, then it is contrary to medical practice to use doping drugs or doping methods to enhance performance in sports. The authors have conveniently chosen only to bring into the picture one of the aspect of medical ethics in supporting their claim for allowing doping in sports and that is individual autonomy or choice. Other ethics of medical practice demand in simple terms that the medical practitioner does only good and no harm to any individual seeking services. This aspect of the ethics in medical practice rules out a role for doping drugs and doping methods to enhance performance in sports and needs to supercede the autonomy ethic, as is the case when individuals choose to do harm to themselves. Euthanasia is the example here. Terminally ill patients may want their lives terminated and the principle of autonomy, as given by the authors, should come into play and cause any medical practioner to provide this service, but the medical ethics that call for the medical practioner not to cause harm is recognized by society as the superceding ethical principle. In addition, there is insufficient evidence to support the use of doping drugs and methods, which means that by allowing doping in sports medicine, it would become a field of research using sportspersons as guinea pigs in trying to evaluate the role of doping drugs and methods in enhancing performance in sports. This runs against the grain of research ethics (Garnier, 2006). Thus from a health perspective, doping in drugs cannot be allowed. Society and Sports: Society does not look upon sports from a single perspective of enhanced performance. It looks upon sports as multifaceted activity. Yes, as the authors say people love to see the performance of naturally gifted sportspersons like, Michael Jordan, Sharapova and Tendulkar. How many would love to see their performance if they were to use performance enhancing drugs? Evidence that has recently emerged from a survey that suggests in 2004 nearly 94.9% of people support anti-doping measures and it is when they lack awareness that they do not demonstrate their opposition to doping in sports (Stamm, et al, 2008). Society looks upon sports as the means to developing strength of character and observation of rules and regulation among several other qualities valuable to society. What is the impact on these valuable qualities by allowing doping in sports? Just the opposite and instead of strengthening character weakens it in the face of adversity and encourages justification of the ends over the means employed, hardly making for a morally stronger society. The authors instead of calling for doping in sports to level the sporting field, should instead be calling for creating more awareness among the public on the pervasive nature of doping in sports, so that they more vociferously support the moves of WADA to curb doping in sports and with their support the playing field is made more level (Stamm, et al, 2008). Conclusion: The entry of professionalism in sports has led to the increasing pervasiveness of doping in sports, as sports persons lured by the large monetary benefits are susceptible to any means to enhance their performance. There are calls for leveling the playing field by allowing doping in sports, rather than being restrictive about it. Allowing doping in sports does not level the playing field, but in addition is morally wrong and irresponsible to the sensitivity of society. Literary References Ahmed, A. 2007. ‘Managing knowledge in the 21st century and the roadmap to sustainability’ in World Sustainable Outlook 2007: Knowledge Management and Sustainable Development in the 21st Century, ed. Allam Ahmed, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield, pp. 16-30. Curall, C. S. & Epstein, J. M. 2003, ‘The Fragility of Organizational Trust; Lessons From the Rise and Fall of Enron’, Organizational Dynamics, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 193-206. ‘Definition of doping’, 2006, Sport, European Commission [Online] Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/sport/action_sports/dopage/legal/b_legal_e_en.html (Accessed March 14, 2008). ‘Doping and Sports’, 1998, Department of life sciences [Online] Available at: http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/dopage/dopage2.html (Accessed March 14, 2008). Garnier, A. 2006, ‘Letter to the Editor: An Open Letter to Those Promoting Medical Supervision of Doping’, Medscape Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine, vol. 10, no. 2 [Online] Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/544308 (Accessed March 14, 2008). Handelsman, D. J. 2006, ‘Testosterone: use, misuse and abuse’, The Medical journal of Australia, vol. 185, no. 8, pp. 436-439. Krupp, S. 1998, ‘Hitler's darkest aspects psychoanalyzed in book’, DAILY BRUIN [Online] Available at: http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/archives/id/14205/ (Accessed March 14, 2008). Lund, C. B. & Perry, J. P. 2000, ‘Nonsteroid Performance-Enhancing Agents in Athletic Competition: An Overview for Clinicians’, Medscape Pharmacotherapy, vol. 2, no. 2, Medscape Today [Online] Available at: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/408596 (Accessed March 14, 2008). ‘OLYMPIC CHANGES: DOLLARS AND SENSE’. 1996. PBS.org [Online] Available at: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/july96/olympics_7-23.html (Accessed March 14, 2008). Robinson, N. Giraud, S. Saudan, C. Baume, N. Avois, L. Mangin, P & Saugy, M. 2006, ‘Erythropoietin and blood doping’, British journal of sports medicine, vol. 40, no. Suppl. 1, no. i30-34. Saugy, M. Robinson, N. Saudan, C. Baume, N. Avois, L & Mangin, P. 2006, ‘Human growth hormone doping in sport’, British journal of sports medicine, vol. 40, no. Suppl. 1, no. i35-39. Savulescu, J. Foddy, B. & Clayton, M. ‘Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport’, British Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 38, pp. 666-670. Schermer, M. 2008, ‘On the argument that enhancement is "cheating"’, Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 34, pp. 85-88. Scott, A. R. Moran, C. Wilson, H. R. Goodwin, H. W. & Pitsiladis, P. Y. 2004, ‘Genetic influence in East African Running Success’, Equine and Comparative Exercise Physiology, vol. 1, pp. 273-280. Stamm, H. Lamprecht, M. Kamber, M. Marti, B. & Mahler, N. 2008, ‘The public perception of doping in Switzerland, 1995-2004, Journal of Sports Medicine, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 235-242. Thevis, M. & Schanzer, W. 2007, ‘Emerging drugs--potential for misuse in sport and doping control detection strategies, Mini reviews in medicinal chemistry, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 531-537. Thevis, M. Thomas, A. & Schanzer, W. 2007, ‘MASS SPECTROMETRIC DETERMINATION ID INSULINS AND THEIR DEGRADATION OF INSULINS AND THEIR DEGRADATION PRODUCTS IN SPORTS DRUG TESTING’, Mass Spectrometry Reviews, vol. 27, pp. 35-50. ‘What is the Code’. WORLD ANTI-DOPING AGENCY, [Online] Available at: http://www.wada-ama.org/en/dynamic.ch2?pageCategory.id=267 (Accessed March 14, 2008). ‘World Anti-Doping Code’. 2003, WORLD ANTI-DOPING AGENCY, [Online] Available at: http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/code_v3.pdf (Accessed March 14, 2008). Wilhelm, S & Mario, T. 2007, ‘Doping in Sport’, Medizinische Klinik, vol. 102, no. 8, pp. 631-646. Read More