The Rise in Competition: What Enhancements are Permissible?
Mark McGwire, an all-star professional baseball player with over 580 career home runs, was seen as a godsend for the struggling MLB in the late 1990s. The entertainment value alone of McGwire’s accomplishments spurred a rise in the sports as a facet of the entertainment industry. Despite being accused of using performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) by then teammate Jose Canseco in his tell-all book, suspicion by the public did little harm to McGwire’s reputation as he ended his career with a clean record.
Professional sporting events have become a money making machine, sparking a billion dollar industry. To maintain this industry, teams will go to extreme lengths to entertain customers and develop a brand with exceptionally talented athletes. Partly owing to this, athletes feel pressure to perform with unhuman-like abilities, turning to drugs and other performance enhancing mechanisms. Although these are currently outlawed by the major sports leagues, who is to say the athletic achievement can be limited by the governing board of a given professional sports association? I believe this line should be drawn not at a specific age, but rather a level of competition. Professional athletes should be allowed to distort their bodies with Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) to any degree as they are employed to perform at a standard, some believe, render drugs necessary. Although there are inherent health risks, the athletes themselves understand the price to compete in the industry and the economic benefits, for both themselves and the team employing them, can be motivation for legality. Due to the economic advantages of this new industry in the sport’s world, there should be a shift to legalizing PEDs for professional athletes.
Some can argue that we have a moral obligation to not let athletes destroy their bodies with PEDs and that this type of behavior would not be tolerated in modern society. In recent history, there does not seem to be a clear line where members of society would take issue with the athletes using said drugs so long as the physical deformities are not deemed unappealing to the eye. But to this point, distortion of athlete bodies has already happened and has been accepted in society. For example, writing on the eve of the Athens Olympics in 2004, Lincoln Allison, the founding director of Warwick University's Centre for the Study of Sport in Society, noted that, “watching Mark McGwire break the homerun record in 1998 was undiminished by his overt use of nandrolone (not a banned substance in baseball), which stimulates the body to produce more of its own steroids” and that “the estimate of a former professional is that at least 30% of US major-league football players are taking steroids; most people say that the figure is much higher. Fans are not put off by this, and players say they would trade a longer life for a chance of glory”. Fans do not seem to care that the athletes are using PEDs as long as the entertainment value is still there and there aren’t blatant physical traits that are disrupting the performance of the player. Although their bodies may be deformed or unnatural looking, society assumes that they have the body composition fit for their position, distancing the fact that PEDs may be causing the deformities.
So then, if the audience generally doesn’t care and athletes who are already using said drugs are indifferent, why should major companies care as they are the ones reaping the monetary benefits for these endeavors? In all honesty, they shouldn’t. There is no reason have PEDs be illegal looking strictly from a monetary and societal acceptance standpoint. Journalist Joan Ryan notes that, “the money pours in when paying customers and television executives watch near-mythic characters crush home runs or break downfield tackles” detailing just how crucial high performance of hired athletes can be to companies owning and broadcasting sports teams. The economic benefits of athletes pumping their bodies with steroids is too much to ignore for a majority of brands.
The level of competition is exponentially increased with introduction and legalization of PEDs so that there is minimal incentive to manage the athlete health risks involved. In a law review article by attorney Justin Caldarone regarding the ethical dilemmas of professional team doctors, Caldarone explained that, “this ‘win at all costs’ mentality can run counter to the team doctor’s Hippocratic oath to do no harm to his or her patients. Unfortunately, more often than not due to the enormous pressure to produce a championship team, team doctors, coaches, and trainers make short-sighted decisions that may jeopardize a player’s health.” Doctors currently are met with the moral dilemma of helping athletes yet producing game-winning results. Yet with the legalization of PEDs, a high level of competition can be achieved and regulated in conjunction with PEDs and can encourage doctors to manage the health risks of athletes. As detailed by journalist Chris Smith in Forbes magazine, “A huge part of watching sports is witnessing the very peak of human athletic ability, and legalizing performance enhancing drugs would help athletes climb even higher. Steroids and doping will help pitchers to throw harder, home runs to go further, cyclists to charge for longer and sprinters to test the very limits of human speed.” This increased level of competition develops the sport as a professional activity that the average person could not compete professionally in. The game is intensified by the use of PEDs and enables athletes to compete to the highest level possible. Companies benefit and prosper from heightened competition and athletic performance, so the economic benefits would drive big brand support of legalization.
But alas, issues of this magnitude are not so simple, as the human condition and fixity of human ethics stand in the way of exploiting others for personal entertainment. The audience dictates what kind of content is acceptable for the television stations to run and sports teams to put on the field. If there are proven facts that the fans do not care what the athletes look like and only focus on performance, then there is no incentive for the companies involved to care about athletes well being besides their own moral compass, which is hardly measurable in the current scope of athletic competition. Companies report the copious earnings each league draws in per year, tallying billions of dollars. In 2016, the National Football League (NFL) reached over $13 billion dollars in revenue from a myriad of sources. Yet, if a majority is from ad revenue, then it would make sense for the entertainment industry and the sports leagues to let athletes perform to their best ability with drugs.
So then, where does this moral line of caring for athletes well being come into play? When these types are drugs are legalized for professional use, regulating PEDs via team doctors and certified outside sources would reduce the risks involved in taking high volumes of these drugs and sponsor a higher baseline of competition. The health and safety of athletes would be closely monitored under professional doctors who have the knowledge to administer healthy yet effective doses of these drugs and can make sure that athletes are not poisoning their bodies. If there is a regulator in place that convinces the public that companies care and are monitoring athlete health, then the moral line will not be crossed. As soon as this facade is broken and the public sees that doctors are not doing their best to regulate drug usage, there will be uproar from the fans. Currently, all PEDs are outlawed, leading athletes to sneak around the rules and use them in an unhealthy, unsustainable pattern. Yet if they were legalized, doctors would, “encourage more sensible, informed use of drugs in amateur sport, leading to an overall decline in the rate of health problems associated with doping… [and] the drugs used could be assessed for a clearer view of what is dangerous and what is not” according to a The Lancet article written by three professors of Bioethics. This would provide a safer landscape for athletes to be regulated and understand the health risks involved with taking PEDs, rather than sneaking them and ignoring health concerns. Through this, legalization of PEDs would allow for safer procedures and management of athlete health risks and usage of these drugs, providing a more even playing field for the betterment of sports.
Therefore, the legalization of PEDs, despite the belief that the health risks would be too much for athletes to manage, is beneficial for the professional sport teams. Regulation at the professional level can lead to hired doctors for athletes to have a watchful and informed eye monitoring their intake as to keep the health risks at bay. It also pays off for the media companies and sports brands that benefit from the heightened level of competition and athletic ability. The audience is more entertained by the superhuman feats completed by these athletes and are more willing to overlook the health concerns for entertainment and money given the legalization of PEDS for professional athletes. The morality of the audience and companies in charge of athletes and sports teams would then be traded for the entertainment value and economic benefits, and the idea of doctor regulation and monitoring of athlete health levels would provide a sense of comfort for the legalization at the professional level to be tolerated. Audience participation in this industry is crucial, so the understanding of the fans that the athletes are “healthy” yet can still perform to the top of athletic achievement ever thought possible is the best balance that the professional industry needs to maintain its competitive edge and constantly entertain fans.
Works Cited
Allison, Lincoln. “Faster, Stronger, Higher.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 9 Aug. 2004, www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/aug/09/athensolympics2004.olympicgames.
Belzer, Jason. “Thanks To Roger Goodell, NFL Revenues Projected To Surpass $13 Billion In 2016.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 29 Feb. 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2016/02/29/thanks-to-roger-goodell-nfl-revenues-projected-to-surpass-13-billion-in-2016/#dee74571cb79.
Kayser, Bengt, et al. “Viewpoint: Legalisation of Performance-Enhancing Drugs.” The Lancet, vol. 366, ser. 21, 1 Dec. 2005. 21, doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67831-2.
Ryan, Joan. “Is It Time to Legalize Steroids? / It's Certainly Far Too Late to Ban Them.” SFGate, San Francisco Chronicle, 20 February 2004, www.sfgate.com/g00/crime/article/Is-it-time-to-legalize-steroids-It-s-certainly-2821611.php?i10c.encReferrer=&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=14.
Smith, Chris. “Why It's Time To Legalize Steroids In Professional Sports.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 3 July 2013, www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/08/24/why-its-time-to-legalize-steroids-in-professional-sports/#38e7597a65d2.
“Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments - Drug Use in Sports .” Should Performance Enhancing Drugs (Such as Steroids) Be Accepted in Sports?, ProCon.Org, 6 May 2009, sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002352.
Professional sporting events have become a money making machine, sparking a billion dollar industry. To maintain this industry, teams will go to extreme lengths to entertain customers and develop a brand with exceptionally talented athletes. Partly owing to this, athletes feel pressure to perform with unhuman-like abilities, turning to drugs and other performance enhancing mechanisms. Although these are currently outlawed by the major sports leagues, who is to say the athletic achievement can be limited by the governing board of a given professional sports association? I believe this line should be drawn not at a specific age, but rather a level of competition. Professional athletes should be allowed to distort their bodies with Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) to any degree as they are employed to perform at a standard, some believe, render drugs necessary. Although there are inherent health risks, the athletes themselves understand the price to compete in the industry and the economic benefits, for both themselves and the team employing them, can be motivation for legality. Due to the economic advantages of this new industry in the sport’s world, there should be a shift to legalizing PEDs for professional athletes.
Some can argue that we have a moral obligation to not let athletes destroy their bodies with PEDs and that this type of behavior would not be tolerated in modern society. In recent history, there does not seem to be a clear line where members of society would take issue with the athletes using said drugs so long as the physical deformities are not deemed unappealing to the eye. But to this point, distortion of athlete bodies has already happened and has been accepted in society. For example, writing on the eve of the Athens Olympics in 2004, Lincoln Allison, the founding director of Warwick University's Centre for the Study of Sport in Society, noted that, “watching Mark McGwire break the homerun record in 1998 was undiminished by his overt use of nandrolone (not a banned substance in baseball), which stimulates the body to produce more of its own steroids” and that “the estimate of a former professional is that at least 30% of US major-league football players are taking steroids; most people say that the figure is much higher. Fans are not put off by this, and players say they would trade a longer life for a chance of glory”. Fans do not seem to care that the athletes are using PEDs as long as the entertainment value is still there and there aren’t blatant physical traits that are disrupting the performance of the player. Although their bodies may be deformed or unnatural looking, society assumes that they have the body composition fit for their position, distancing the fact that PEDs may be causing the deformities.
So then, if the audience generally doesn’t care and athletes who are already using said drugs are indifferent, why should major companies care as they are the ones reaping the monetary benefits for these endeavors? In all honesty, they shouldn’t. There is no reason have PEDs be illegal looking strictly from a monetary and societal acceptance standpoint. Journalist Joan Ryan notes that, “the money pours in when paying customers and television executives watch near-mythic characters crush home runs or break downfield tackles” detailing just how crucial high performance of hired athletes can be to companies owning and broadcasting sports teams. The economic benefits of athletes pumping their bodies with steroids is too much to ignore for a majority of brands.
The level of competition is exponentially increased with introduction and legalization of PEDs so that there is minimal incentive to manage the athlete health risks involved. In a law review article by attorney Justin Caldarone regarding the ethical dilemmas of professional team doctors, Caldarone explained that, “this ‘win at all costs’ mentality can run counter to the team doctor’s Hippocratic oath to do no harm to his or her patients. Unfortunately, more often than not due to the enormous pressure to produce a championship team, team doctors, coaches, and trainers make short-sighted decisions that may jeopardize a player’s health.” Doctors currently are met with the moral dilemma of helping athletes yet producing game-winning results. Yet with the legalization of PEDs, a high level of competition can be achieved and regulated in conjunction with PEDs and can encourage doctors to manage the health risks of athletes. As detailed by journalist Chris Smith in Forbes magazine, “A huge part of watching sports is witnessing the very peak of human athletic ability, and legalizing performance enhancing drugs would help athletes climb even higher. Steroids and doping will help pitchers to throw harder, home runs to go further, cyclists to charge for longer and sprinters to test the very limits of human speed.” This increased level of competition develops the sport as a professional activity that the average person could not compete professionally in. The game is intensified by the use of PEDs and enables athletes to compete to the highest level possible. Companies benefit and prosper from heightened competition and athletic performance, so the economic benefits would drive big brand support of legalization.
But alas, issues of this magnitude are not so simple, as the human condition and fixity of human ethics stand in the way of exploiting others for personal entertainment. The audience dictates what kind of content is acceptable for the television stations to run and sports teams to put on the field. If there are proven facts that the fans do not care what the athletes look like and only focus on performance, then there is no incentive for the companies involved to care about athletes well being besides their own moral compass, which is hardly measurable in the current scope of athletic competition. Companies report the copious earnings each league draws in per year, tallying billions of dollars. In 2016, the National Football League (NFL) reached over $13 billion dollars in revenue from a myriad of sources. Yet, if a majority is from ad revenue, then it would make sense for the entertainment industry and the sports leagues to let athletes perform to their best ability with drugs.
So then, where does this moral line of caring for athletes well being come into play? When these types are drugs are legalized for professional use, regulating PEDs via team doctors and certified outside sources would reduce the risks involved in taking high volumes of these drugs and sponsor a higher baseline of competition. The health and safety of athletes would be closely monitored under professional doctors who have the knowledge to administer healthy yet effective doses of these drugs and can make sure that athletes are not poisoning their bodies. If there is a regulator in place that convinces the public that companies care and are monitoring athlete health, then the moral line will not be crossed. As soon as this facade is broken and the public sees that doctors are not doing their best to regulate drug usage, there will be uproar from the fans. Currently, all PEDs are outlawed, leading athletes to sneak around the rules and use them in an unhealthy, unsustainable pattern. Yet if they were legalized, doctors would, “encourage more sensible, informed use of drugs in amateur sport, leading to an overall decline in the rate of health problems associated with doping… [and] the drugs used could be assessed for a clearer view of what is dangerous and what is not” according to a The Lancet article written by three professors of Bioethics. This would provide a safer landscape for athletes to be regulated and understand the health risks involved with taking PEDs, rather than sneaking them and ignoring health concerns. Through this, legalization of PEDs would allow for safer procedures and management of athlete health risks and usage of these drugs, providing a more even playing field for the betterment of sports.
Therefore, the legalization of PEDs, despite the belief that the health risks would be too much for athletes to manage, is beneficial for the professional sport teams. Regulation at the professional level can lead to hired doctors for athletes to have a watchful and informed eye monitoring their intake as to keep the health risks at bay. It also pays off for the media companies and sports brands that benefit from the heightened level of competition and athletic ability. The audience is more entertained by the superhuman feats completed by these athletes and are more willing to overlook the health concerns for entertainment and money given the legalization of PEDS for professional athletes. The morality of the audience and companies in charge of athletes and sports teams would then be traded for the entertainment value and economic benefits, and the idea of doctor regulation and monitoring of athlete health levels would provide a sense of comfort for the legalization at the professional level to be tolerated. Audience participation in this industry is crucial, so the understanding of the fans that the athletes are “healthy” yet can still perform to the top of athletic achievement ever thought possible is the best balance that the professional industry needs to maintain its competitive edge and constantly entertain fans.
Works Cited
Allison, Lincoln. “Faster, Stronger, Higher.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 9 Aug. 2004, www.theguardian.com/sport/2004/aug/09/athensolympics2004.olympicgames.
Belzer, Jason. “Thanks To Roger Goodell, NFL Revenues Projected To Surpass $13 Billion In 2016.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 29 Feb. 2016, www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbelzer/2016/02/29/thanks-to-roger-goodell-nfl-revenues-projected-to-surpass-13-billion-in-2016/#dee74571cb79.
Kayser, Bengt, et al. “Viewpoint: Legalisation of Performance-Enhancing Drugs.” The Lancet, vol. 366, ser. 21, 1 Dec. 2005. 21, doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)67831-2.
Ryan, Joan. “Is It Time to Legalize Steroids? / It's Certainly Far Too Late to Ban Them.” SFGate, San Francisco Chronicle, 20 February 2004, www.sfgate.com/g00/crime/article/Is-it-time-to-legalize-steroids-It-s-certainly-2821611.php?i10c.encReferrer=&i10c.ua=1&i10c.dv=14.
Smith, Chris. “Why It's Time To Legalize Steroids In Professional Sports.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 3 July 2013, www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2012/08/24/why-its-time-to-legalize-steroids-in-professional-sports/#38e7597a65d2.
“Top 10 Pro & Con Arguments - Drug Use in Sports .” Should Performance Enhancing Drugs (Such as Steroids) Be Accepted in Sports?, ProCon.Org, 6 May 2009, sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002352.