Whenever I read these stories, I can't help but think the same thing; "who cares?" Why on Earth should athletes be prohibited from putting whatever they like into their bodies? The notion that taking perfomance -enhancing drugs is somehow cheating because it goes beyond in-born capacities is laughable on its face. There's nothing "natural" about training and practicing for hours on end, day in and day out, either. Lifting weights isn't "natural," in that sense, either. All athletes do what they can to improve their performance, including diet. Why should it matter if the substance that helps their body perform at its peak comes from a syringe or a pill, rather than, say, a banana. To those who say, "but it's not a level playing field." I say, "So?" It can never be a level playing field, nor should it. Some athletes have access to facilities that help them more than others, ditto coaches and trainers. There's nothing "level" about an athlete from a rich country going to a sophisticated training facility where another from a poor country has no such advantage, but naturally there's no outrage about that. So long as drugs simply change the athlete's body, it's no different than all the myriad ways that athletes have sculpted their bodies for millenia. And yes, I'm aware that "doping' is different because it's proscribed by the rules, and is therefore "cheating" by definition. My question is, why should it be outlawed. Have at it, I say. Just as Fosberry's flop was the application of physics to high-jumping, let pharmaceuticals add to the potential of athletes.

Well, the gratuitous insult aside--I wasn't talking about health, I was talking about "cheating." Neither, for that matter, was the article. However, now that you've brought it up, you give another strong argument why it's dumb to ban performance-enhancing drugs. Consider: if they weren't banned, then athletes wouldn't be forced to use drugs of dubious provenance and quality (frequently, the drugs they use are designed for veterinary use), and they could have the substances administered by a doctor, not someone entirely un-trained in medecine. Moreover, where is the evidence that all performance-enhancing drugs, administered properly and at the right doses lead to long-term negative health effects? Don't bother looking for the study, because the blanket ban ensures that there can't be one. Does long-term steroid use lead to health problems? Under the black-market circumstances that prevail now, yes, no question about it. That's no evidence that a properly designed course of performance enhancement would necessarily do so, however. To say otherwise would be like using a junkie's heroin overdose as evidence that no doctor should ever use narcotic pain-killers.

Oh...forgot to add, the things top athletes do are already incredibly un-healthy. Just as a quick example, talk to any orthopedic surgeon about how he feels about long-distance running, football, or ballet, for that matter. Top-level sports take a huge toll on the body already--at least with pharmaceutical enhancement, there's a cxhance to control its effects on the body.

For the most part playing any sport at a professional level very unhealthy, much more so than a professional medically assisted doping regime is. Think about it, how many NFL players need knee replacements? How about concussions? You could ask those questions about the NHL, Boxing, etc. Alonzo Mourning's kidney replacement was caused by his overuse of NSAID, caused by the rigors of playing high level basketball. If we were really concerned about the "health" and well being of the athlete, we wouldn't allow them to play at all.

"Because, nitwit, it is unhealthy. "

It is not clear that these performance-enhancing drugs are unhealthy. The issue at hand is that drugs are considered to be a form of cheating. If an industry makes its money by selling images of supreme beings performing extraordinary feats, that perception is quickly undercut by performance-enhancing drugs. People want to see something real. The odd thing is that changes in technology such as running shoes, track material, starting blocks, etc. are not subjected to a similar scrutiny. Swimming records are being set due to the use of deeper pools.

No one is interested is watching a springboard high jump competition.

Actually, it's quite perfectly clear that they are.

Do you care to give a recent study that backs up your assertion that they are so unhealthy?

I think it's a perfectly reasonable position to take that boxing and football should be banned, actually. But even if you don't, your argument does not apply to tennis.

Furthermore, it's irrelevant. Playing football AND doing steroids is obviously more dangerous than just playing football. And the only reason anyone else needs to do them is that other people are doing them. In economic terms, this is an example of a tragedy of the commons. The net effect is that nobody derives any benefit from them, because everyone is doing them. Everyone suffers consequences without deriving any benefit. And there is no way to avoid that, short of a comprehensive ban with effective testing.

Classic--nothing to back up your position, so you resort to ad hominem profanity. For the record, you made the claim that it was "clear" that all doping is unhealthy--it is axiomatic that the person making the claim, backs it up with evidence. You can't, so you go on the attack. Genius.

Actually I do like sex, evolution kind of encourages it being pleasurable, I'm sorry to hear that you may find it unpleasant. BTW did anyone read in the NY Times about how competitive (not necessarily professional) cyclists have low bone density and racing appears to be the direct cause. <link>

The author of this article fails to recognize that the purpose of the ban is not to prevent players from playing better it is to give an equal advantage to all players. The fact is that the performance enhancing drugs that are banned are harmful to the body. If your denying this than you are denying countless, peer reviewed studies, (just do a quick google search if you don't believe me). That means if performance enhancing drugs are allowed than in order for a player to compete with drug using players they have to take the drug as well exposing themselves to their dangerous side effects. This is why "bananas" or vitamins or water or working out arent banned because everyone can healthily use them. Your arugment that tennis is unfair anyway because certain players have advantages is not really true. There are people with natural born talent but this is the only unfair advantage. Many players have come from poor backgrounds without the best facilities and coaches to be great players. Tennis is not about who can pump their bodys full of drugs to make them play well it's about who can do the best with their body, a ball and a racket. It's about fairness and giving the best player the chance to win.

@levelojaune--acyually, as I explained above, there can't be long-term studies of properly administered performance-enhancing drugs, precisely becuase they are banned. Whether a properly supervised and administered course of drug use is harmful in all cases is very much an open question, and saying "google it" is no response.

As to exercise never being unhealthy, and therefore not banned--you're joking, right? Top level athletes aren't taking a few leisurely laps in the pool or out for a morning stroll, they're pushing their bodies to the absolute limit and beyond. Players routinely sustain injuries in training, some career-ending. Moreover, players drop dead from simple heat-related injuries with alarming frequency.

I think a lot of the posters here aren't getting that what top athletes do is abuse their bodies. It's what it takes to win already, the only question is, will we allow drugs that allow faster recovery times, and harder training, or not? The healthy/unhealthy ship has long sailed.

As for the "fairness" issue and money, in many ways performance enhancing drugs are much cheaper than the "legal" way to get the boost. As and example an athlete can either have a second home at altitude for training purposes, have a hypoxic chamber built in their home, or take EPO. All have the same effect, an increased concentration of red blood cells, all with the same risks, at too high a level it becomes dangerous to the heart. What costs the least in terms of money, and life?

The New York Times reported today that injuries in the MLB are up 28% from 2006 to 2008, you know when PED testing went into effect.

<link>