Doping has always been a part of sport

The argument

Proponents of allowing doping often begin from a historical observation: performance-enhancing drugs have always been a part of sport. On this view, doping is not a recent corruption of an otherwise pure activity but a longstanding feature of competitive athletics, present throughout its history rather than an intrusion upon it. Athletes have always sought advantages over their rivals, and the use of performance-enhancing substances is one enduring expression of that drive. If that is right, then the common picture of sport as a clean tradition only lately threatened by drugs gets the history backwards. This premise carries a significant implication for how bans on doping should be understood. Advocates argue that prohibiting performance-enhancing drugs cannot be a way of taking sport back to a golden era, because no such drug-free golden era ever existed to return to. Since doping was present all along, there is no earlier, cleaner state of the game that a ban would restore. A prohibition on doping is therefore not an act of preservation or restoration at all; it is an attempt to forge a new path for competitive sport — to create, by rule, a kind of contest that has never actually been the norm. From this the argument moves to its conclusion in support of allowing doping. If doping has always been part of sport, then permitting it is the position that is continuous with sport as it has actually been practised, while banning it imposes a novel and, on this view, artificial ideal. Those who defend tradition in sport, proponents contend, should recognise that the tradition includes doping. Rather than pursuing an invented purity, sport should accept what has always been true of it and allow performance-enhancing drugs openly.

Context

Doping in sport has been taking place since the third Olympiad in 1904. The marathon runner, Thomas Hicks received a shot of strychnine midway through the race. He went on to win the gold medal. <ref=BJSM/>

Premises

Counter-arguments

The performance-enhancing drugs of today are far more potent than they were in Thomas Hicks’ heyday. The increased potency leads to worse side effects and puts athletes at higher risk of adverse health effects. This means that while sport is (arguably) not be broken now, it very soon will be when doping means to become a professional athlete is to trade your long-term health for sporting success. This risk is heightened in contact sports, where even athletes that aren’t doping face bigger, stronger, and tougher opponents, making collisions more intense and increasing the likelihood of serious injury. In these instances, the presence of performance-enhancing drugs in sport is making everyone less safe.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P3] Sport may already be broken, but if it isn't now, it soon will be.

Framing

If doping has always been a part of competitive sport, and it has still effectively served its primary function (to entertain), then it doesn’t make sense to change a critical component.