William Jordan

Dr. Guenzel

ENC 1102

4/1/2020

The Coercive Power of Drugs in Sports

For this response I'll be choosing a journal article by Thomas H. Murray called

"The Coercive Power of Drugs in Sports" published by The Hastings Center Report. The

Hastings Center, being a Bioethics Research Institute makes it the most credible source

out there in regard to marketing professional athletes performance enhancing drugs.

Thomas H. Murray, being the president of this organization from the years 1999 to 2012,

is the most credible source at this level because of everything he must've seen and

experienced at this institute. Thomas H. Murray was also the director of the Center for

Biomedical Ethics in the School of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University, we he

also earned the title of becoming the Susan E. Watson Professor of Bioethics. Murray has

testified in front of a lot of congressional committees. Since is prior accomplishments,

Murray has been become the president of the Society of Health and Human Values, as

well as the president of the American Society of Bioethics and Humanities. Along with

those presidential positions, Murray is also an international expert advisor to Singapore's

Bioethics Advisory Committee and vice chair of Charity Navigator. This man might as
well be the most qualified person on the planet to write an article on bioethics with the

accolades to stand behind it.

The main argument that Murray Provides isn’t very direct. Murray seems to give

a Ted-talk like approach, where he seems to explore all possible arguments made about

this certain topic. He doesn’t stick to any certain point of view, but a consistency in his

writing directs the reader to believe that he supports drug tested professional sports.

Murray titles one of the subheadings of his Free Choice Under Pressure, where he seems

to acknowledge that although the marketing of steroids and promise of fame and glory is

tempting, these athletes aren’t being forced to take these drugs. These athletes have free

will and blaming others for their use of drugs is irresponsible and childish. Although I

don’t specifically believe in this standpoint, I believe it has some merit. This article is

quite counter to my viewpoint, but Murray does a great job of not polarizing his research

to swing the reader to a certain side without first considering their own morals. He allows

for readers on either side to be able to analyze this piece of research and be able to make

an informed opinion unlike modern media sources. I’d say his overall point of writing

this article was to inform the reader on the use of steroids and other performance

enhancing drugs and how they have a coercive power in the world of professional

athletics.

I noticed that even though his accolades would make you think otherwise, Murray

often argues from an aristotilian point of view. He uses a lot of logos when first

introducing how athletes are marketed performance enhancing drugs. "Our images of a

nonmedical drug user normally include the heroin addict nodding in the doorway, the

spaced out marijuana smoker, and maybe, if we know that alcohol is a drug, the wino
sprawled on the curb. We probably do not think of the Olympic gold medalist, the

professional baseball player who is a shoo-in for the Hall of Fame, or the National

Football League lineman."(Murray 24) The use of logos is here is effective to introduce

the topic and soften the reader's sensitivity to the familiarity of top level athletes using

performing enhancing drugs. The use of ethos is all in his credibility which I listed above.

He uses pathos when he relates drug use to doctors and protecting the general public.

"Either they are being properly used by doctors to make sick people well or at least to

stem the ravages of illness and pain..."(Murray 24) This us of pathos helps shorten the

distance between the concepts performance enhancing drugs and drug prescriptions of

medical doctors.

For my research project, I decided this would be an appropriate source due to the

fact that It was written by possibly the most qualified person in the field of bioethics and

biomedical sciences. My research question, which considers how professional athletes are

marketed steroids, and how the pressure of other athletes in the same competitions using

these drugs effects the balance of the playing field. This article is well suited for my

research paper as it allows for me to be able to have insight on the first recorded uses of

anabolic steroids and how it's use has developed over the years. "Among international

athletes, the practice became very popular very rapidly. In 1973, Gold Medalist and four-

time Olympic competitor in hammer-throw, Harold Connelly, testified before a U.S.

Senate Committee..." (Murray 25) Early evidence like this can help develop my research,

as in Connelly's testimony he states that it wasn't uncommon for athletes to carry their

own medical supplies for their steroids use, allowing me to further prove my point that
the pressure these athletes are under with the use of steroids all around them can affect

the caliber of the sport and the level these athletes are able to compete.

This article breaks down the ethical use of these androgens and how they affect

athletes, not only physically, but mentally. Murray goes into detail about the anabolic use

of these drugs, when he states that "The 1964 Olympics were probably the first in which

steroids were used. A group of steroids related to the masculinizing hormone testosterone

were synthesized. These steroids are valued for two principal effects, which they have in

varying proportions: androgenic, or masculinizing, and anabolic, or tissue building...

Some unknown athletes must have reasoned that if anabolic steroids can rebuild damaged

muscles, why not use them to build additional normal muscle?"(Murray 24) He breaks

down his arguments into several subheadings, such as Drugs on the Playing Field, Why

Athletes Take Anabolic Steroids, An Unsightly Array of Risks, An Ethical Account, and

Free Choice Under Pressure.

In the heading Drugs on the Playing Field Murray describes when athletes started

taking and anabolic steroids and what the early 60s looked Olympics looked like at

during that time. “The 1964 Olympics were probably the first in which steroids were

used… Some unknown athlete must have reasoned that if anabolic steroids can rebuild

damaged muscle, why not use them to build additional normal muscle.” (Murray 24)

Why Athletes Take Anabolic Steroids Thomas H. Murray describes why athletes take

steroids and how athletes began taking larger than regular doses of testosterone. “Many

athletes persist in using performance-enhancing drugs despite official disapproval,

possible disqualification, and even risk to their own health.” (Murray 25) He details how

the aggressive side effect of anabolics make athletes more prone to heavier training to
relieve that stress. In the heading An Unsightly Array of Risks, Murray shows how the

female East German swimmers started using steroids against doctors and Olympic

recommendation. “Anabolic steroids are being taken in quantities as much as twenty

times greater than the therapeutic dose.” (Murray 25) An Ethical Account is something

that the author added to this article to demonstrate the ethical problems with taking

steroids being considered cheating in pro-circuits worldwide. “The International Olympic

has given an answer of sorts by flatly prohibiting ‘doping’ of any kind. This stance

creates at least as many problems as it solves” (Murray 27) Free Choice Under Pressure

describes how steroids are marketed to players via how enticing they are to athletes that

want to make a name form themselves in the big professional sports organizations.

“Olympic and professional sport, as a social institution, is an intensely competitive

endeavor, and there is tremendous pressure to seek a competitive advantage. If some

athletes are believed to have found something that gives them an edge, other athletes will

feel pressed to do the same or leave the competition.” (Murray 29)

Concluding, I believe an important thing that the common individual can keep in

mind about all professional athletes is the immense pressure they are under when

preforming in front of the entire world. Understanding this shows why professional

athletes get into these habits. I also believe that an important take-away from this text is

that although free choice by athletes is granted, the overarching pressure of these drugs

leads to a dark and dangerous path to compete for title spots. Murray makes an analogy

that poses an important concept to think about when he states "If we had a drug that

steadied a surgeons hand's and improved her concentration so that surgical errors were

reduced at little or no personal risk, I would not fault it's use."(Murray 30) This analogy
holds weight because it likens a profession that others see as important to that of a

professional athletes career, that the athletes themselves see as a life-or-death scenario.

Works Cited

Murray, Thomas H. “The Coercive Power of Drugs in Sports.” The Hastings

Center Report, vol. 13, no. 4, 1983, pp. 24–30. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3561718.

Accessed 5 Mar. 2020.