Good Athlete – Bad Athlete? on the ‘Role-Model Argument’ for Banning Performance-Enhancing Drugs

Abstract

The paper critically discusses a role-model argument (RMA) in favour of banning performance-enhancing drugs in sport. The argument concludes that athletes should be banned from using performance-enhancing drugs because if they are allowed to use such drugs they will encourage, or cause, youngsters who look up to them to use drugs in a way that would be harmful. In Section 2 the structure of the argument and some versions of it are presented. In Section 3 a critical discussion of RMA is presented. It is argued that we should be reluctant to accept the argument as it stands for at least three reasons: (i) it rests on an unsupported empirical claim; (ii) it also makes a false empirical claim; and (iii) the normative premise of the argument is too demanding morally. Further objections to the RMA are also discussed, but argued to be beside the point

Resumen

El artículo discute críticamente un argumento de modelo de conducta (RMA)[Siglas en inglés de role-model argument] a favor de la prohibición de las drogas que mejoran el rendimiento deportivo. El argumento concluye que los atletas deberían ser inhabilitados por usas drogas que mejoran el rendimiento deportivo porque si se les permite utilizar tales drogas esto alentará, o causará, que jóvenes que les admiran usen drogas de tal manera que sería nocivo. En la sección dos se presentan la estructura del argumento y otras versiones del mismo . En la sección tres se presenta una discusión crítica del RMA. Se argumenta que deberíamos ser reticentes a la hora de aceptar el argumento tal y como es por, al menos, tres razones: (i) se basa en una alegación empírica sin confirmar; (ii) también presenta una alegación empírica falsa; y (iii) la premisa normativa del argumento pide demasíado moralmente. Otras objeciones al RMA también son discutidas, pero se argumenta que no son pertinentes.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Aufsatz beleuchtet kritisch das Rollenmodellargument (RMA), das im Zusammenhang mit dem Verbot leistungssteigernder Mittel im Sport angeführt wird. In dieser Argumentation wird geschlossen, dass Athleten die Verwendung leistungssteigernder Mittel untersagt bleiben müsse, denn wenn ihr Gebrauch erlaubt wäre, würden Jugendliche, die zu diesen Athleten aufschauen, ermutigt oder veranlasst, derartige Drogen ebenfalls in dieser missbräuchlichen Weise zu verwenden. In Abschnitt 2 werden die Struktur der Argumentation sowie einige Variationen davon vorgestellt. In Abschnitt 3 wird eine kritische Diskussion der RMA vorgestellt. Es wird behauptet, dass wir einer solchen Argumentation aus mindestens drei Gründen mit Vorsicht begegnen sollten: (i) sie beruht auf einer empirisch nicht gestützten Behauptung, (ii) zudem präsentiert sie falsche empirische Behauptungen, und (iii) die normative Prämisse der Argumentation stellt eine moralische Überforderung dar. Weitere Einwände gegen die RMA werden ebenfalls diskutiert, jedoch mit dem Einwand, dass sie abseits des Kernproblems liegen.

Résumé

L'article discute l'argument du rôle-modèle (ARM) en faveur de l'interdiction de produits dopants dans le sport. L'argument conclut que les athlètes devraient être interdits d'utilisation des produits dopants parce que si on leur permet d'utiliser de tels médicaments, ils encourageront ou amèneront les jeunes qui les respectent à les utiliser dans une voie qui serait nuisible. Dans la Section 2, la structure de l'argument et quelques-unes de ses versions sont présentée. Dans la Section 3, une discussion critique de l'ARM est présentée. Il est démontré que nous devrions être réticents à accepter l'argument pour au moins trois raisons : (i) il repose sur une base empirique non démontrée; (ii) il introduit aussi un constat empirique erroné; et (iii) la prémisse normative de l'argument est trop exigeante moralement. Les nouvelles objections à l'ARM sont aussi discutées, mais la démonstration a ses limites.

Keywords:

• athletes
• performance-enhancing drugs
• role models
• youngsters
• ethics

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to Jesper Ryberg, Frej Klem Thomasen, Jakob v. H. Holtermann, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, Kira Vrist Rønn, Inge Schleiermacher, Lene Boman-Larsen, Bart Gremmen and one anonymous reviewer for valuable comments. Thanks also to the Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics (Oxford, UK) and its members for generous hospitality during my stay in the autumn of 2009 while I wrote this paper.

Notes

1. Charles Barkley interviewed, available online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMzdAZ3TjCA, accessed October 2009.

2. In what follows ‘young people’ will be applied to people under the age of 21.

3. Available online at http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/01/michael.phelps.marijuana, accessed October 2009.

4. This paper is neutral on the issue of which jurisdiction should administer the ban. A ban on athletes using performance-enhancing drugs could be enforced by a domestic jurisdiction, where the use of such drugs is illegal by state law (as it is the case in Sweden and Italy), or it could be enforced within the international jurisdiction of sport: for example, by CAS (the Court of Arbitration for Sport).

5. In what follows the phrase ‘performance-enhancing drugs‘ is used as synonym for ‘the substances and methods on WADA's prohibited list’. Although this is strictly incorrect, it helps for stylistic reasons. WADA's list consists of substances that do not normally enhance athletic performance, such as alcohol and cannabis; and there are substances that are performance-enhancing, but which are not on the list, such as caffeine and creatine. For WADA's list see: http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/2009_Prohibited_List_ENG_Final_20_Sept_08.pdf, accessed October 2009.

6. See e.g. Brown et al. 2003, 148–9, Tamburrini 2000, 205–8, Schneider and Butcher 2000, 192–3, Miah 2004, 29–30, and Wellman 2003.

7. For a short critique of this version of argument, see Tamburrini 2000, 205–206.

8. Compare e.g. Brown 2001, 148–149, Tamburrini 2000, 205–206, Schneider and Butcher 2000, 192 and Miah 2004, 29.

9. I take it for granted here that youngsters under the age of 18 should not be allowed to take performance-enhancing drugs that are on WADA's prohibited list.

10. See e.g. Simon 2003, 179.

11. An example of such an act might be this: an umpire at a tennis match calls your opponent's ball out that was in fact on the line. You know it was on the line but you remain silent even though you could have suggested a replay of the point.

12. Several philosophers have commented on this. Compare Petersen and Kristensen 2009, Tamburrini 2000 and Foddy and Savulescu 2004.

13. The quotation by Charles Barkely at the top of this text could indicate an objection like this. See also Tamburrini 2000, 206 or Kayser et al. 2007 for advocacy of this objection.

14. Sports Illustrated, 14 June 1993.