An anti-doping program in the U.S tries to prevent sport athlete from cheating; unfortunately, became less strict often blocked by unions and contracts. The athletic drug testing is simple and straightforward, but another way is “mandate” force the athlete to agree to participate and have to obey the rules of the sport. In today world there, a great challenge determining to detect enhancing drugs because continually new chemicals make it nearly detectable. For example, “gene doping” a newly created enhance drugs that athletes can inject making them build muscle, which essentially be non-detectable. That a person born to be bodybuilders from the moment they start.
Studies have not been performed to prove the true effects because the dosages of the steroids are so high that in becomes an ethical problem. An athlete uses trial and error or another substance abuser to determine dosage. A substance that does not have recommended dosage and the dose can only be regulated be trial and error can be easily overdosed. The problem then becomes identifying a substance that is not FDA
This doesn’t mean athletes should be alright to use them, if they are going to allow legal enhancers their should be an extremely strict limit on the kind they can take and how much they can take. This information from (sprayflex.com). On this website there was no information on who kept it going or anything of that sort, it looks as though the site was kept up by the bodybuilders. The problem with using illegal muscle enhancers is as well obvious is it as common sense: they are illegal and dangerous. They cause horrendous, dangerous health problems, and they
They recently passed a law that makes it illegal to possess anabolic steroids. This piece of legislation is aimed at gyms, where the rampant use of PED’s has led to many deaths (“Drugs in Sports” 18). While this legislation maybe somewhat limited in its scope, it is a step in the right direction. Parliament in Britain has been paying close attention to this issue and may be close to passing similar legislation. As in most things, this sort of following the leader is probably what is going to open the floodgates on regulating steroid and doping use.
Colton Torrance 11/21/13 Philosophy Term Paper Why steroid use for athletic enhancement is not morally wrong The use of steroids for athletic enhancement has been one of the most contentious aspects of many sports for the last couple of decades. With the innovation of more enhanced drug tests along with improved performance-enhancing drugs, this matter has only become more prevalent. At almost any level of sports, whether it be high school football or the Olympics, steroid use is practiced world-wide at an increasing rate. Furthermore, despite the attempts to prevent the use of steroids by the NCAA, WADA, and any other association/organization that drug tests athletes, which cost more money every year due to the need to test more athletes
It is imperative that sports organizations, when hosting any school sponsored events, try to reduce the possibility of being held liable for injuries to participants by assessing possible risks and making the necessary adjustments. Various negligence cases have come about pertaining to injuries sustained during participation in sports. Pittman, Spengler and Young (2008) observed "sports are full of torts resulting in major concerns for recreation and sport managers at all levels and settings in of sport." Negligence, according to Nohr (2009), is defined as “conduct that falls below a reasonable standard, meaning the failure to exercise reasonable care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in the same or similar circumstances.” Negligent behaviors usually involves actions but Cotten and Wolohan (2013) adds that “negligence may be in the form of omission—something one should have done, but did not do; and commission—something that one did, but should not have done.” There are numerous ways in which organizations and their employees can be found liable if their
Even though the use of some drugs may benefit the team as a whole, it is still against the rules and should be dealt with harshly. Most high school teams refuse to perform drug tests because they suspect athletes use drugs. This avoidance of the truth allows many athletes to get places they do not belong. Star athletes who use drugs are living a big lie - their fame and prestige are falsely
So the question rises, why are performance enhancing drugs not legalized? Various forms of performance enhancement drugs have been utilized for centuries and yet it is still illegal for professional athletes to use these pharmaceuticals (Richard I.G. Holt 84). These drugs should remain illegal, it is an unfair advantage against other athletes constituting it as simple as cheating (Dillingham 91) and most importantly these actions have an effect not only on their bodies but also all of the sport fanatics. Dillingham states that steroids are a form of cheating creating an unfair advantage to those who take them breaking the social contract athletes have implicitly agreed to: We are going to have a fair contest (Dillingham 91).
He explained with the point with the idea that sport is about creating extraordinary moments and drug taking would simply be cheating. He explained that drugs have long term effects and can cause excessive damage to the body. Olivier then stated a very good point for the argument against drug taking for sports: that sports will be all about money and not talent. The richest individuals will be better than the ones who cannot afford it. Both debaters used imagery to convey characters demonstrating either sides of the argument.
To further enforce this law would only be a waste of effort and “more dangerous” to those who are actually doing the enforcing. I think the second premiss is completely credible; “society” will not stop the use of marijuana if there are new laws passed stating the use of marijuana is prohibited. Therefore the conclusion that states “severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” is plausible due to the fact of reality that on a regular basis people don’t obey these laws. Getting in trouble with the law is more dangerous to society than just taking marijuana as an activity. For this particular argument it would have to be “Circular Reasoning”, it’s a fallacy that in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.