Drugs In SportsEssay Preview: Drugs In SportsReport this essayTodays athletes continue to push the boundaries of excellence in performance and physical fitness. Helping them are refined training methods and technologies. Never have athletes had more training aids at their disposal. Twenty years ago, drug testing in sport was in its beginning stages. Now, it is complex and in constant change. Keeping sport clean has become a never-ending race between drug testers and those who choose to cheat. And as much as the quest for the podium or championship should be the big news, often negative reports about positive drug tests end up overshadowing competitors accomplishments.
The use of performance-enhancing drugs is nothing new; in fact, the international anxiety about drug use began in the 1950’s. At that time the focus was more on anabolic steroids and the use of them by Soviet athletes in the World Games in Moscow, in 1956. Since this time there have been numerous committees and federations that have begun testing athletes for the use of illegal drugs. Along with these committees, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) also banned anabolic steroids in 1973 and began random testing of athletes for performance-enhancing substances and recreational drugs. In the beginning of the NCAA’s testing, they only tested Division I football players at bowl games and some NCAA championships. Since 1990, Division I-A, I-AA and II, as well as Division I indoor and outdoor track and field athletes, have become subject to year round drug testing. In addition to these tests, all NCAA student athletes are subject to random drug tests at championship events and post-season bowl games. A study was done, interviewing NCAA athletes, Division I and Division III, to talk about the issues of role acceptance, deviance in sports (the use of performance-enhancing drugs), and drug testing. The study showed that students were in favor of the drug testing, and noted performance-enhancing drugs to be a problem. Athletes said that they were not in favor of drug use, that you can reach your potential as an athlete without the use of drugs, and that drug use is unacceptable. Although the student athletes were in agreement that drug use is unacceptable, they seemed confused and uncertain as to what constitutes being an “illegal, non-medical” drug. ( Daican, 2). Earlier studies have shown that, with the exception of steroids, the rate of drug use in athletes was similar to the rate of drug use among non-athletes. Even more recently, studies have shown that student athletes have even lower levels of drug use than non-athletes.(Rosenthal, 30).
Moving from college athletes to professional athletes, there was an article in the Sporting News, discussing the issue of drug testing among professional athletes. In the article, the author talks about how the National Football League, the National Basketball Association and the International Olympic Committee all test for steroids, but the only baseball players tested for steroids are minor league players who are not on 40-man rosters. The author goes on to say that maybe drug testing may be expensive, or maybe it would not be effective in deterring players from using steroids, or maybe that it is even a violation of civil liberties; but as reasonable as those arguments are, they are cop-outs. “By ignoring steroid use, the owners and players have perpetuated MLBs biggest fraud since the 1919 Black Sox. Theyve made ungodly amounts of money-taking in a record $3.5 billion in revenue last season-but theyve wrecked their sport.” The author later says that it is a matter of doing the right thing, even if the tests will not catch every cheater, even if revenues drop along with home runs. The author finishes his article saying that there is only one word to describe MLB (Major League Baseball): shame.(Rosenthal, 30-31).
Last year, President Bush gave his State of the Union speech, appealing to athletes and professional sports leagues to get rid of the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs. President Bush was making these comments in light of the fact that athletes in two sports were testing positive for the new steroid THG, which was revealed last summer by drug officials. President Bush told Congress that “to help children make right choices, they need good examples. Athletics play such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting much of an example. The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message: that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character.” (Bush, 11)
The Sports of the Future
As a major part of the American education system, we must keep athletic programs moving forward, not toward “a game of tag,” but toward “a game of sportsmanship (3).”
If the American Olympic Committee (AOC) is determined that football and soccer are “games of power and dominance” that can be won, then we should try to move sportsmanship further away from the “game of tag” (the term I use most often because the IOC wants to ensure that football and soccer play together, which means they play together) — the current term used by the AOC. We must continue to use this term. When we talk about football and soccer, we are referring to sportsmanship, not character, because the current model for the organization is that a school that engages in sportsmanship and leadership is “AOC-certified.”
Football and soccer play “A” and “B” games because sportsmanship is the fundamental unit of the athletic organization, and we have no desire to win anything.
However, if we look at sportsmanship in the context of our current athletic structure, there is a more subtle difference. A team in its current form doesn’t have to be a “team athlete,” even if some part of its team takes a hit off the bat of an opponent. It can certainly be, for several reasons, a “team athlete,” for one. It can be part of the “team mascot,” because the “team mascot” is a part of many schools with many years of history and other “family” groups with which we all share.
But not all players wear the team mascot or even the “team mascot” — and not many teams do. One of the most influential teams in sports history, the New York Giants, had for some years played as one of the best teams of its kind in the World Baseball Classic, a very high stakes competition in which every single player wore a team mascot.
In this scenario, one would be lucky to play “B” teams, where every single member wore them — but even teams that did not play B teams could play B teams. There are a few players without a team, such as a football team, or a basketball team, that are able to wear team or team mascot but do not play B teammates. These players were used in the Giants of the World and had a very significant influence on the new American “team mascot.”
But they didn’t carry a team mascot or any of our other “family” sports. Many, if not most of the Giants were not wearing the name “Giants of the World.” And their teammates were not wearing either. Many, if not most, of the Giants had either a mascot or a nickname or had a little more “G” type on their uniforms. Many of the Giants had no names; others had several that were common-sense or even had to do with the new name of the Giants club on their helmets or on their team mascots or even their uniforms.
The Giants didn’t have an athletic mascot because we didn’t like them. We did. We were not a good team — a team not “a team,” a team with no fans, any family groups, any community, sports fans that were friendly with those who cheered, and not any “family groups”
With all these studies, and a speech from the President of the United States, it seems obvious that performance-enhancing drugs are a problem in athletics. There are many people that have different belief on this subject. Wilbert M. Leonard II writes about sports and deviance in his article. He says that common issues in the sport science realm are the relationship between sports or physical activity and deviance. Leonard maintains his viewpoint that there in fact is not a deviance problem in sports, more specifically drug use, but that those involved in sports or physical activity abstain from drugs more often than those who do no participate in sports or physical activity. Reasons why athletes are less likely to give in to the temptation of drug use are: decreased depressive and anxiety symptoms, reduced stress, improved self-image and cognitive functioning, leaving athletes more confident that they do not need drugs to enhance their performance. Other reasons include: athletes are subject to training rules and regulations on and off the field; athletes typically perceive school as a place of success, not failure; athletes (males) are generally able to express their masculine role identity through sports; athletes are less likely to be labeled conformists, troublemakers and deviants. “Theoretically, then, these mechanisms and processes are more likely to culminate in nondelinquent behavior for those participating in athletics; hence, participation in sports programs may deter deviant behavior.”(Leonard, 422) Leonard conducted a study in which he tested students to find the relationship between athletes and drug use, and non-athletes and drug use. He proposed that non-athletes would have a higher drug use than athletes. His proposition that physical activity and drug usage are negatively associated received little confirmation from his tests.(Leonard, 427).
There has been debate as to whether or not drugs are an issue in sports and physical activity, and the evidence has proved that there is a problem. Now that the problem is defined, how can it be solved?