In competitive sports, doping refers to the use of banned athletic performance-enhancing drugs by athletes of all athletic sports. The word doping is widely used by organizations that conduct and overwatch professional competitions such as the olympics. The use of drugs such as HGH(Human Growth Hormone) to enhance performance is considered unethical which is why it is prohibited by most international sports organizations, including the International Olympic Committee. There has always been a debate from organizations and society on whether these drugs should be allowed in sports. The reasoning for pro or con on doping can be viewed by looking at facts ethically, politically, morally, and economically. .Looking at the history of doping, the origins of this act in sports go back to the very competition of sport itself. The use of performance enhancing drugs was first recognized in chariot racing. More recent examples range from baseball all the way to cycling. Over 30% of athletes participating in 2011 World Championships admitted having used banned substances during their careers. According to a study created and lead by WADA, actually 44% of them had used them. How so? It just proves their using not frowned upon. This proves the idea of doping to be frowned upon and not encouraged throughout society. Nevertheless, only 0.5% of those tested were caught. This statistic is startling and raises the question how this is possible when the drug testing association is built on preventing abuse in athletics. The whole Russian track and field team were banned from the 2016 Olympic Games due to the fact that the Russian State had sponsored their doping program. So what exactly are these drugs? Types of performance enhancing drugs include: Anabolic steroids, Androstenedione, Human Growth Hormone (HGH), Erythropoietin, Diuretics, and Creatine. As of now doping in the olympics or any professional athletic competition is illegal and can be met with instant termination of the individual from the event. Other consequences could even be as serious as of the restriction of never letting that individual compete again, clean or not. Imagine though, what if doping was legal? What if humans had the decision to push their bodies to new limits with these resources? After all isn’t it a human beings choice on whether or not they want to take these substances? Some people in academic groups argue that doping should be not only allowed, but encouraged in professional sports. This can mean either in an open free-for-all as it used to be or under medical supervision. There is no telling how far the human body can improve if regulated doping was allowed in professional sports.If each individual has the right to assume and accept the risks that they think are worth taking, why shouldn’t athletes have the same freedom as anyone else? If athletes prefer the “gainz” in performance by the use of steroids along with the increased risk of harm to their body, what gives anyone the right to interfere with their choice? For example, if we should not discourage smokers from risking their health by smoking, why should we prohibit professional athletes such as weightlifters, from taking risks with their health in order to achieve their goals? Many respond to this by saying performance enhancers such as steroids and other forms of doping, have a negative effect on long-term health of the individual. The professional athlete of these enhancers are hurting themselves in the long run without improving their short-term professions from athletic competition. This reasoning does not overcome the fact that yes, maybe the drugs do cause internal harm, but that does not disregard the fact that as a human being we have the right to take these drugs despite the consequences. As stated before, just because tobacco causes harm to the one who is smoking it, this does not give society the right to decide whether or not that individual can continue with their decision.I would start each paragraph with a sentence to preface. I’m confused on going back and forth for for and against. There is no reasonable argument to support the opinion that enhancing performance is unfair. If that was the case we would ban coaching and training to level out the playing field. Competition can be unfair if there is different levels of access to particular enhancements, but equal access can be acquired more reasonably if society focuses more on deregulation than by prohibition. In today’s world disadvantages is part of every sport and every competition. For example high schools do everything in their power to outweigh the playing field. This can range from recruiting players around the world or raising money to pay for more skilled coaches. There is no penalization for this because it’s how the organization and even the world works. The question is, how is this any different than allowing athletes and competitors to use performance enhancing drugs in professional sports such as the olympics. These two examples are exactly the same scenario but yet they have different outcomes. This could be the result of how society frowns upon the usage of steroids. People against doping state that athletes don’t take these drugs to simply level the playing field, they do it to get an advantage. If every athlete is taking steroids the result is instead of taking 10 grams or 10 cc’s, they’ll take 20 or 30 or 40. This can result in the usage of steroids getting out of control very quickly. The ending action will be a bunch of individuals who are genetically mutated by performance enhancing drugs competing until an advantage beats another. This counter argument does not simply apply to this case because as stated before the goal is to legalize doping with regulation and assistance. This fear of doping becoming out of control is not possible if each athlete is monitored on what and how much they put into their body. Doping will no longer be an excuse or argument on why an athlete won over another. With doping legalized the playing field will be more level since the only possible advantages will be hard work and genetics. Many ask themselves if a certain athlete is juicing or taking something after they win, but nobody asks how that individual got away with taking performance enhancing drugs. The reason being for this is because there is almost no way to tell the difference unless you take blood. This creates the question, “How well does drug tests work?”. A report on Doping rates in cyclings show that results have been nearly cut by 50% in the last decade. Other reports show that doping in professional sports such as swimming and discus have gone down over the past 10 years, unfortunately this does not mean the tests are working. Every year players and companies focus on finding new ways to create a bypass for doping. This either means that they find someone who is willing to fudge the results or they find someone that is able to alter the drug so it does not show up on the test as positive. The point is doping is never going to go away, it is a part of sports that is crucial to winning. For example why is it that marijuana is now legal in certain states? It is because people finally realized that it will never go away, so instead of working against it, they work with it. The government now has regulations and taxes on marijuana that profits the users and themselves. What makes this example any different than doping? It would be much easier to eliminate the anti-doping rules than to eliminate doping. Whether it’s legal or not, people will continue to take performance-enhancing drugs. Even the top players in sports will keep on using them because that’s the easiest way to boost their confidence, improve their skills, and make the most progress in their eye. A major counter argument to this view is that smoking marijuana only influences the user, taking performance enhancing drugs in competitions effects all of the other athletes since they physically cannot compare. People state that no competitor should loose over and over again because they don’t want to take a drug that could possibly affect their future health. Also when an athlete takes a drug to win a competition it not only affects themselves, but also changes the odds of their competitors chance of winning. This is where the two examples start to fade apart. Of course a rebuttal would be what choice does the athlete have? As a professional athlete society will expect them to keep on improving until age is a factor. So if the athlete reaches his maximum genetic potential with no chance of improvement what are they going to do? They will look for any chance of improvement since that is what is expected of them by the world. The only option they are going to have is to look to performance enhancing drugs. Doping is the process of professional athletes taking drugs or other substances in order to improve physical performance in competitions. It can be recorded all the way back to ancient Greece, where athletes who participated in the first Olympic Games ingested mushrooms, plant seeds, and herbal stimulants to give them enhanced strength and endurance. Today’s sports athletes are encouraged by their coaches, managers, and us to win at all costs. Of course what choice do they have if it’s their only chance of pleasing themselves and their fans. When their chances of detection are slim to none the rewards outweigh the risks. The belief that drug testing will eliminate doping is a helpless idea that will never reach success. Instead of completely outlawing it which has little success, why not embrace it with regulations to keep doping under control. The playing field will be leveled and the athletes will be safer since they have experts to help them instead of them doing it by themselves. The risks to the individual’s body will decrease 10 fold since they have experts to help them the whole way through their competition. Doping will no longer be viewed as a act of cowardice, but be seen as a resource just like a well rounded diet. It’s time to rethink the absolute ban of doping and instead pick limits and regulations that are safer and more enforceable.