Steroids, blood-doping, and other performance enhancing
drugs are all used in the pursuit of becoming the best an athlete can be. Regardless
of the costs. Yet some pills are considered acceptable, some require a doctor’s
prescription, others are allowed but only to a certain limit, and for completely outrageous drugs an athlete could be stripped of everything they
have ever worked for. These consequences seem even more unfair than the initial problem. Athletes may have to rely on certain pills
from the relief of pain, stress, or anxiety that may not be sport related. Although
it’s not that hard to get a prescription from a doctor for many pills (such as
Adderall) these days that are considered to give an unfair advantage. So where
can the line really be drawn for an “unfair advantage” and to whom is it unfair
for?
As America knows, Lance Armstrong was absolutely the best
cyclist in the history of cycling. Then in 2012, Armstrong was banned from
cycling and was torn from all seven Tour de France medals. An athlete’s
competitive drive is what people want to see, and for many it doesn't matter
what they do to increase that drive. The people want to see boundaries broken,
records shattered and legends made in sports.
For decades, athletes have been trying to give just that to
the people. Even with the constant rules and regulations, make one thing
illegal and a work-around drug is ready to be used the following year. In the
50’s it was Benzedrine, then in the 60’s Dexedrine was ready, not much later
Ritalin was ready for use and to top off all the mental buzz Valium was
introduced to take the mind to bed. Apparently, it doesn't matter if it’s
amphetamine or caffeine, athletes will do anything if it helps them fulfill
their potential and organizations are still fighting it.
There is no perfect line for performance enhancing
substances for athletes and athletes will continue to push their boundaries
regardless of what a man in a suit says behind a desk. So why fight it?
No comments:
Post a Comment