Every athlete learns about steroids from a young age. They are told it will make them super strong, but they also learn early on how bad they are for them and why they should never be taken. Every athlete wants to gain an advantage over the team they play on and performance enhancing drugs have been the solution to this problem for many years and will continue to be the case unless something is done about it. Isn't getting rid of the benefit that this drug provides by getting rid of it? Instead, how about allowing the use of performance-enhancing drugs, but they are monitored? Performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) are used by a multitude of athletes around the world not only to improve their performance, strength or weight gain/loss, but also to help their bodies for medical reasons. These reasons are demonstrated using medical marijuana and many other types of performance enhancing drugs. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay The use of performance-enhancing drugs has increased more and more in recent years due to the addition of new things on the ban list for sport. An example of an added medication is a form of diuretic. A diuretic is a substance taken to help people use the bathroom more, and it helps combat problems like kidney stones. Diuretics have been banned in professional sport because they can also be used to conceal other banned drugs during a doping test. A diuretic is not actually considered a performance-enhancing drug, but because it can help disguise its use, sports leagues have decided to ban it as well, even though it can help an athlete with certain problems medical. sport has to do with morality and coercion. Morally, people do not use performance-enhancing drugs because they believe that doing so will give an advantage to those who use them, thereby disadvantaging those who do not use them. The moral reason to ban doping need not be weighed against the autonomy claims of athletes who would prefer to dope because, upon closer examination, such claims have no force. The moral reason to ban doping must, however, be weighed against the enforcement costs imposed on all athletes by an effective ban. Coercion is the force to do something based on force or through the use of threats. Although players are not required to take performance enhancing drugs to enhance their performance, their use by other athletes provokes the "if you can't beat them, join them" mindset. which requires athletes who are not taking performance-enhancing drugs to still take them in order to compete. The first official ban on "stimulating substances" by a sporting organization was introduced by the International Amateur Athletic Federation in 1928. Thirteen Olympic swimming events, the East German swimming team won eleven in 1976. The use of performance-enhancing drugs is not new, but the effectiveness of these drugs is far beyond what it was before. The media only wants to show the banning of those who use these PEDs because they want them to look bad in the public eye, but in 1992, Vicky Rabinowicz interviewed a small groupof athletes. She found that Olympic athletes, in general, believed that most successful athletes used banned substances. Medicines are much more effective today than they were in the days of strychnine and sheep testicles. Studies involving the anabolic androgenic steroid have shown that, even at doses much lower than those used by athletes, muscle strength could be improved by 5 to 20 percent. It is also relatively unlikely that most athletes will submit to testing. The International Amateur Athletic Federation estimates that only 10 to 15 percent of participating athletes are tested in each major competition. The World Anti-Doping Agency's code declares a drug illegal if it enhances performance, is a health risk or violates the "spirit of sport." They define this spirit as follows. The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human mind, body and spirit and is characterized by the following values: ethics, fair play and honesty, health, excellence in performance, character and education, fun and joy, teamwork, dedication and commitment, respect for rules and laws, respect for oneself and other participants, courage, community and solidarity. The most common argument made against performance-enhancing drugs is that their use confers an unfair advantage on those who use them, but this is not always the case. The ability to perform well in sporting events is determined by the ability to supply oxygen to the muscles. Oxygen is carried by red blood cells. The more red blood cells, the more oxygen you can carry. This in turn controls an athlete's performance in aerobic exercises. EPO is a natural hormone that stimulates the production of red blood cells, thereby increasing the hematocrit (PCV), or the percentage of blood composed of red blood cells. EPO is produced in response to anemia, hemorrhage, pregnancy or living at altitude. Athletes began injecting themselves with recombinant human EPO in the 1970s, and the technique was officially banned in 1985. At sea level, the average person has a PCV of 0.4 to 0.5. This naturally varies; 5% of people have a hematocrit above 0.5, and those of elite athletes are more likely to exceed 0.5, either because their high hematocrit led them to sporting success or because of their training. Raising PCV too high can lead to health problems. The risk of harm increases rapidly as the PCV exceeds 50%. One study showed that in men whose PCV was 0.51 or greater, the risk of stroke was significantly increased (relative risk = 2.5), after adjusting for other causes of stroke . At these levels, increased PCV combined with hypertension would result in a nine-fold increase in stroke risk. In endurance sports, dehydration causes the athlete's blood to thicken, further increasing its viscosity and pressure. What starts out as a relatively low risk of stroke or heart attack can increase significantly during exercise. Taylor and Francis conducted a study on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. In this study, they surveyed one hundred and eighty-five University of Pennsylvania students, one hundred of whom were female while the other eighty-five were male. They divide people into three distinct groups. One group read that a certain drug helped athletes improve their attention by 15%, another group read that these athletes improved their memory :.