Dragicevich 1

Alex Dragicevich

Dr. Erin Dietel-McLaughlin

FYC 13100

9 December 2010

Performance-enhancing Drugs in Sports

In every athlete, there is a mindset to be productive in a way that outperforms the

opposition. There are many motivations for athletes to be competitive in their sport.

While in their youth, many athletes play for the pure desire to win, when it gets to the

professional level, other motivations are thrown in. In all professional sports, the more

successful players make the most money. If a linebacker reaches a certain amount of

tackles, or exceeds the tackle “quota,” he will be rewarded as such. These performance-

based salaries are relative in all sports. With the competition at such a high level in

professional sports, it’s natural for an individual to want to do anything to get an edge.

Some athletes will lift more weights; some will run extra laps. But many will, especially

in recent years, resort to anabolic steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in

order to achieve at that higher level. It states in the book Performance-Enhancing

Technologies in Sports: Ethical, Conceptual, and Scientific Issues, “Any observer of

Olympic sport over the past several decades can verify that many athletes, and the sports

systems that created them, have operated in accordance with this model of productivity.

From this perspective, doping can appear to be a practical necessity whose productive

advantages outweigh the risks and costs” (3). Although many of these substances are

illegal and deemed as cheating in all sports, athletes still choose to juice up because the

reward of making the extra dollar overshadows the possibility of getting caught and
 Dragicevich 2

penalized. This notion that the reward outweighs the risk is the reason that there is a need

for stricter regulations on performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports.

The MLB (Major League Baseball) is a good example of how stricter regulation

policies can affect the game for the better. An article from Espn.com produced a diagram,

shown below, that compares the Steroid policies of major sports organizations.

Steroid Penalties
Penalties for positive tests for steroid use in various pro sports:

  1st test 2nd test 3rd test 4th test 5th test

MLB 50 gms 100 gms *Lifetime -- --

(Nov. '05) ban

MLB 10 days 30 days 60 days 1 year Commissioner's decision

(Jan. '05)

MLB Counseling 15 days 25 days 50 days 1 year

(2002)

Minor 15 gms 30 gms 60 gms 1 year Lifetime ban

leagues

NFL 4-game 6-game 1-year 1-year 1-year minimum

minimum minimum minimum minimum

NBA 5 gms 10 gms 25 gms 25 gms 25 gms

NHL No testing        

Olympics 2 years Lifetime ban      

In 2002, the MLB gave counseling as a penalty for a first time infraction of steroid use.

The policy then went from 10 games in January of 2005 to 50 games in November of

2005. As of late, the penalty of a second infraction is 100 games and anything after that a
 Dragicevich 3

player is banned from the MLB. Also, the MLB has recently taken a step further from

testing major league players to prospects in Latin America. In an article entitled,

“Dominican Prospects Will Face Strict Rules,” Michael Schmidt writes that because of

drug problems in the MLB, and that Latin American players in particular have

contributed much to these high statistics, the MLB now needs to test the young prospects.

Schmidt explains, “From the drug perspective, a vast majority of our positives have come

from Latin America, in particular the Dominican Republic, and it’s important to expand

our education and testing” (1). Also, as concrete evidence that the MLB’s steroid use has

gone down, the Baseball Almanac cites that the home run leaders from 1998 to 2001 hit

home runs in this order: 70,65,50,73. And from 2006 to 2009 the home run leaders hit

58,50,48,47. A major difference in average home runs hit that shows that the use of

steroids has gone down. These changes the MLB made are for the better and has made an

example that any professional sport can get cleaned up in good time.

As of right now, the NCAA currently has stricter doping policies than most

professional sports. According to NCAA, by law 18.4.1.5.1 entitled Duration of

Ineligibility, “a student-athlete who, as a result of a drug test administered by the NCAA,

tests positive (in accordance with the testing methods authorized by the Executive

Committee) shall be charged with the loss of a minimum of one season of competition in

all sports.” Losing a whole year of eligibility is longer than any of the first infractions in

the diagram above, except for the Olympics. Also, the NCAA has year-round testing

when the students aren’t in season, including the summer. Also, if an athlete doesn’t

show up for a schedules testing, they are automatically tested positive and banned for a

year. If the NCAA can have such tough rules on these college athletes, why cant other
 Dragicevich 4

professional sports organizations implement similar policies? Division one athletes have

their scholarships on the line like pro athletes have their paychecks, but because the

NCAA tests so frequently and punishes so harshly, there is no reason for the NCAA

athletes to take the chance of doing steroids. Again, the reward of playing a sport in

college and keeping the scholarship outweighs the high risk of frequent testing and

penalties to lose those privileges.

Now, since the MLB and NCAA have strict drug testing and have taken a path for

the better, shouldn’t all professional sports take serious efforts in improving their

policies? Apparently not, according to the article “Unhealthy Competition,” steroids are

very prevalent in cycling and always have been, including “the infamous 1998 race when

the whole Italian Festina team was disqualified after their coach was found with more

than 400 doping products, including EPO” (Bahm 1). Additionally, American cyclist

Floyd Landis was stripped of his 2006 tour de France title. In women’s bodybuilding,

even though within the culture most of the athletes juice up to look their best for

competitions, there is only one drug test, on one woman, every year. In the diagram

above it shows that football, generally a strength and power sport, penalizes, minimally,

four games for a first infraction, a penalty that pales in comparison to baseball. It is

obvious that in these sports, the athletes are going to keep doping and essentially cheating

as long as the reward of making the extra dollar outweighs the risk of such passive

penalties.

Not only have athletes been accused of cheating sports by taking steroids, they

have also found ways to cheat the tests that determine whether they have been taking the

drugs or not. In the book Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO, and the Steroids
 Dragicevich 5

Scandal That Rocked Professional Sports, the author writes about how a company called

BALCO provided athletes with doping products that wouldn’t show up on even the most

high-tech drug tests. The owner of the BALCO, Victor Conte, told Barry Bonds (a record

setting MLB player at the time) that if he endorsed BALCO’s legal product called ZMA,

then he would provide Bonds with an illegal supplement that would show up negative on

the MLB’s drug tests. According to the text, “It gave Bonds access to state-of-the-art

performance-enhancing drugs like The Clear, which other elite athletes had begun calling

‘rocket fuel’ and ‘the magic potion’” (Wada, Williams 114). This also gave Bonds a story

to provide when asked about his sudden change in his physique when in fact, the ZMA he

was endorsing was actually changing and helping his body get bigger. This is another

example displaying how the reward of earning in the big bucks out-weighs the risks of

the consequences if tested positive. Not only were the rules in baseball at the time lenient,

but Barry was taking a substance that was farther ahead than the MLB’s tests were. For

all sports to adopt stricter regulations, the science of the testing must be ahead of the

drugs as well.

Performance-enhancing drugs are obviously bad for sports when considering the

purity and nature of the game that is being obstructed. However, the health affects it has

on the athletes that use it may be the biggest glaring negative of them all. Bahm describes

some of the effects of steroids on the human body, explaining:

But as they promote tissue growth, these steroids also damage the liver and heart,

and increase the risk of cancer. Another recent development that concerns anti-

doping agencies is the use of human growth hormone (GH), which is used to treat

children suffering from stunted growth. It increases muscle size and allows tired
 Dragicevich 6

muscles to recover more quickly, but it also triggers the growth of bones and

organs, which leads to potentially life-threatening problem. (1)

Also, some of the short-term effects of performance-enhancing drugs include high blood

pressure, and blood coagulation. In men specifically, testicular atrophy, reduced sperm

count, infertility, baldness, and the development of breasts. These side effects are

extremely dangerous and potentially fatal for anyone who uses performance-enhancing

drugs. The sports associations need to understand that it’s not necessarily even about

cleaning up their sport, but it is about saving lives as well.

Because of the poor job some of the major sports organizations have done in

regulating performance-enhancing drugs, I have devised my own idea or plan that could

work to prevent most, if not all, issues regarding athletes and doping. First, this system of

regulating would need to be backed by a government-run program. The government has a

purely objective stance in the issue. Because the sports associations have been running

their own programs of drug regulating, they are too lenient on their own players. The

sports organizations don’t want the players off the field; they want them on the field. If

an MLB player is hitting 100 home runs, the entire country is going to watch his record-

breaking performances every night. That will bring in TV ratings, which will bring in

money for the MLB. The CEO’s incentive is to make money, not lose it, often times at

whatever cost. Thus, a government-run organization is a must. Secondly, all the sports

organizations need to adopt the same standards of regulation. This way there would be no

favoring or mistreatment in certain sports, and all athletes would get the same penalty.

Thirdly, the penalty for a failed drug test will be a year ban from the sport. The second

test will also be a year ban and the third positive test would be a lifetime ban. These rules
 Dragicevich 7

will give the players two chances to make comebacks if they are accused of doping. Also,

this government-run program will need to have the edge on the science in sports

performance technology. As previously stated, if the science of steroids is faster than the

science of the testing, the cheaters will always be a step ahead. If this program is

implemented, there could be a drastic change for the better in the sports world. I would

estimate that sports would be back to almost 100 percent purity within 10-15 years.

Even though performance-enhancing drugs do have negative effects on people’s

health and negative effects on sports, there are reasons to argue that it has a positive

affect in those aspects. In the article “Banning drugs in sports, a Skeptical View”, Fost

argues the banning of drugs. He writes, “Recent proposals to punish athletes for taking

drugs or to impose mandatory drug testing cannot be defended in ethical terms” (Fost 1).

He argues that there are drugs out there that are used to combat disease and other medical

terms. He believes that there are athletes who should be able to take drugs for there

asthma and other medical set backs, and that consequently, banning these drugs is

unethical (1). I would argue that there are remedies that are legal for athletes to use if

they do have a certain kind of condition that doesn’t allow them to perform at the level

they want. Also, certain drugs or steroids could improve their health so much that it’s at a

level above the playing field.

In all, sports organizations today have not done enough to prevent athletes from

using performance-enhancing drugs. This is due to many factors, including the science of

the steroids being ahead of the science of the testing, rules not being strict enough, and

commissioners simply turning the other cheek to prevent themselves from losing money.

Athletes today have not been fazed by the passive rules implemented. The reward of the
 Dragicevich 8

potential big bucks has outweighed the risk of getting suspended for a short term. Some

leagues have cleaned up their act, but many haven’t. A stricter, government run

organization is in need if all sports are to be played fairly. At the very least, we could

have the NCAA regulate the pro organizations because they’re doing a considerably

better job tackling the task at hand. All athletes would say that they want the referee to

make the right call on a play. All athletes would say they wouldn’t want to get cheated

out of a game. Today, athletes are cheating themselves, their organizations, and their

fans. Quite simply, the cheating needs to stop and there needs to be stricter regulations on

performance-enhancing drugs in sports.

 Dragicevich 9

Works Cited

Bahm, Bilal. "Unhealthy Competition." EMBO Reports 4.10 (2003): 927-29. Print.

Fainaru-Wada, Mark, and Lance Williams. Game of Shadows: Barry Bonds, BALCO,

and the Steroids Scandal That Rocked Professional Sports. New York:

Gotham, 2006. Print.

Fost, Norman. "Banning Drugs in Sports: A Skeptical View." The Hastings Center

Report 16.4 (1986): 5-10. JSTOR. Web. 5 Dec. 2010.

Murray, Thomas H., Karen J. Maschke, and Angela A. Wasunna. Performance-

enhancing Technologies in Sports: Ethical, Conceptual, and Scientific Issues.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2009. Print.

Schmidt, Michael S. "Dominican Prospects Will Face Strict Rules." The New York Times

08 May 2010, Sports sec.: D1. 07 May 2010. Web. 5 Dec. 2010.

<www.nytimes.com>.