Oxford Debates - Doping - June '09

Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sport - University of Oxford 14/12/2011 12:58
Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in

sport
MODERATOR: Professor Roger Crisp

Roger Crisp is Uehiro Fellow and Tutor in Philosophy at St Anne's College, and
Professor of Moral Philosophy in the Faculty of Philosophy. He is the Philosophy
Delegate to Oxford University Press.
PROPOSER: Professor Julian Savulescu

Julian Savulescu holds the Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics and is Director of the Oxford
Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics within the Faculty of Philosophy. He is Director of the
Oxford Centre for Neuroethics and also Director of the Program on the Ethics of the New
Biosciences within the James Martin 21st Century School.
OPPOSER: Dr John William Devine

John William Devine is a Project Coordinator in the Oxford Bioethics Network. He is also
a member of HeLEX and the Ethox Centre, both within the Department of Public Health.
Opening statements - 14 Jun 10
Professor Roger Crisp
Taking drugs to improve one's sporting performance seems, on the face of it, a paradigmatic
example of a wrong action. It combines two activities usually considered shameful: the use of
banned substances, and cheating.
But on closer inspection the issue is more complicated. The use of some drugs, such as
nicotine or caffeine (both of which might enhance performance in some cases), carries little
or no stigma, and the charge of cheating would be inappropriate were the drugs in question
explicitly permitted.
Socrates used to say that one should always begin by defining the object under discussion.
Do we need a definition of sport from our participants, then? I suggest not, since we can
focus on paradigmatic examples. But does drug-taking perhaps change the nature of
activities such as cycling or boxing so much that they would no longer be sports? Well, why
should what we call these activities matter?
More important is the function or point of sporting activities. Both our participants see part of
that function as to exemplify human excellence. But while Savulescu suggests that such
excellence can itself be promoted through the use of drugs (allowing one to run faster, for
http://www.ox.ac.uk/applications/dynamic/debate.rm?id=16595&fullView=true Page 1 of 12
example), Devine believes drugs can prevent the development of certain excellences (such as
the courage of rugby players, for example). So here we might hope for clarification on how to
decide what excellences are and which of them matter in sport, and on why we shouldn't see
sport as merely for human entertainment (as a 'spectacle', as Savulescu puts it).
There are interesting empirical questions here also concerning the effects of different drugs,
whether tightening up regulations and increasing sanctions might provide a stronger
deterrent to drug-taking in sport, and whether certain drugs might be appropriate for use
only in certain sports. As always, we can hope that empirically informed philosophical debate
will enhance our own understanding of the issues and, if not resolve them, at least clarify
some of the options open to us.
The speakers
Proposer - Professor Julian Savulescu
Julian Savulescu is Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics. He is Director

of the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, of the Program on the Ethics of the New
Biosciences within the James Martin 21st Century School, and of the Oxford Centre for
Neuroethics, funded by the Wellcome Trust. He is a Fellow of St Cross College.
He is the author of more than 200 publications, including Human Enhancement (ed. with N.
Bostrom, 2009), and, with B. Foddy, 'Ethics of Performance Enhancement in Sport: Drugs
and Gene Doping', in Ashcroft, R E., Dawson, A., Draper, H. and McMillan, J. R. (eds).
Principles of Health Care Ethics (2nd edn., 2007). He has made over 100 international
presentations, including the Tanner Lectures in 2009.
Opposer - Doctor John William Devine
Dr John William Devine, New College, was recently awarded a D.Phil.

for his thesis in political theory on 'Challenges to Virtue in Political Office'. He was supervised
by Dr Mark Philp. He was previously educated at University College Dublin, and King's
College, Cambridge. He has won several scholarships, including the Prendergast Award.
He is currently Co-ordinator of the Oxford Bioethics Network Project 'Developing a Strategic

Plan for Ethics Provision at the University of Oxford', located within the Department of Public
Health.
His article 'Doping is a Threat to Sporting Excellence' was recently published in the British
Journal of Sports Medicine.
Moderator - Professor Roger Crisp
Roger Crisp is Uehiro Fellow and Tutor, St Anne's College, and

Professor of Moral Philosophy within the Faculty of Philosophy. He is a Fellow of the Ethox
Centre. In 2010-11, he will be Findlay Visiting Professor at Boston University.
He is the author of Mill on Utilitarianism (1997) and Reasons and the Good (2006), and has
translated Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics for Cambridge University Press. He has published
articles on several topics in practical ethics, including euthanasia, the environment, genetic
engineering, the allocation of health care resources, advertising, and vegetarianism. He is an
Associate Editor of Ethics, a member of the Analysis Committee, and Philosophy Delegate to
Oxford University Press. Some of his podcasts are available at http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk and
www.philosophybites.com
Professor Julian Savulescu
The World Cup has begun and Le Tour de France begins in July. Doping will play a part in
both of these. In every professional sport where doping could confer an advantage, there
is doping. Even if it is not widespread and even if you don't know about it.
This is most obvious in Le Tour. Since it began in 1903, riders have used drugs to cope
with the ordeal, resorting to alcohol, caffeine, cocaine, amphetamines, steroids, growth
hormone, EPO and blood doping. But all sports, even the World Cup, face the drug
problem. The enormous rewards for the winner, the effectiveness of the drugs and the low
rate of testing all create a cheating 'game' that has proved irresistible to some athletes. It
is irresistible because of human nature. And the cheating athletes are now winning.
Drugs such as EPO and growth hormone are natural chemicals in the body and are hard to
detect. And the task will get tougher still. Athletes have returned to simple blood doping
(having their own blood donated prior to competition and retransfused during the event),
which is virtually impossible to detect if done properly. Gene doping, for example, will be
equally difficult to detect. This is a technique which allows the introduction of genes into
an athlete's own genetic material, or DNA, to improve muscular strength or endurance.
Also, the injection of an insulin-like growth factor (proven to increase muscle strength in
mice) into the muscles of athletes would be simple. Detection would require muscle
biopsy, slicing a core of muscle to examine under a microscope, which would be
dangerous and difficult. EPO genes could also be directly integrated into athletes' DNA.
Such gene therapy already works in monkeys.
There are only two options. We can try to ratchet up the war on doping. But this will fail,
as the war on all victimless crimes involving personal advantage have failed (look at the
war on alcohol, drugs and prostitution). Or we can regulate the use of performance-
enhancing drugs.
Some performance enhancers which were once illegal, such as caffeine, have been
legalised because they are safe enough. This has had no adverse effects on sport and has
removed the necessity of policing a ban and the problem of cheating.
Some controversy could have been avoided if we allowed riders to take EPO or blood dope
up to some safe level, for example where their red blood cells make up 50 per cent of
their blood. This level is deemed safe by the International Cycling Union and this level is
easily detected by a simple, reliable and cheap blood test. Other drugs such as growth
hormone can be monitored by evaluating athletes' health, looking for signs of excess,
rather than trying to detect what is a normal hormone.
A rational, realistic approach to doping would be to allow safe performance-enhancing

drugs which are consistent with the spirit of a particular sport, and to focus on evaluating
athletes' health. Some interventions would change the nature of a sport, like creating
webbed hands and feet in swimming, and should be banned on those grounds. But the use
of drugs to increase endurance is a part of sport's history.
The rules of a sport are not God-given, but are primarily there for 4 reasons: (1) they
define the nature of a particular display of physical excellence; (2) create conditions for
fair competition; (3) protect health; (4) provide a spectacle. Any rule must be
enforceable. The current zero tolerance to drugs fails on the last three grounds and is
unenforceable. The rules can be changed. We can better protect the health of competitors
by allowing access to safe performance-enhancement and monitoring their health. We
provide a better spectacle if we give up the futile search for undetectable drugs, and focus
on measurable issues relevant to the athlete's health.
Given the pay-offs in terms of glory and money, some athletes will always access a black
market of dangerous banned drugs which confer an extra advantage. But overall,
regulated access is better than prohibition, as the honest athletes presently have no
access to performance-enhancers.
Under a regulated market, they would have access to some safe performance-enhancers.
This would narrow the advantage gap between the cheats and the honest athletes. And we
would create a stimulus for the market to produce new, safe performance- enhancers.
Limited resources could be better deployed to detect the dangerous drugs.
The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) claims that performance enhancement is against
the spirit of sport. But caffeine does not appear to have corrupted the Olympics. Athletes
already radically change their bodies through advanced, technologically-driven training
regimes. Tour riders receive intravenous artificial nutrition and hydration overnight
because their bodies cannot take on enough food and fluid naturally.
Ben Johnson, stripped of his 100 metres Olympic gold at the 1988 Games, said that the
human body was not designed to run the speeds it is called upon to run now, and steroids
were necessary to recover from the gruelling training and injuries. Jacques Anquetil, the
great French cyclist, once asked a French politician if "they expect us to ride the Tour on
mineral water". Far from demonising these great athletes, we should admire them.
The use of drugs to accelerate recovery and to enhance the expression of human ability
are a part of the spirit of sport. Some drugs, such as modest use of EPO or growth
hormone, can enhance the expression of physical excellence in sport. The challenge is to
understand the spirit of each sport, and which drugs are consistent with this. But
performance-enhancement per se is not against the spirit of sport; it is the spirit of sport.
To choose to be better is to be human.
What is ruining sport is cheating. But cheating can be reduced by changing the rules.
Cheating can be better reduced by allowing drugs rather than banning them.
Adapted from:"It is time to allow doping at Tour de France"

Telegraph 30 July 2007
and
Savulescu, J. and Foddy, B. (forthcoming) Le Tour and Failure of Zero Tolerance: Time to
Relax Doping Controls (PDF). In Savulescu, J., Kahane, G and Ter Meulen, R.(eds)
Enhancing Human Capacities, Blackwell, forthcoming 2010
Dr John William Devine
In just over two years the world's elite athletes will descend on the UK for London 2012.
Should these athletes be permitted to use performance-enhancing drugs or should the

fight to eliminate such drugs from sport continue? The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA)
maintains that the use of performance-enhancing drugs (doping) is contrary to the 'spirit
of sport.' 1 While WADA's account of the spirit of sport is frustratingly underdeveloped, the
idea that the purpose of sport provides reason to prohibit doping captures something
important.
Rules in sport are designed in part so that success can be achieved only by competitors
who display certain excellences of body, mind and will. Practices which impair the display
of these excellences should be prohibited. The use of a stepladder in the high jump, a
catapult in the javelin, or a bicycle in the marathon, all prevent the relevant excellences
(jumping, throwing and running) being displayed. To call any of these practices an
'enhancement' in these events is a misnomer. Far from improving performance, their use
obscures the display of the relevant excellences. Such practices undermine the integrity of
these sports and, consequently, are rightly prohibited.
Doping is similarly liable to undermine the integrity of sport. It can do this either by
preventing a relevant excellence from being displayed at all, or by elevating one type of
excellence to an unwarranted level of importance.
To demonstrate the first threat to the integrity of sport posed by doping, consider the case
of archery. Part of the challenge of archery is to maintain near-perfect balance so that
one's shot is not misdirected by, among other things, an unsteady or nervous hand. The
use of beta-blockers to reduce one's natural tremor is rightly prohibited in archery and
other target sports like shooting. By reducing the natural tremor, beta-blockers serve to
remove one of the excellences that the sport is designed to call forth in competitors. While
beta-blockers may increase the accuracy of a competitor's shots, the sport is the worse for
their use because the user's performance displays a narrower range of excellences.
Next, consider high-risk sports like rugby, boxing, or American football. One of the
excellences that outstanding athletes in these sports display is the control of fear. If rugby
players doped in a way that dampened their fear of physical injury then their performance
would in a certain respect be less admirable. Such a drug would prevent the player from
displaying the courage that is partly constitutive of the excellence of a rugby player.
As the above examples suggest, supposed enhancements can undermine the integrity of
a sport by hindering or preventing the display of excellences around which the sport is
organised. However, not only are the rules of sport organised around the display of
different types of excellence, they are organised so that different excellences contribute to
performance to different degrees.
Andy Murray will lead British hopes at this month's Wimbledon Championships with a
playing style based on patience, deftness of touch and strategic nous. It was precisely
these excellences that were threatened in the Championships of the 1990s. As players
grew stronger and rackets became more powerful, power servers became dominant. One
type of excellence - powerful serving - assumed too much prominence in the style of
tennis that prevailed at the time. Players with games based around the display of
excellences like Murray's found it increasingly difficult to succeed.
In response to this trend, adjustments were made to the court surface and ball pressure
to encourage longer, more strategic rallies. These efforts to slow down the game might be
best explained as an attempt to redress the 'balance of excellences' in the sport, that is,
to reshape the playing conditions so that a broader range of excellences valued in the
sport could be displayed in the performance of those successful in the sport.
Doping poses a similar threat to the balance of excellence in different sports. Lifting the
ban on doping would unduly elevate in importance the capacity to metabolise
performance-enhancing substances. In addition, the effects of their use on the
performance of athletes may elevate certain excellences like power and speed at the
expense of others, in a similar way to that which occurred in Wimbledon. Thus, the
importance of other excellences in performance would be diminished in a way that is
inconsistent with the purposes around which the sport is organised.
We began by endorsing WADA's 'spirit of sport' justification for the ban on doping but we
have reason to disagree with their positing a single list of banned substances to apply
across all sports (with individual sports having only the option to add to the list for their
purposes). Different sports are organised around different excellences. Consequently,
different types of drugs will threaten the integrity of different sports in different ways. We
should tailor doping policy to individual sports or at least to clusters of sports. Sporting
authorities, in consultation with players, coaches and fans need to reflect on what
excellences should be prized in their respective sports. This background understanding of
the purpose of the sport provides the necessary context within which a debate about
doping can take place.
What is at stake in this debate is not just the health of our athletes or the fairness of
competition but the very purpose of sport. We must fiercely oppose the pernicious effects
of doping so we can ensure that what we celebrate in London 2012 are not tainted
performances but rather outstanding displays of authentic sporting excellence.
1 - http://www.wada-ama.org/en/World-Anti-Doping-Program/Sports-and-Anti-Doping-
Organizations/The-Code/
Update 1
17 Jun 10
So far, there has been no debate. I agree entirely with nearly all John William's points.
The topic is "Performance Enhancing Drugs Should Be Allowed in Sport." It is not "All
Performance Enhancing Drugs Should Be Allowed in Sport." I have argued that some
should according to certain criteria, including being consistent with the spirit of that
particular sport.
The opposing side should be "No Performance Enhancing Drugs Should Be Allowed in
Sport." This is precisely the World Anti-Doping Agencys (WADA) own position, that John
William begins with approvingly. If you read WADA's code, it says "All doping is contrary
to the spirit of sport." It is against the spirit of sport, for WADA, just because it enhances
human performance.
John William argues that doping can disturb the expression of excellence in sport or
disrupt the balance of excellences. Of course, it can and that would be a reason to ban
that particular agent. A drug which made a boxer oblivious to pain and removed all fear,
itself turning a man into a raging bull, would be against the spirit of boxing. To box is to
be confined in a ring with no assistance, to fight against another man with only yourself
and your fear. To remove fear is to remove a fundamental aspect of the sport.
Or as Harrosh points out, a drug that removed or replaced the mental excellence that
drives performance would be against the spirit of sport.
But a drug which protected a boxer's brain from permanent injury after having been
knocked out cold would not be against the spirit of boxing. Death is not a part of the spirit
of boxing, though it is a part of a fight to the death.
As Ord astutely put it, some drugs might enhance the balance of excellences. To use
Devine's own example of tennis, power serving took over in the 1990s with the advent of
large headed tennis rackets. So they made the balls softer to slow the game down. (Of
course, they could have put a limit on racket construction in the first place.) However, if
there were a performance enhancer which increased tennis players' reaction times
significantly and safely, like Modafenil, that would have been a more interesting way to
restore balance of excellences. It certainly would have made for a more spectacular game,
a value which had been sought in creating larger headed tennis rackets that caused the
problem in the first place.
In some cases, doping has been intrinsic to a particular sport. The Tour de France is an
example. Ever since it began, riders have taken a variety of doping agents. Much of the
cheating and shadow could be removed by simply allowing blood doping up to a

haematocrit the proportion of blood volume occupied by red blood cells of 50.
In the end, John William happily embraces defeat:
"While we began by endorsing WADA's spirit of sport justification of the ban on doping, an
important implication of this approach is that we have reason to depart from WADA's
unified approach to the ban. Different sports are organised around different excellences.
Consequently, different types of drugs will threaten the integrity of different sports in
different ways. We should tailor doping policy to individual sports or at least to clusters of
sports."
So, we should allow some performance enhancing drugs in sport.
Should we adopt the extreme libertarian position raised by Wilkinson of allowing all
doping. Sport is a human defined activity, whose rules are formed to realize several
values. If allowing all doping would compromise health, display of human physical
excellence and spectacle, we have reason to limit doping. If it does not, we have reason to
adopt an "anything goes" policy.
What is clear now is that we have reason to adopt a liberal policy with regard to doping:
to allow some doping in sport.
At this point, I would like to thank John William for helpfully elaborating my case.
21 Jun 10
Julian's response to the problem of doping is to throw in the towel. He argues that the ban
should be relaxed to address cheating: 'What is ruining sport is cheating. But cheating can
be reduced by changing the rules. Cheating can be better reduced by allowing drugs
rather than banning them'.
Relaxing the ban limits the number of ways that cheats can gain an unfair advantage. It is
far from clear, however, that reducing the variety of ways by which athletes can cheat will
result in fewer instances of cheating. Provided that some ban on doping is retained, the
possibility of cheating by doping remains. If the cheating 'game' is as stark as Julian
describes in his opening statement, these possibilities will surely be exploited by those of
a mind to seek unfair advantage.
If Julian wishes to eliminate perverse incentives to dope while also retaining his belief in
the impossibility of effectively policing a ban then he must close off the possibility of
cheating by doping. For this, he must commit to abolishing - not merely relaxing - the
ban.
However, abolishing - or even significantly relaxing - the ban would throw the baby out
with the bathwater. Even if it proved an effective way to eliminate cheating, the significant
relaxation of the ban would threaten to undermine that which gives us reason to care
about sport in the first place.
Julian argues that doping is consistent with the purposes of sport because 'To choose to
be better is to be human'. This misses the point of dispute. Perhaps the most powerful
objection to doping is that its effects do not enhance athletic performance but rather
undermine it as a feat of human excellence.
Sport can be corrupted not only by athletes who violate the rules but also by legislators
who create them. As I argued in my opening statement, rules can be formulated either so
that an excellence that is thought central to a sport ceases to be necessary for success or
so that an excellence is elevated in importance in a way that is contrary to the 'balance of
excellences' of that sport. Significantly relaxing the ban on doping risks corrupting sport
by subverting its purposes - the display of human excellences of body, mind and will.
Julian's proposal is not about embracing change, it is about capitulating in the face of
cheating. By lifting the ban on drugs we eliminate one source of unfairness in competition
but only at the cost of undermining that which gives these contests meaning and value. In
an attempt to reduce corruption in sport, Julian's approach risks the corruption of sport.
We must not flinch in defending the integrity of sport, we much not falter in the fight to
eradicate doping.
Update 2
24 Jun 10
Illegal forms of prostitution still occur in countries where prostitution has been
decriminalised; illegal use of dangerous drugs still occurs in countries which have relaxed
their bans on recreational drugs. But overall, such societies are better for their tolerance,
their focus on harm reduction, compared to absolutist, prohibitionist societies. So, too, for
doping.
I have argued that relaxing the ban on doping would be good for sport (by reducing
cheating, reducing the unfair advantage cheaters have, promoting health of athletes and
increasing the spectacle of sport). It is not against the spirit of sport, as WADA claims.
Allowing some doping agents would be consistent with and in some cases enhance the
display of physical excellence of each sport.
John William argues that this proposal would not eliminate cheating. It is only if we
adopted the fully libertarian position of abolishing any ban - instituting an "anything goes"
policy would we eliminate cheating.
But my goal has not been absolutist, to raise one value (elimination of cheating), over all
others. Rather, I have advocated a "balance of values" approach. Adopting an anything
goes approach would be very damaging to other values health of athletes would be
compromised and it would reduce the display of human physical excellence. It would
hardly be any spectacle to watch the 100m final if 9 out of 10 competitors dropped dead
of doping toxicity during the event.
The fact that some will cheat under a relaxed doping regime is not the issue for me. The
issue is whether fewer cheat and/or whether those who do cheat have less of an
advantage. And whether we maintain an optimal balance of values driving sport.
It is an obvious fact that policing is a limited resource. WADA has about $20 million to
catch cheats. If fewer agents or practises are banned, limited resources can be devoted to
catching those who take banned substances. Resources currently deployed to catch blood
dopers in cycling could be redeployed to catching those who use some banned substance
like steroids, if the ban was on steroids alone (though I believe steroids too should be
permitted).
Secondly, we can entirely eliminate some forms of cheating. If we removed the ban on
blood doping and set a simple measurable haematocrit, like 50% of blood volume, how
could athletes cheat to get around this? Gene therapy? EPO? All these would express
themselves in the red cell mass, but this would be measurable. Physiology provides the
performance advantage. So if we measure physiology, and not how it was caused, we
stand a much better chance of eliminating or reducing cheating.
John William's other point is that "relaxing the ban on doping risks corrupting sport by
subverting its purposes - the display of human excellences of body, mind and will." I have
addressed this point a number of times. Some will, and they should be banned. But others
won't. Caffeine has not corrupted the display of physical excellence. Allowing steroids to
assist recovery maintains John William's "balance of excellences" because it promotes
greater drive to train harder and to recover. Steroids work by promoting tissue repair after
the athlete has torn her muscles as a part of training hard. The steroid only works when
the athlete puts in great effort to accelerate normal recovery and repair. Relaxing the ban
on doping promotes both the "balance of excellences" and the "balance of values" of
sport.
28 Jun 10
Frank Lampard's 'goal' that never was in England's World Cup defeat to Germany
yesterday is an example of sport being held to ransom by tradition. Video technology - as
used in elite level tennis and rugby - would have confirmed that his shot had crossed the
line and England would have been awarded an equalising goal. FIFA continues to block the
introduction of this technology on the grounds that human error in refereeing is part of the
game. Does the prohibition against doping similarly stifle progress in sport?
In his comment on June 15th, Bennett Foddy suggested that my balance of excellences
argument against doping might be 'conservatism reframed'. He contends that on my view,
outmoded excellences would be protected by a concern to remain consistent with the
traditional balance of excellences in a sport.
That a particular balance of excellences obtains in a sport at a given time does not
preclude change to that sport's balance of excellences. As the understanding and practice
of that sport develops, those involved in the sport can come to view the excellences
relevant to that sport differently. For instance, the greats of a sport often shape our
understanding of what excellences are important. Dick Fosbury in the high jump, Pele in
football and Brian O'Driscoll in rugby all not only performed existing excellences to a
higher degree than their competitors but they employed novel strategies and techniques
to redefine the boundaries of how the sport might be played. The balance of excellence
argument does not call for a once and for all account of the purpose of a sport. To remain
sensitive to change in our understanding of the purpose of a sport, the dialogue
concerning the balance of excellences must be ongoing.
Julian has argued that doping might improve the spectacle of sport. It's true that we care
about sport not only for the outcome of competition but also for aesthetic reasons. Usain
Bolt's explosion down the track, Cristiano Ronaldo's mesmeric trickery with a football, or
Roger Federer's almost balletic strike of the tennis ball illustrate how sport can provide a
compelling spectacle independent of competition.
Sport might be the greatest show on earth but its greatness relies in large part on its
being our show - a showcase of human will, intellect and physicality. The introduction of
doping would bring to the fore the excellences of the pharmacist but these are not
sporting excellences. As the contribution of doping to the athlete's performance increases,
our admiration of their performance as a display of their excellences diminishes. Our
concern should be in creating spectacles that showcase human excellence of the relevant
kinds. While drug-fueled competition may create a more attractive show, such a show is
unlikely to constitute a sporting spectacle. A concern for making sport about
entertainment risks undermining that which makes sport a worthwhile endeavour.
Closing statements - 01 Jul 10
At the beginning of this debate, I said doping would be a part of the World Cup. Lionel
Messi, arguably the greatest footballer playing today, will star in the line up for Argentina
against Germany in the Quarter Finals. At the age of 15, Spanish football team Barcelona
paid for him to receive growth hormone to make him taller to "treat growth hormone
deficiency." It was likely this was an example of human enhancement and doping. He is
now 5 foot 7 inches - hardly a midget. Still, people love to see him play. And it would be a
tragedy if he were expelled because his height was now "unnatural".
Height varies across people. Some people are just short. Disease is defined in statistical
terms, two standard deviations from the mean, with about 2% of people having 'disease'.
They are then entitled to medical treatment - it is not enhancement. A person who is 1cm
taller than the cut off is arbitrarily defined as being normal but short. One centrimetre less
and that person could have got growth hormone to treat a 'disease'.
Why should the balance of excellences be based on what nature happened to give
individuals and how we happen to statistically define disease and normality? Even if Messi
did in fact have a deficiency, why should that biological accident mean he is entitled to use
growth hormone to become taller but a person a fraction above that arbitary cut off not be
allowed to use it? Surely what matters is whether the change still leaves sufficient space
for a display of physical excellence, mental courage and determination.
The simple fact is that doping has no necessary connection with reduction in the
expression of physical excellence or mental application.
Of course doping might go against the spirit of sport. If we created a giant footballer
whose legs spanned the width of the pitch, who could just block any opposing player, that
would change the nature of football and be incredibly boring. But giving growth hormone
to make shorter players a bit taller is doping but has no such effect.
Does Messi lack sportsmanship because he took growth hormone as an adolescent? No.
He seems as fine a sportsman as anyone else who plays the game today. Doping has no
necessary connection with lack of sportsmanship. What is unsportsmanlike is cheating.
But that is more easily dealt with by relaxing doping controls. Bloodgate and the Henry
scandal are examples of cheating. But who knows how many footballers will be blood
doping in the finals. 25%? 50%? Or 100%, like Floyd Landis' team in the Tour? The
referee is, in effect, blindfolded.
I have argued that relaxing the total ban on doping would be safer, fairer, reduce natural
inequality and provide for a better spectacle. And it can be consistent with the spirit of
sport. It is time to move into the 21st century with sport and take a rational approach to
the use of biological sciences in sport.
I have advanced two main lines of argument in favour of a ban on doping: 1. Doping may
preclude the display of certain excellences that we value in sport, 2. Even where doping
does not preclude the display of relevant excellences, it may disrupt the balance of
excellences in a sport.
Neither of these arguments provides a 'once and for all' justification of a ban. The
excellences we wish to encourage in a sport may change over time, as too may the
balance of excellences. However, doping poses a serious threat to sport understood as a
contest to display and test human excellences of body, mind and will.
Even if these concerns about doping are well-founded, is it possible to effectively police a
ban? Julian rightly worries about the prevalence of cheating by doping. His response to
this problem is to reduce the possibility of cheating by relaxing the ban on doping. I have
argued that this approach threatens to undermine the purpose of sport.
Rather than remove the ban, we need to launch a two-pronged assault on cheating by
doping. Firstly, we need to redouble our efforts in drug testing, both in terms of
implementing more extensive drug testing programmes and expanding research into
testing methods so that testers can keep pace with the drugs cheats.
Secondly, we need to inculcate in athletes from an early age the virtue of sportsmanship.
The appropriate response to cheating is not to capitulate by changing sport. Rather, it is to
establish a culture of sportsmanship which encourages competitors to play with a
commitment to respecting the intrinsic purposes of their sport
Is sportsmanship too much to expect of athletes at the highest level? Julian's diagnosis of
the doping 'game' would suggest that it is. The public outcry following Bloodgate and the
hand of Henry incidents indicate that the public do in fact expect athletes at the highest
level to play true. Practices like batsmen in cricket walking before the umpire has given
them out and golfers and snooker players calling fouls on themselves demonstrate that,
not only do we actually expect sportspeople to play true, in certain sports there are
established practices of competitors routinely curtailing their own narrow self-interest
despite all the pressures that Julian describes.
To win the fight against doping we need a change in the culture, not in the nature, of
sport. In the final analysis, the supreme sportsperson must display not only excellences of
body, mind and will but also excellence of character.
Professor Roger Crisp
Our debate could have been polarized, between a pure libertarianism which advocates the
lifting of all restrictions on performance-enhancing drugs in all sports, and a pure
prohibitionism (similar to the WADA's) which rules out any use of such drugs in any sport. In
fact, it has been more nuanced. There has been a good deal of consensus, both participants
agreeing for example that the safety of athletes must not be compromised. The question we
end up facing really concerns the direction of travel in which we think sport should be moving
that of looking into permitting more drugs in more sports, or that of continuing the war
against drugs in sport by testing with greater vigour and by encouraging sportspersonship
especially among the young.
Nor has our debate turned out to be one between an Aristotelian view, according to which
what matters in sport is the development of excellence, and a utilitarian position according to
which all we need is to weigh the costs of allowing drugs against the benefits, in terms of
human well-being. Both participants are Aristotelians. Here the question is whether relaxing
the restrictions on drugs is more likely to promote the development and exercise of human
excellence in sport, or to hinder it. Of course, such relaxation would change many sports; but
it is important to note that John William explicitly denies any charge of conservatism. Change
is acceptable, but it must be for the better, and guided by the internal excellences of the
sport in question.
Our participants also attach value to fairness in competition, as one value among others.
Again, the question is whether permitting certain drugs in certain sports might promote
fairness, by, for example, allowing the concentration of scarce resources on the use of drugs
which are as both participants agree some might be damaging to health or to the internal
goals of some particular sport. Or could it be that permitting the use of certain drugs,
perhaps only up to a certain level, will merely result in the cheats going above that level, or
shifting to other, potentially more dangerous and hard-to-detect methods to enhance their
performance?
This is not an all-or-nothing issue, then, and neither participant is advocating immediate and
radical change. Julian is suggesting that we might, gradually and with careful monitoring,
move to permit certain drugs in certain sports, while John William argues that such a policy
shows the wrong attitude towards sport understood as the exercise of unadulterated human
excellence, free from artificial and possibly distorting pharmacological assistance.
FOR
18.4%
Results
AGAINST
81.6%
Your comments
Skills are secondary
Roman Gaehwiler | 10 Jul 10

In my opinion in elite-sports is no more much about skills, because to reach...
pure competition
Iliya Grozdanov | 09 Jul 10

The question is who does the public wish to see competing - the athletes or the...
No drugs
JoAnn Hawkins | 08 Jul 10

Since many athletes like to be as healthy as possible, and that would mean not...
Aspiration
Bruce | 07 Jul 10
Roman G. correctly notes the difference between professional and amateur sport...
on performance enhancing drugs
Faisal CH | 07 Jul 10
It cannot be allowed since sport is for the cultivation of humanity. That is why...
View all 35 comments
Post a comment

Oxford Debates - Doping - June &#39;09

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Oxford Debates - Doping - June &#39;09

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in sport - University of Oxford 14/12/2011 12:58

Performance enhancing drugs should be allowed in

MODERATOR: Professor Roger Crisp

PROPOSER: Professor Julian Savulescu

OPPOSER: Dr John William Devine

Opening statements - 14 Jun 10

Professor Roger Crisp

Proposer - Professor Julian Savulescu

Julian Savulescu is Uehiro Professor of Practical Ethics. He is Director

Opposer - Doctor John William Devine

Dr John William Devine, New College, was recently awarded a D.Phil.

He is currently Co-ordinator of the Oxford Bioethics Network Project 'Developing a Strategic

Moderator - Professor Roger Crisp

Roger Crisp is Uehiro Fellow and Tutor, St Anne's College, and

Professor Julian Savulescu

A rational, realistic approach to doping would be to allow safe performance-enhancing

Adapted from:"It is time to allow doping at Tour de France"

Dr John William Devine

Should these athletes be permitted to use performance-enhancing drugs or should the

cheating and shadow could be removed by simply allowing blood doping up to a

In the end, John William happily embraces defeat:

So, we should allow some performance enhancing drugs in sport.

Closing statements - 01 Jul 10

Professor Julian Savulescu

tragedy if he were expelled because his height was now "unnatural".

Dr John William Devine

Professor Roger Crisp

Skills are secondary

Roman Gaehwiler | 10 Jul 10

Iliya Grozdanov | 09 Jul 10

JoAnn Hawkins | 08 Jul 10

on performance enhancing drugs

View all 35 comments

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi

Oxford Debates - Doping - June '09

Oxford Debates - Doping - June '09