Should Athletes Be Allowed To Use Steroids

Long before Cal scored the touchdown in the 1982 “Big Game” against Stanford, and before Stephen Curry made a record-breaking number of three pointers in one basketball game, sports was primarily based on natural abilities. Today, sports has evolved to elevate the level of play and performance. Major competitions such as the Olympics manifest the most dominant world athletes. The winners are deemed the best in their sport for their abilities to be biologically and physically gifted and to harness that potentiality. These athletes train strenuously, often ingesting synthetic or natural additives to increase performance. To remain competitive in increasingly higher levels of play, athletes should have the choice of using their natural gifts and/or using performance enhancing drugs. Neither an athlete who has a gene that prompts a superior physique nor an athlete who uses steroids should be deemed cheaters, for they are pushing sports to a new level and creating an equal level of play. As competition has escalated, the
The athletes with the most money who receive the best enhancers win, such as the Australians who spent spent $547 million dollars on sport funding and in return earned 17 gold medals. Turning athletics into a funding war perverts all sports. Furthermore, opponents say performance enhancers can be dangerous, citing that anabolic steroids can cause interrupted growth in children, birth defects, virilization in women, testicular atrophy, rapid mood changes and other harmful effects. Some may argue that natural variations can also be a form of cheating because the playing field is not level. People with a naturally high T/E ratio or women with with masculine traits have a natural ability to be stronger and faster and overall it makes sports and games