argument top image

Should doping be allowed in sport?
Back to question

Doping has always been a part of sport

Doping has been around for centuries. Athletes have used it to improve their performance for years. Since it is present in much of sports history, we should not limit it.
(1 of 7) Next argument >


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.

The Argument

Performance-enhancing drugs have always been a part of sport. Attempting to ban doping isn’t a way of taking sport back to a golden era, but is an attempt to forge a new path for competitive sport.

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.


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.


[P1] Doping has always been a part of sport. [P2] It has not made it any less exciting or entertaining. [P3] If it isn't broken, it doesn't need fixing.

Rejecting the premises

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


This page was last edited on Monday, 13 Jul 2020 at 01:24 UTC

Explore related arguments