Why we should not allow performance-enhancing drugs in sports Paper
Performance enhancing drugs considerably influence sports and athletes. Players have to pay heavy price for their life when involved in using performance enhancing drugs. Though drugs improve athlete’s performances like sports technology and equipment but its practice is not rewarded by athlete fans. It is a universal outlook of populace that players must reflect their natural talent to give superior performance which is admired with great fervor. But some advocates and athletes oppose this statement and argue for significance of performance drugs in sports.
The main issue in today’s sport is that on what grounds, these drugs are banned that can help them to get more out of their training and practice. Some challengers argue that drugs and special diets have always been a part of the Olympics and permitting athletes to consume drugs may enhanced their knowledge of the human body and such drugs could encourage sport participation. Activists who are against allowing performance enhancing drugs squabble that if people know the athlete has deceiving, they will not really enjoy watching their performance as much.
The present paper focuses on the hot theme which is revolving in the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports. It provides strong arguments against allowing performance enhancing drugs with supportive facts. It is voiced by dictators that victory at all will not be appreciated if drugs are used by athlete. Permitting drugs could also lead to casual use for those who might want to build up their muscle tone. If the public came to know that sports turn around just drugs and less athleticism, the television viewers and audience at sports contests will decrease very speedily.
In such a case, spot organization has to face serious financial problems for the athletes. Drug scandals may cause the media and athletic sponsors to juggle around with their promise to that particular sport. Athletes were using drugs to enhance their performance from early times. In the games of the third Olympiad, Thomas Hicks won the marathon after receiving an injection of strychnine in the middle of the race (Seventh Report of Session 2003-2004). The first official ban on stimulating substances by a sporting organization was initiated by the International Amateur Athletic Federation in 1928.
In 1976, the East German swimming team won 11 out of 13 Olympic events, and later took legal action the government for giving them anabolic steroids (New York Times 2004). The use of illegal substances is prevalent despite the health risks, and despite the regulating body’s efforts to abolish drugs from sport. Most athletes are also relatively improbable to ever undergo testing. The International Amateur Athletic Federation approximates that only 10-15% of participating athletes are tested in each main contest. Everyone recognizes that drugs are against the rules.
Sport organizers must have to define the rules of sport. If the drugs are legalized and freely available, the consequences will be dangerous such health hazards and loss faith of public. People perform well at sport as a result of the genetic makeup that happened to deal them a captivating hand. The capability to perform well in sporting events is determined by the ability to deliver oxygen to muscles. Oxygen is carried by red blood cells. The more red blood cells, the more oxygen player can carry. This in turn controls an athlete’s performance in aerobic exercise.
If it is raised naturally, it is well accepted. But the injection of EPO which is a natural hormone that stimulates red blood cell production, increasing the packed cell volume (PCV) the percentage of the blood comprised of red blood cells was officially banned in 1985 because it is against sports ethics (JAMA 1996; 276:231-7). Health factor involved in using EPO intravenously is that raising the PCV too high by this injection can cause serious health problems. The risk of harm quickly augments as PCV gets above 50%.