Well why shouldn't it be allowed they all say it affects them well so do cigarettes ad drinking but it is still legal. Doping in sports also makes them more exciting to watch because when you go to a baseball game you want to see home runs not doubles, singles, and triples. No you want to see home runs and also when at a football game you want to see hard hit not little baby hits so they can say what they want but it should be legalized.
All of us have different genetic strengths and weaknesses when we are born. This is something that we do not have a say in. For example, some of people are blessed with more red blood cells than others due to a difference in their genetic sequence. This give them an advantage over others in sports that demand high stamina. However, by allowing everyone to take EPO (a drug that enhances red blood cell count in the body) until a pre-determined maximum limit in red blood cell count, we may be able to create a truly fair and level playing field.
They should allow doping but to an extent where there not over using it but they should be a symbol saying he cheated. Also some athletes have injures so the drug will allow them to come back and compete at a high level. Like Tyson gay he had many injures that held him back so the drug is allowing him to come back for a return but I wouldn't want ever body to use the drug because there are some athletes that have amazing talent like Miguel Cabrera.
I think doping should be allowed as long as every athlete has a choice in using the drugs. They also have to pose no health risks. People that think that there shouldn't be drugs, obviously are overlooking the point, that athletes have their own choices. That is all I have to say.
Doping should be allowed in professional sports. Steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs will likely be used by a few athletes regardless of their legal status. This forces them to be secretive about the behavior, and without oversight from a doctor this could be dangerous. If doping was legal and regulated, the behavior would be safer.
Arytrtytyhtuyutyrut ft666 54 r r r ty yu u u u u u uu u u ui c c v h ju o p ```k k k kk v c c c c c c c c dd d dd d d d tgh hj jk k k l l l
Many athletes already do it, if not all. So whats the point in banning them and taking everything they have achieved and give them to the 2nd guy who most likely have taken the same substances too.
Another reason: It would make sports much more exiting since everyone would be allowed to build the exact kind of body that is optional for their sport and the position that they are playing in.
The most hardworking, skilled and smartest athletes would be the best since nobody could dominate anymore with their physical attributes.
What else? Oh the argument that it's unnatural to dope? Well i haven't met a single professional athlete in any "mainstream" sports who live "natural" life, they train unbelievably hard, they have almost no spare time, their diet is unbelievably strict and their bodies depending on the sport have been molded by all these factors into something that isn't really that natural, the % of fat in their body is inhumanly low among other things. Does that sound natural to any of you?
Its a lot safer than steroids, and sports are all about trying to get the strongest, fastest and basically the best human being, so if you can elevate your game higher why not? People train and exercise to do better, why not dope to do the exact same thing, if everyone does it it wont be unfair.
Some humans have an unfair advantage in sports simply because of their genetic code. According to me if one dopes; he or she is making up for that inferior genetic code and hence making competitive sports more fair (I certainly do not wish to be racist in my next sentence). Has anyone wondered why black people keep winning racing events? In almost all the Olympic running events black people keep winning and this is also due to their genetic construction. In almost all swimming events white people keep winning and this is simply due to their genetic make up. A solution would quite possibly be to invent a drug that reduces or increases athletic performance for a set period of time so that the individual's performance matches with everyone else for that particular game. I am clearly being very scientific about this topic and ultimately the athletes are just a bunch of guinea pigs that need to demonstrate how to get the smallest or largest number of a particular value.
I think that professional sports is not a measure of one's ability but it instead is the measure of one's will power and perseverance. Doping has severely been misunderstood and we as global citizen should revolutionise the way doping is done so that it makes sports more fair.
As long as what they're having are legal substances. It's not like they're turning the athletes into machines. In the end, they are still humans competing with humans. Athletes of the past were probably using them too. Some athletes get better training, better funding, better equipment and better coach. Why not allow better "supplements/enhancers"?
Everybody reacts a different way to doping, so some people will have an advantage over the other ones! This ruins the idea of sports; everyone should have the same chances of winning. So I think that it is unfair to allow doping in professional sports, and it will ruin the meaning of sport.
It's very unfair for those who refuse to do steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs to compete with those who do use them. If you're not good at the sport then get better if you don't know how to get better then you need to try harder. If you can't handle losing a sport then you shouldn't be playing the sport in the first place.
Sport is all about competing based off of skill. Legalizing dope would force all athletes to use dope or to finish in last every time, eliminating the importance of skill and training.
And besides, it's not even necessary. Take baseball for example: Babe Ruth, Joe Dimaggio, Mickey Mantle, Derek Jeter, David Ortiz, Jackie Robinson...They are all hailed as some of the best baseball players in history, and none of them doped.
If doping is allowed, sport will become a competition of medicine science. The more advances they use, the more advantage you may have. The spirit of sportsmanship is to compete in a fair situation not enhanced by drugs. If doping is accepted, how about the use of artificial implant performance machines, oxygenators to enhance pulmonary capacity, etc. Competition will no longer rely on humane natural strength and endurance, but science and medicine.
synthetic versions of the male hormone testosterone are controlled drugs that are not meant to be used unless a man or a woman is suffering from a low testosterone. If a man with normal levels of testosterone uses steroids, it overloads the body and makes the testicles shut down because the body is detecting too much hormone in the blood. This can also lead to an enlarged heart.
Doping should not be allowed in sports because it gives certain players an unfair advantage over others.
If all players were given the same drug, perhaps it would level the playing field but then there are complications like allergic reactions to the drug that would unfairly single certain athletes out.
If the doping were to be legalised - High-performance athletes have to push themselves to their mental and physical limits to secure one of the coveted top spots. The irresponsible lifting of the ban on doping would increase the health risks to athletes so that ultimately they would have to push themselves to the absolute brink of what is humanly possible in order to be successful.
If everyone was allowed to dope, sports would then not be about who the greatest natural and hardworking athlete is. The winner would be the person with the most money and resources to buy the best illicit drugs. Sport is about who is motivated enough to train and never give up, not about who can cheat the best.
A-Rod, Lance Armstrong, Jose Canseco, Rashard Lewis, Shawne Merriman. The list of superstar athletes accused of -- or admitting to -- taking performance-enhancing drugs is almost as impressive as the number of sports in which they compete. It's not just weightlifting, baseball and cycling. It's football, track and field, swimming, soccer and basketball. And it's not restricted to males -- or to professionals. Just ask former Olympic track star Marion Jones. Or the nine high school athletes in Texas caught using performance-enhancing drugs during the 2011-2012 academic year.
Once athletes like these would have found little in their medicine cabinets to help them get a leg up on the competition. Most would have turned to anabolic steroids, synthetic steroid hormones made to resemble testosterone. Chemicals in this special class of steroids, which include testosterone, androstenediol, androstenedione, nandrolone and stanozolol, increase muscle mass and strength, but tests can detect them easily.
In the 1980s and '90s, however, other doping alternatives started appearing on the scene. Now there are numerous performance-enhancing drugs, or PEDs, that aren't classified as steroids. Their effects are quite varied, and some only benefit certain athletes playing certain sports. All of which makes it extremely tricky for regulatory agencies like the International Cycling Union and the World Anti-Doping Agency to keep up -- and to keep drugs out of competing athletes.
On the next few pages, we'll present 10 of these non-steroid PEDs, looking at their modes of action and their side effects. Most entries will be individual drugs, but in a few cases, we'll consider a class of compounds and include some notable examples.
Let's kick everything off with EPO -- the drug that ushered in the modern era of doping.
It ruins the idea of sports because sport is meant to be entertainment for the average person, especially the young children. It's worst for the children because they look up to their sporting heroes and if they find out they have been taking performance-enhancing drugs, they wont be able to look up to them as role models.