Performance Enhancing Drugs Article 1
PERFORMANCE ENHANCING DRUGS 7
Thefirst article is about the role of the World Anti- Doping Agency. Itfocuses on its latest victor of proving the renowned cyclist, LanceArmstrong, was using performance drugs. It is amazing to discoverthat people who are supposed to protect doping cases are the ones whoare encouraging it through providing cover to cyclists such asArmstrong. For example, the writer of the article asserts that thefirst time USADA made allegations against Armstrong that he was usingdrugs, it seemed impossible. Armstrong is a seven times winner inthe world cycling competition. On normal circumstances, the UScongress and donors to his charity are supposed to ensure tatArmstrong wins honestly. However, it is surprising to learn that somemembers of the congress as well as, donors to his cancer charitywere defending him when the USADA claimed that he was using theperformance enhancing drugs (Robinson & Epshteyn, 2009).
Onthe other hand, the USADA’s victory in proving that Armstrong wasusing PED probably reduced the trust of people towards WADA and UCIagencies. For instance, UCI had already claimed that it wouldchallenge USADA’s allegations concerning Armstrong’s abuse of PEDand breach of UCI regulations that restrict use of substances thatgive athletes unfair advantage to others. On the other hand, WADAdoes not have adequate machinery and resources to stop doping casessince it had been alleging that Armstrong was probably using PED fora long time, but it could not conduct conduct investigations andbring forward a strong case towards the athlete. Moreover, it seemsthat successful and wealthy athletes such as Lance Armstrong have bigcartels tat help them to use the PEDs confidentially. This is becauseathletes undergo thorough searches to ensure they do not abuse drugs,yet Armstrong had successful used the drugs to contest for hisposition as an international cycling champion (Robinson &Epshteyn, 2009).
Inthis article, the author introduces a challenging topic that exploresthe legitimacy of using performance enhancing drugs (PED). Accordingto the facts outlined in the article, he identifies the most criticalfactor obstructing the victor of the war against drugs as the factthat there are some enhancers can be used legally. Nonetheless, Irefute this allegation because the so-legal enhancers that he claimsare natural nutrients that are available naturally. For example,taking dietary and vitamins supplement, weight training and improvednutrition are all fair methods of competing. As long as an athleteis taking natural supplements that any other person can also attain,such as weight training, this is legitimate. In addition, I wouldlike to oppose the author’s argument that athletes should not usethe PED because they ma result in serious adverse effects. One ofthe responsibilities of the WADA and other anti-Doping Agencies isensuring the health of athletes. The author has argued that WADAprevents athletes from using PEDs because they would be technicallycompelling their colleagues to use the boosters, which is not fair.However, I find it that anti-doping agencies are only trying tocreate a fair-game level for everyone. Although pharmacists might inthe future discover safe performance enhancing drugs, it would stillbe unfair to permit athletes to use the drugs. Drugs will make itpossible for everyone, even individuals with no talent, resilienceand tolerance to challenging competition environment, to participatein diverse sports. The most significant factor in games is talent. The rich, famous and popular athletes have specially-honed talentsthat separate from other gamers. The talent is the surest way tomaintain the performance difference in all sorts of sports (Robinson& Epshteyn, 2009). As such, even humans discover side-effectsfree drugs, sportsperson still need a differentiating factor that isnot influenced by cheating.
Robinson,T., & Epshteyn, M. G. (2009). Performance-enhancingdrugs.Edina, Minn: ABDO Pub. Co.