Medical arguments for and against the liberalization of doping

Abstract

The use of doping has been banned for almost a century due to the risk involved to the athlete's health. Since then, the criterion of prohibiting substances has been reinforced to improve performance, becoming a rarely controversial issue nowadays. However, opinions defending the liberalization of doping has been sometimes given based on various arguments. One of the most common is the impossibility of completely eradicating doping and that this can be safe, from the point of view of health, if it is done by qualified doctors. This paper presents the arguments against the liberalization of doping from a medical point of view, contemplating various aspects. Those related to the use of substances such as: lack of clear criteria for inclusion in the list of prohibited substances and the unclear margin between the use of medication for treatment and for doping. Arguments related to health protection such as: the risk of sport for the athlete, the healthy sport, doping substances have few health risks, the use of medications, allow genetic doping because it is inevitable, risks of self-medication or use of medication without a prescription. Arguments related to sports performance such as: Doping products do not improve performance, doping is comparable to other performance improvement techniques, match genetic differences among athletes. And other arguments such as: prohibition favours doping, the control of doping increases the risks of doping itself, the high cost of anti-doping fight or the few anti-doping resources. The proposal for liberalization of doping under medical control is analyzed and discussed as well as the effects of liberalization on children and adolescents. At the end the medical ethical aspects related to doping are presented to conclude with the opposition of the medical profession against doping and its liberalization.