The Ethics of Doping in Sport

Ok, with the Olympics nearly upon us, I guess now is as good a time as any to examine the murky area of ethics when it comes to doping in sport. The argument comes from Schneider et al. (2000) who wrote an interesting paper on it. It is just as relevant now, maybe even more so, than it was back then. The central premise being that doping is indeed wrong, but authorities have neglected to outline robust ethical and philosophical reasons as to why exactly this is the case. It is this ambiguity, that has lead to the current situation with doping in sport today. It is only by adapting a stronger philosophical and ethical frameworks for sport, can we hope to be successful in future anti-doping measures.


The widespread problem of doping in sport can be viewed not as a result of an inate deterministic drive within humans to win at all costs, but rather it is down to a weak ethical framework set out by the IOC (International Olympic Committee) surrounding the lists of banned substances in sport (Schneider et al. 2000). It is this flawed model of banning substances on a whim, without communicating the reasons for doing so to athletes.

It would appear, that the IOC, and indeed relevant sporting bodies worldwide ban doping on the grounds of harm reduction, and fair play in sport. For example, take these two passages:

the use of doping agents in sport is both unhealthy and contrary to the ethics of sport ... it is necessary to protect the physical and spiritual health of athletes, the values of fair play and competition, the integrity and unity of sport and the rights of those who take part in it at whatever level.
from the International Olympic Charter against Doping in Sport

The Committee takes the view that performance enhancing drugs should be banned because they can potentially damage the health of those taking them, whether they are elite athletes who stand the risk of being detected using them, or the recreational sportsperson who is unlikely ever to be tested. They should be banned also because anyone using them is trying to gain an unfair advantage over those athletes who wish to maintain normal health. They are cheating because their use is against the rules of the sporting federations.
from Drugs in Sport, a 1989 report by the Australian Senate

If we consider that the IOC views its anti doping strategy as being an extension of the worldwide 'war on recreational drugs' and thus giving it a reason to increase doping controls and sanctions, this does not constitute a justifiable ethical reason for banning doping (Schneider et al. 2000).

When Ben Jonson was caught for doping in 1988, the Dubin Inquiry report (into doping in sport) stated that those who are against cheating in sport state that it must be played within the 'rules'. Hneceforth doping was cheating and should be banned.

However, a problem arises in that cheating can only be labelled as such, once their is a ban placed on the substance. A Schneider et al. (2000) point out, this means a clear outright reason for banning doping in the first place does not exist.

So, is it cheating? We all most certainly think it is. However cheating is defined as breaking the rules of the sport. So, if there is no rule in place, then do we look outside of the sport of an independent definition of what constitutes cheating? If it is an 'unfair advantage' that was inherent in that definition outside of sport then that could work. If we view unfair advantage outside of sport as simply rule breaking, then this leaves us back at square A. How about 'but doping is unfair'. Yes it is, but how do we define unfair inside (and out) of sport if we consider that fairness generally means we abide by the rules. If no rules are being broken, where is the ethical issue? (Schneider et al. 2000).

Some might also argue that steroids harm the user, and in that sense, it is ethically wrong to ingest anything harmful. If we take this argument:

Lets take premise 1 - do steroids cause that much harm to the user? Significant studies have not been carried out, and in instances where they have, extreme doses have been used. Some evidence suggests that may not be as harmful as first thought. Before we can conclusively answer premise 1, we still need more medical data to back up the assertion that it is harmful.

Premise 2 - This falls into paternalism and asks the question if adults need protection and would this not be a denial of autonomy? If the aim is to protect them from steroids to keep them from getting hurt, then why not protect them from horse racing, boxing etc?

Premise 3 - Essentially, this is where we are now. Banning doping has not made it go away, in fact, it is utterly rampant. Therefore it is safe to say that premise 3 fails also.

Therefore, we cannot yet accept the conclusion.

Thoughts?


Schneider, A. J., Butcher, R. B., Tännsjö, T., & Tamburrini, C. (2000). A philosophical overview of the arguments on banning doping in sport. Values in sport: Elitism, nationalism, gender equality and the scientific manufacture of winners, 185-199.