My problem with doping isn't moral. Is that in pursuit of sponsors people will literally kill their athletes, with or without their knowledge.
Exactly. It's like safety regulations in car racing. Racers get put into a hard position where they have to choose between safety and winning, because safety equipment costs weight and money that could be used to go faster. Regulations eliminate that choice and allow people to compete while maintaining some baseline level of safety.
The Moral Argument for Doping in Sports
51–52 of 52 posts
Re: The Moral Argument for Doping in Sports
#52I don't necessarily have a problem with professional athletes doping in a black box, i.e. free of influencing others. Professionals should be fully aware of the health effects of "riding the bicycle," and it's hard for me to argue against telling people what they can do to their own bodies. I always thought, however, that the big issue with steroids was the role that athletes play in the lives of children and teenage…
It's not just the children but anyone outside the realm of a "pure competitor" who winds-up harmed unfairly by doping. The average professional cycling or the average professional American football player is not wealthy and is not competing purely for the love of the sport. Rather, they are only moderately well-paid, not terribly likely to reach the true big time and working extremely hard just to stay in the game. O…
Or, ignoring drugs, every professional boxer runs a risk of long term brain damage, yet they still choose to do it, despite most of them meeting your criteria of not being especially wealthy/ solely doing it for love of the sport.