Should student-athletes be tested for drugs?
A subject which is commonly found in newspaper articles, broadcast upon our televisions and even discussed over afternoon tea is that of doping. Doping refers to the use of performance enhancing drugs to gain an advantage in professional sports. There are multiple cases of this happening at international level competitions, an example being that of Lance Armstrong and his sensational accomplishments – winning the Tour de France seven times in a row – all of which were found out to be accredited to his use of the drug known as EPO (Erythropoietin). This is a drug that increases red blood cell production. I believe that the use of drugs in sport should not be allowed as it discredits an individual's own efforts.
The use of drugs in sports goes as far back as the Ancient Greeks where the original Olympic Games began. The word that we commonly use for drug use in sports today, 'doping,' was derived from the Dutch word 'doop' which means a viscous opium juice – the drug that the Ancient Greeks were assumed to use. The next era to have used drugs to enhance performance in sports were the Romans. Their gladiators regularly used drugs to avoid fatigue and injury during games. After this, drug use in sport was not recorded again until the 19th century.
I wish to portray my opinions on whether drugs should be allowed in sport, and to do this I are going to use a less documented group – student athletes. We are all aware of professional athletes being screened and tested for drugs on a regular basis, however, are students also tested?
Firstly, the opportunity to play sports to represent your school/club is a privilege for the individual. Using any form of enhancement drug is in direct violation of all sporting policies. In simple terms, it is cheating. You are not only carrying your own name but you are also an ambassador of the body that has allowed you to participate. You are the role model of the spectators cheering you on, this sends out the wrong message to the future generations in that they must use drugs as their own abilities are not good enough. Furthermore, it is even disrespectful to the sport itself, sports are supposed to be challenging and as Wiesing states, "Sport is an artificial setting, created by human beings, in which the competitor is required to perform, at least according to current, widely prevalent belief, with a degree of 'naturalness" (Wiesing, 2011). This therefore predetermines the ethics of the sport and how competitors must give it their all, without the use of substances that further their capabilities.
In addition, not only is it disrespectful to the sport but also to fellow competitors. Why should they have put as much time and effort into their training and mental mind-set to be beaten by someone who just cheated their way to the top? Especially in adolescents, the result of being beaten can have an effect on how they approach further sporting campaigns, as they may become disheartened and pessimistic. The worst part of it all is that those adolescents who were beaten, despite giving it their all, were unaware of the disadvantage they were at by being honest, and usually attribute the loss to their own failure. This is also further reinforced by the reluctance that coaches have to take any blame on themselves, thus creating an unhealthy mental state of mind for the student. Often the coaches themselves pre-determine the path of drug abuse that the student will take by giving them feedback such as 'you'll need to be stronger' or 'you'll need to be faster' to make it into college teams.
In my opinion, competition with others and overcoming the challenges due to your own personal skill and abilities provides far more self-gratification than using a substance that enhances your abilities beyond your own competence. There is no sense of achievement there – ultimately you are just deceiving everyone around you. When a student does take drugs to increase their performance then it just begins a downwards spiral from there as they may begin to become dependent on the drug for their continued success. The drug may even begin to affect other aspects of their life and overwhelm the student entirely. Therefore, the student will eventually begin to deceive themselves in order to protect themselves.
On the topic of deception, having all the students take drug tests before competing in an athletic event not only provides a further example of fair play but also lets all of the competitors know that they are facing hardworking, dedicated athletes. This alone would increase the satisfaction gained from, not only the athletes, but also the audiences such as friends and family. There can be a true sense of honour amongst all those involved.
Lastly, students taking these drugs are endangering their lives to impress others. I am confident that friends and family would rather a healthy and happy silver medallist at the local athletics than a shell of a person, the remnants of what they used to be due to the drugs erasing their personality and free will, who won gold. The drugs are, mostly, unregulated and they may have exceptionally nasty side effects including psychosis and a sense of invincibility.
Contrary to this, there are some parties that believe testing student-athletes for drugs is wrong. They believe it is unfair to the student-athletes themselves due to the drug tests showing positive for substances such as marijuana and cocaine which has little effect on their performance. It is an invasion of their privacy and against their human rights as they are not placing the public under any immediate danger when participating in sporting events. Surprisingly there are even parties that support the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports. In "Athletes Will Never Stop Using Performance-Enhancing Drugs," Matt Barnard states that people should recognise that even the best athletes go to great lengths in order to succeed. This shows that his stance on the use of them is just a means to an end. If you cannot keep up with the competition fairly then cheating is more or less what he is implying.
Within the UK anyone can be tested for drugs if they are an athlete that is staying, training, entering a competition or named in part of a team for a competition, at any level. There is a number of set criteria for the testing by UKAD, who are the United Kingdom Anti-Doping agency, one of which is usually based on the athletes placing within the event that they are competing in.
In conclusion, I believe student athletes should be regularly tested for performance enhancing drugs. What does the hard-working individual who came second place, only losing to a drug abuser, a cheater, get? Is it really worth harming your body to get first place? Honesty always prevails. Certainly, using performance enhancing drugs would serve to allow the student to progress in their athletic career but for how long? As the common saying goes, 'respect is earned, not given.' This serves to reinforce not only public respect that the athletes receive but also the self-respect of the athlete – what worth is that respect if it is deceitful? Perhaps if the drug test did not involve recreational drugs then it would be a different story. However, my mind is set and I am whole-heartedly in agreement with those who support student-athletes being tested for drugs. This is the best way to maintain a healthy and proper image for themselves and retains the integrity of the sporting world. I would like to believe that sport has progressed since the gladiators first stepped into the arena.