Say Yes to Dop!
Doping in sports has been one of the most discussed issues by the world; either by the free writers or the body of agencies related with sports. The discussion started when Lance Armstrong, who won the 2002 Tour de France by leaving his nearest rival 7 seconds behind, failed the drug test. Ellis Cashmore, a professor of culture, media, and sports at Staffordshire University in the United Kingdom, through his article Making Sense of Spots, came up with an argument of drugs should be allowed in sports. He countered the argument of taking drugs will lead to the unfairness of the match effectively. In his article, he said, “We can't say the same for other sports, though we can remind competitors that among the array of performance enhancing aids which are available to them, such as acupuncture, hypnotism, hypoxic tents (that simulate high altitude) and the countless other perfectly legal performance enhancements are some that are probably more dangerous than drugs.” Other than that, we are the type of generation who are never bored of seeking the best in human ability. The prohibition of drugs usage in sport surely will affect the athletes’ performances and next lead to the “turning off” by the fans and this is surely a thing needs to be taken into account. I, myself, am agree with Ellis Cashmore that drugs should be allowed in sports and I will explain my argument in terms of the misconception about drug, the role of drug in promising competitive sports, and the function of drug in maintaining athletes’ health.
First thing first, in order to change the entire rule of sports by allowing the presence of drugs in sports, the misconception about drugs should be clarified. Professional athletes know it requires a high amount of carbohydrate in order for them to stay fit and be at their best condition for the next match day. Before the match day, they will be served a meal that is rich with carbohydrate such as a big bowl of pasta or plates of rice. Erythropoietin (EPO), which is a performance enhancing drug, acts the same way as the pasta or rice does; they provide energy for the athletes. Take a moment and think; as they share the same role for the athletes, why does the EPO is banned while the pasta is allowed? The only difference between the pasta or rice and the EPO is just EPO is taken by the athletes only while the pasta or rice is consumed by the common. Another example to make thing clearer is aspirin. This kind of drug is common among the people; not just the athletes. The usage of aspirin is widespread among the athletes and it is not considered as violation of sports conduct because aspirin is common; it is used by all people to relieve pain. Here, what I am trying to say is what is the real indicator used in order to decide whether a particular drug should be legalized or not? If the drug is not common among the people, it does not mean the drug brings harm and should be forbidden and vice versa.
Secondly, drugs promise more...