Допинг в спорте сочинение на английском

Обновлено: 09.03.2023

Some people think that extreme sports help to build character

Sport plays an important role in our life. Sport makes us stronger, healthier, more confident and helps us to enjoy the life. But there are different kind of sport. Some of them are games like football, volleyball and they are really good and funny; board games, for example, chess, develop our mind; and there is also extreme sport.

Some people claim that extreme sport also helps us to build our character. And I am sure about that. Our character is not only our genes. Character is a mix of genes, habits, our preferences and upbringing. It’s difficult to have strong character if you are a soft person and afraid of new things. I think extreme sport is a kind of challenge to ourselves. If we are ready for this challenge, I can say that our character is strong. Because we don’t have fears, we are confident about what we are doing and we are ready for new experience. Extreme sport will give you inspiration and motivation to do new things. You will not be afraid to face any difficulties. This is a person with a really strong character,

Also I know few people who are not agree that extreme sport helps to build a character. These people are in general opposite new things and any challenge. They choose stable life with ordinary hobbies. Any challenge or unexpected thing will make them confused and embarrassed. I don’t think a person so can have a strong character or manage with any difficult situation.

So that’s why extreme sport is a good possibility to develop yourself and your character. Of course it’s important to understand that it can be dangerous and you have to pass some course or speak with a person who knows this thing. But in general if you do everything correct, I am sure people around you will say, that you have a strong personality.

Некоторые люди думают, что экстремальные виды спорта помогают построить характер

Спорт играет важную роль в нашей жизни. Спорт делает нас сильнее, крепче, более уверенным в себе и помогает наслаждаться жизнью. Но есть ведь разные виды спорта. Некоторые из них — игры, типа, футбол и волейбол — хорошие и развлекательные; настольные игры, например, шахматы — полезны для ума. А есть ещё и экстремальные виды спорта.

Многие люди заявляют, что экстремальные виды спорта укрепляют наш характер. И я полностью согласен с этим утверждением. Наш характер — это не только гены родных. Характер — это и гены, и привычки, и наши предпочтения, и воспитание. Трудно закалить свой характер, если вы по натуре мягкий человек и боитесь всего нового. Я считаю, что экстремальный вид спорта — это своего рода вызов себе. Если мы готовы принять этот вызов, то у вас сильный характер. Ведь тогда у нас нет страхов, мы уверенны в себе, в том, что мы делаем и готовы получить новый опыт. Экстремальный вид спорта подарит вам вдохновение и мотивацию для новых свершений. Вам не страшно будет столкнуться с трудностями. Вот это человек с сильным характером, на мой взгляд.

Но я знаю людей, которые не согласны, что экстремальный спорт закаляет нас. Эти люди в принципе против новшеств и перемен. Они выбирают стабильность и самые обычные хобби. Любой вызов или неожиданность заставляет их нервничать и пугает. Я не думаю, что у такого человека сильный характер и он сможет совладать с трудной ситуацией.

Вот поэтому экстремальный спорт — отличная возможность развивать себя и свой характер. Конечно, важно понимать, что это может быть опасно, нужно пройти пару курсов или поговорить с тем, кто понимает этот спорт. Но если вы все сделаете правильно, я уверен, люди вокруг скажут, что у вас действительно сильный характер.

There are lots of kinds of sports. Some of them are extremely cruel. Some people think that it’s necessary to ban cruel sport, because it’s too dangerous for sportsmen’s lives. But other people enjoy of looking at violence and cruelty. Let’s think about it.

In my opinion some of cruel kinds of sport can be allowed. Boxing is one of the most dangerous sports in the world because people break their legs, arms and noses. However, sportsman, who did boxing at some stage of his life, has good sport form and strong character. Boxers are self-confident and physically strong. Although, it is a very traumatic sport, people become physically and morally stronger after some time of training.

However, I think that these sports are inhuman and risky. Many prominent sportsmen have lost their lives to violent sports. Moreover, it is common to exploit carelessly animals in some sports, such as medieval tournaments or bullfighting. Spectators I think these performances should be banned.

Существует много видов спорта. Некоторые из них являются чрезвычайно жестокими. Некоторые люди думают, что необходимо запретить жестокие виды спорта, потому что это слишком опасно для жизни спортсменов. Но другие люди любят смотреть на насилие и жестокость. Давайте поразмышляем об этом.

На мой взгляд, некоторые из жестоких видов спорта могут быть разрешены. Бокс является одним из самых опасных видов спорта в мире, потому что люди ломают ноги, руки и носы. Тем не менее, спортсмен, который занимался боксом, имеет хорошую спортивную форму и сильный характер. Боксеры уверены в себе и физически сильны. Несмотря на то, что это очень травмоопасный вид спорта, люди становятся физически и морально сильнее.

Тем не менее, я считаю, что многие виды спорта являются бесчеловечными и рискованными. Многие известные спортсмены потеряли свою жизнь . Кроме того, в таких видах спорта часто используют животных.

В заключение я хочу сказать, что современный спорт очень часто практикует насилие. Это должно быть запрещено.

Many sports are extremely violent, yet this doesn’t stop people watching them or playing them. Should violent sports be banned or are they just a way for people to enjoy themselves?

There are some arguments for banning violent sports. In the first place, some of these sports are simply an excuse for violence. There is enough violence in our world as it is without seeing sportsmen getting hurt on TV. In addition, people who take part in violent sports risk serious injury or even death. Many young boxers, for example, are seriously injured every year.

On the other hand, there are some disadvantages to banning violent sports. To start with, violent sports can be a healthy way for people to relax and let off steam. As a result, general aggression and violence in society will be reduced. Moreover, instead of banning violent sports, we can improve their safety standards, for instance, by using better protective clothing and equipment. Consequently, sports injuries will be reduced.

In conclusion, there are arguments both for and against the banning of violent sports. I strongly believe violent games should be banned, as I feel they are not going to help people to live together peacefully.

Многие виды спорта чрезвычайно жестоки, но это еще не остановило людей смотреть или играть в них. Должны ли быть запрещены жестокие виды спорта или это просто способ людей развлекать себя? Есть несколько аргументом за запрет жестокого спорта. В первую очередь, некоторые из этих видов спорта просто повод для жестокости. Существует достаточно жестокости в нашем мире и без наблюдения за спортсменами, страдающими по телевизору. В дополнение, люди, которые принимают участие в жестоком спорте, рискуют серьезно травмироваться или даже умереть. Многие молодые боксеры, например, серьезно травмируются каждый год.

С другой стороны, есть несколько недостатков в запрете жестокого спорта. Начать с того, что жестокий спорт может быть здоровым способом для людей расслабляться и выпустить пар. В результате, основная агрессия и жестокость в обществе будет уменьшена. Более того, вместо запрета жестокого спорта, мы можем улучшить их стандарты безопасности, например, используя улучшенную защитную одежду и оборудование. Следовательно, спортивные травмы будут уменьшены.

В заключении, есть аргументы и за, и против запрета жестокого спорта. Я точно уверен, что жестокие игры должны быть запрещены, так как я чувствую, что они не помогают людям жить вместе мирно.

• Для учеников 1-11 классов и дошкольников
• Бесплатные сертификаты учителям и участникам

Разработка урока по теме “ Drugs in sport ”

УМК: “ New millennium ”/Английский язык нового тысячелетия.

Авторы: О.Л. Гроза, О.Б. Дворецкая и др.

активизация лексических единиц и речевых клише в устной речи по заданной теме;

совершенствование речевых умений вести дискуссию, отстаивая свою точку зрения.

коммуникативный системнодеятельный метод с использованием индивидуальной, парной и групповой работы учащихся;

ролевая игра (дискуссия).

Оборудование:

компьютер, проектор, CD диск, экран, компьютерная презентация

Ход мастер — класса .

Teacher: Good-morning. I’m glad to see you. To guess the topic of today’s lesson look at this tittle taken from a headline of a Canadian newspaper. What can it mean? What are we going to talk about?

Учащиеся высказывают свои предположения.

Teacher: This is the real motto of the Olympics. Why is it changed in the first slide?

Учащиеся высказывают свои предположения .

Teacher: It has been changed to reflect the fact that some athletes secretly take drugs-dope themselves- in order to win. So, our today’s topic is “Drugs in Sport”. While speaking about sport we often use the words “dope”, “doping” as synonyms to the word “drugs”.

Teacher: Here is some information about the origin of the word “doping”. Pay attention to the word “stupefying”. It has the same root as the word “stupid”.

Teacher: The start of using doping goes back to the 3 rd Olympics which took place in 1904. So, sport has been dealing with drugs for more than a century.

Now let’s try to answer some questions concerning our topic.

What do you know about doping and sports?

Has there ever been a doping scandal in our country?

What kinds of sport do people take drugs in?

Do all successful sports people take drugs?

How do drugs work?

Работа в парах. Учащиеся обсуждают ответы и высказывают своё мнение.

Teacher: Somebody wants high results at any cost; others are for fair sport only. I suggest considering some opinions doing a role play. I’d like you to split into groups of three. We have three roles: the athlete, the athlete’s friend, the trainer. You can choose any role you like. The task of the friend and the trainer is to convince the athlete to use or not to use drugs. Be very convincing and use all possible arguments to prove your point of view. Then the athlete will decide who was better at convincing him/her and announce his/her decision about taking drugs.

Teacher: The following expressions will help you to cope with the task.

Учитель раздаёт учащимся карточки с заданием и речевыми клише.

Convincing someone

I really think you should.

You ought to.

Why don’t you try.

Just trust me!

What to say if you’re not really convinced

I don’t know.

I’m a bit nervous/ scared/ unsure about this. Isn’t there another way?

OK, but I don’t really think.

Учащиеся готовятся, затем разыгрывают свои роли.

Teacher: Once you are ready, please begin speaking. .

So, the athlete, have you made up your mind? Who has convinced you? …

Thank you very much for your work. We are going on discussing our topic. I suggest answering some more questions. Discuss them in pairs and share your ideas with us.

Учащиеся осуждают вопросы в парах и делятся своим мнением.

Teacher: Thank you. We can come to the conclusion that everybody in this room is against unfair, dishonest, cunning, corrupted, sneaky sport and agrees with Anti-Doping Convention of the Council of Europe. Here are its main ideas.

Teacher: To sum up, we vote for real “spirit of sport”. The spirit of sport is the celebration of the human spirit, body and mind. It is characterized by the following values: … Слайды 9 и 10.

The lesson is over. Thanks a lot for your work and your attention. Good-bye.

В английский допинг означает: doping, dope, stimulant (мы нашли 5 переводов). Есть не менее 209 примеров предложений с допинг . Среди прочего: Кто чемпион мира по употреблению допинга? ↔ Who are the world doping champions? .

допинг

переводы допинг

doping

en use of drugs to improve athletic performance

Кто чемпион мира по употреблению допинга?

Who are the world doping champions?

en slang: any illicit drug

Кто чемпион мира по употреблению допинга?

Who are the world doping champions?

stimulant

В Азии их используют в качестве допинга.

In Asia it’s a recreational stimulant.

Less frequent translations показать скрыть

Подобные фразы

Примеры

Посмотрите, какое огромное количество спортсменов из самых разных стран были дисквалифицированы за использование допинга, в том числе и в Олимпийских играх.

Just look at the number of athletes around the world who have been disqualified for using performance enhancing drugs, including at the Olympic Games.

отмечая с озабоченностью наличие опасностей, которые подстерегают спортсменов и спортсменок, особенно молодых, включая, в частности, детский труд, насилие, допинг, раннюю специализацию, чрезмерные тренировки и коммерческую эксплуатацию, а также менее бросающиеся в глаза угрозы и лишения, такие, как преждевременный разрыв семейных уз и утрата спортивных, общественных и культурных связей,

Acknowledging with concern the dangers faced by sportsmen and sportswomen, in particular young athletes, including, inter alia, child labour, violence, doping, early specialization, over-training and exploitative forms of commercialization, as well as less visible threats and deprivations, such as the premature severance of family bonds and the loss of sporting, social and cultural ties,

Мероприятия, проводившиеся в течение Года, были спланированы таким образом, чтобы особое внимание уделялось проблемам, с которыми сталкиваются спортсмены, таким, как детский труд, насилие, допинг, ранняя специализация, чрезмерные тренировки и коммерциализация, приобретающая форму эксплуатации, а также менее заметным угрозам и лишениям, таким, как преждевременный разрыв семейных уз и разрыв спортивных, общественных и культурных связей

The commemorative efforts undertaken during the Year particularly took into account certain negative aspects facing athletes, including child labour, violence, doping, early specialization, over-training and exploitative forms of commercialization, as well as less visible threats and deprivations, such as the premature severance of family bonds and the loss of sporting, social and cultural ties

признавая необходимость более тесной координации усилий на международном уровне для содействия более эффективной борьбе с допингом,

Recognizing the need for greater coordination of efforts at the international level to facilitate a more effective fight against doping,

There is a great number of people who say that sport is very important for teenagers. Others, however, are rather sceptical about this point of view. In this essay, I will try to answer this question.

In my opinion, sport plays an essential role in young people’s life. To start with, doing sports is good for health. It helps to keep fit and stay active with benefits each person and the society in general. Moreover, sport can be a perfect pastime or hobby, which can help young people to relax and reduce daily stress.

Nevertheless, some people believe that sport is not important for teenagers. According to them, young people have more important things to do. They have to study hard and decide what career path to choose and sport only distracts them from important things.

I cannot agree with that opinion, because I believe that despite the importance of the study and future career, sport is still essential for young people.

Due to sports, they can study more effectively. Change of pace might do good for studying process. Besides, one can choose a career of a professional sportsman or at least be certain that sport will not be his career choice.

To summarize, I would like to say that doing sports is completely necessary for young people. The benefits are obvious and have positive effects on their life.

Многие считают, что спорт очень важен для подростков. Другие, однако, весьма скептически относятся к этой точке зрения. В этом эссе я постараюсь ответить на этот вопрос.

На мой взгляд, спорт играет важную роль в жизни молодежи. Для начала, занятия спортом полезны для здоровья. Это помогает поддерживать хорошую физическую форму и оставаться активным, принося пользу каждому человеку и обществу в целом. Кроме того, спорт может быть прекрасным времяпровождением или хобби, которое поможет молодым людям расслабиться и уменьшить ежедневный стресс.

Тем не менее, некоторые люди считают, что спорт не важен для подростков. По их словам, у молодежи есть более важные дела. Им нужно усердно учиться и решать, какой карьерный путь выбрать, а спорт лишь отвлекает их от важных дел.

Я не могу согласиться с этим мнением, потому что считаю, что, несмотря на важность учебы и будущей карьеры, спорт по-прежнему важен для молодежи. Благодаря спорту они могут учиться более эффективно. Перемены могут быть полезны для учебного процесса. Кроме того, можно выбрать карьеру профессионального спортсмена или хотя бы быть уверенным, что спорт не будет его выбран в качестве профессии.

Подводя итог, хочу сказать, что занятия спортом совершенно необходимы молодым людям. Выгоды очевидны и оказывают положительное влияние на их жизнь.

Внимание!
Если Вы заметили ошибку или опечатку, выделите текст и нажмите Ctrl+Enter.
Тем самым окажете неоценимую пользу проекту и другим читателям.

Читайте также:

  

• Проблема вещизма сочинение егэ

  

• Плюсы и минусы инерции сочинение

  

• Сочинение на тему дтп

  

• Своеобразие лирической героини цветаевой сочинение

  

• Мы в ответе за тех кого приручили сочинение на английском

Прочитайте текст, предложите свой перевод, составьте аннотацию, подготовьте устное сообщение по теме, выразите собственную точку зрения, обоснуйте её.

Vocabulary

underdog — более слабый игрок

game changer — человек, идея или событие, меняющие развитие ситуации

obstruction — препятствие; затруднение; помеха

BALCO — «The Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative» — американская компания, снабжавшая спортсменов стероидами, которые практически невозможно обнаружить (the American company that provided athletes with nearly undetectable steroids)

to indict – обвинять в правонарушении

to make for — держать путь к / на

performance-enhancing substances — препараты для повышения физических характеристик спортсменов

whopping — подавляющее большинство

adamantly — решительно; с пеной у рта

vehemently — рьяно; с пеной у рта; с негодованием

to malign — злословить; клеветать; опорочить репутацию; жёстко критиковать; чернить

shotputter — толкатель ядра

to amass — собирать; накапливать; копить; набирать

By Emily Kendy

Incidences of doping in sports have been recorded since the turn of the century. While we’ve been putting sports figures on pedestals for hundreds of years, and worshipping their talent and strength, it wasn’t until a few years ago that the bubble we’d created around these seemingly mythical sports figures burst. Lance Armstrong, the world’s hero in cycling, had an inspiring underdog story of determination but was in infamously exposed as a liar who doped his way to those prestigious titles. In the cycling world, Armstrong was certainly not the first to be found guilty of illegal doping practices, nor will he likely be the last, in a sport that has a long history of dubious practices. But Armstrong was a game changer, and it’s hard for sports fans not to accept that these days “cheating” is indeed often part of a winning game strategy.

Before Armstrong, a number of investigations into illegal doping practices had been taking place in the preceding decade. 2003 saw a revelation that numerous athletes competing in the Olympics between 1988-2000 had failed drug tests and were still allowed to compete. The company that provided athletes with nearly undetectable steroids was known as BALCO – The Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative – and eventually made its way into the baseball world and San Francisco Giants star, Barry Bonds. In 2007, Bonds was indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice for allegedly lying about his involvement with BALCO. The 2007 investigation into anabolic steroids in major league baseball by Senator George Mitchell, known as the “Mitchell Report”, highlights these illegal affairs and makes recommendations for future prevention practices.

The highs of watching our favourite sports heroes win makes for painful lows when we find out the truth behind their seemingly inhuman feats of power. But until all athletes stop relying on exterior motivations for their goals, and until the fans, coaches and the media stop placing so much pressure on the significance of winning, doping looks set to continue indefinitely, making it that much more of a bitter pill for those athletes who rely on only their personal best performances and not performance-enhancing substances. Until then, we’re taking a look back at ten of the biggest media-covered doping scandals in history. They may not have changed the cheating game, but they’ve at least incited sports fans and dedicated sportspeople to begin the process for reform.

1904 – Thomas Hicks. One of the first examples of doping in sports came at the turn of the century with track and field athlete Thomas Hicks, who took home the gold in the marathon event from the 1904 Olympics. It turns out he was one of a number of runners in the event who had injected strychnine which, in small doses, acts as a stimulant. He collapsed after crossing the finish line and could easily have died from the incredibly dangerous substance. Needless to say, it’s now a banned drug in competition.

1986 – Andreas Krieger. The strange tale of Heidi Krieger is one for the records. East Germany had been supplying their Olympic athletes with steroids for more than 20 years. The athletes in question included shot putter Heidi, who started to receive the injections regularly at age 16. She went on to earn the European championship in 1986, but was left with all the traits of a man, after enduring long-term hormone abuse. When she retired in 1990, Heide had a sex change operation and lives now as Andreas. He is 44-years-old and has told the media that he’s unsure if he would have remained a woman or not, but that the choice was stolen from him with those little blue pills given to him by his coach as a young teenager.

1988 – Ben Johnson. The fastest man in history at the 1988 Seoul Olympics turned out to be taking steroids to help set his record time of 9.79 seconds in the 100-meter sprint. Johnson, a Canadian athlete, was stripped of his medal. US athlete Carl Lewis, the second place finisher, received the gold instead – although Lewis, technically, should also have been disqualified as he and Johnson, as well as several other racers, all failed drug tests during their Olympic trials. The only medalist who did not fail was Calvin Smith, who took home the bronze. Their race was later dubbed the “dirtiest race in history” by the media.

1994 – Diego Maradona. Diego Maradona was an Argentine soccer player and considered one of the best, despite his controversial association with performance altering substances. He was often failing drug tests for cocaine – considered to be a stimulant – and eventually received a suspension from soccer for 15 months in 1991, in Italy. This didn’t seem to curb his bad habits, and three years later he was again banned from the game – in the 1994 World Cup, in the US – after testing positive for another stimulant drug, ephedrine.

2000 – Wu Yanyan. Prior to the 2000 Olympics, China was dominating in swimming events, specifically in female competition, and had been doing so for nearly a decade. At the 1992 Barcelona Olympics China won four golds, and two years later the Chinese women took home a whopping 12 of the 16 World championship medals. However, it came to light between this time and the 2000 games that coaches and swimmers, including the reigning queen of the water Wu Yanyan, had been incorporating anabolic steroids into their winning strategies. 10 coaches and swimmers were suspended. Then, before the games in Sydney, China withdrew 27 members of its Olympic team, likely due to the IOC’s announcement to approve blood testing for the first time.

2006 – Floyd Landis. One of the first cycling sports stars to be publicly outed for doping, the American team’s Landis won the Tour de France in 2006 despite a huge lag behind in stage 16. Somehow, by the next round, he was in the lead. This left many scratching their heads at the sheer implausibility of his comeback. At this point, doping in cycling was not as widely known or as widely (unfortunately, unofficially) accepted a part of the sport as it is now. Landis’ urine samples after the event came back with three times the amount of testosterone than normal. The scandal rocked the cycling world, and uncovered a large number of other cyclists who were using performance enhancing drugs. Landis, in his downfall, pointed a finger at Lance, who adamantly denied his own involvement – that is, until 2012.

2007 – Marion Jones. Marion Jones was a hero to many young girls, as a world champion track and field athlete who rose to fame for her talent and power in the 2000s. She took home five medals in the 2000 Olympics, while her husband at the time, C.J. Hunter – an Olympic shotputter – had been called out by the IOC for failing drug tests. A year after their divorce in 2002, Jones gave birth to a son with sprinter boyfriend Tim Montgomery. In 2004, Montgomery was charged with his involvement in the BALCO scandal. At this point, having been closely linked to two performance-enhancing drug abusers, Marion Jones was further scrutinized. In 2007 she admitted to her use of steroids and involvement in the BALCO affair, which got her a six-month prison sentence for perjury because of her initial denial. She was also forced to forfeit all medals – including those five golds – and prizes dating back to her steroid use in 1999 and onwards.

2009 – Alex Rodriguez. In 2009, Major League Baseball uncovered a large Biogenesis scandal that saw 14 players punished for their use of this company’s testosterone and human-growth hormones, over a number of years. Alex Rodriguez, also known as A-Rod by fans, was a popular third baseman for the New York Yankees and was the only player not to accept his punishment with a bowed head. Despite his admission to having used steroids in the past from 2001-2003, Rodriguez fought against his 211-game suspension as a result of the Biogenesis scandal, and eventually during arbitration it was reduced to 162 games. He has been off the field for the entire 2014 season.

2012 – Lance Armstrong. After the Landis scandal six years prior, Armstrong spent years vehemently denying his use of performance enhancing drugs, while literally dominating the world of cycling, amassing cash winnings, media attention and a worldwide following. After seven consecutive wins at the Tour de France, he was outed for his long-time doping use and in 2012 was stripped of all titles, and banned for life from competitive cycling. He has since publicly apologized for lying about his use of drugs for the purpose of winning, and for letting down his fans. It proved a bit too late for apologies and Armstrong has become one of the most maligned American athletes of all time.

2013 – Tyson Gay. In July of last year, US track and field athlete Tyson Gay was found to have tested positive for banned substances, forcing his withdrawal from the World Championships in Moscow. Gay had a 100 meter 9.69 second US-record, behind world record holder Usain Bolt. The track star has amassed countless medals in international competitions including a gold-medal sweep at the 2007 World Championships in Osaka. He has been suspended until June of this year, and stripped of his silver medal from the 2012 Summer Olympics.

Источник: www.therichest.com

Also see:

230+ American Sportspeople in Doping Cases

See

160 Russian Sportspeople in Doping Cases

See

60+ Italian Sportspeople in Doping Cases

See

60+ German Sportspeople in Doping Cases

See

60 Ukrainian Sportspeople in Doping Cases

See

50 Brazilian Sportspeople in Doping Cases

See

49 French Sportspeople in Doping Cases

See

47 Spanish Sportspeople in Doping Cases

See

38 Turkish Sportspeople in Doping Cases

See

Read and answer the following questions:

1. Do you agree that these days “cheating” is part of a winning game strategy?

2. What do you know about BALCO – The Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative?

3. What are the biggest media-covered doping scandals in history?

There has been a huge amount of academic, policy, and public debate over the years about doping in sport (i.e. the use of banned performance enhancing substances or drugs and other prohibited practices), and significant resources devoted to addressing it.

Doping is a complex issue – we are still striving to understand how and why it happens, and how to prevent it. But despite the attention doping in sport has received, there is still significant public disagreement about how best to respond to this problem.

Public discussions on doping usually break down — sometimes because of the way we argue about such issues, and often due to inconsistent reasoning. If you want evidence of this take a look at the online comments pages on sports doping articles, or start your own debate with friends and see how far it goes.

Greater clarity is needed on how people think and argue about doping in sport. In this piece I look at the common positions people take on doping, what these commit us to, and the consequences of mixed messages going unchallenged.

Why people dope

Assuming you care about doping in the first place (some people don’t), a key issue to clarify is your theory about why people dope. Your position here is important for discussing the doping issue because, whether you realise it or not, this informs your views on what should be done about it.

Some people believe the doping decision simply comes down to the individual’s desire to win or gain advantages of some type. To them, doping is mostly determined by individual psychological factors, and should therefore be addressed as an issue of personal responsibility and culpability.

Others believe doping choices are driven by a mix of psychological, social, cultural, and systemic factors, rather than individual traits alone. In this view, doping occurs due to the interaction of individual factors (e.g. the desire for winning, improvement, pain management, recovery, career longevity, economic gains, and belonging), and wider socio-cultural and systemic factors (e.g. social background and experiences, team/club/sport culture, sport governance systems, perceived efficacy of anti-doping system, and so on).

Against doping in sport

The question of whether you are for or against doping in sport is also clearly important. If you are against doping in sport, as most people are, there are a number of arguments you might run here.

For example, you may think doping is wrong because:

• It is against the defined rules and laws governing sport.
• It is unfair and goes against the level playing field ideal.
• It represents a health risk and is harmful to the individual.
• It harms the athletes who choose not to dope (e.g. they exit sport early, or their career is impacted from being cheated out of results and earnings).
• It contravenes other values defined as the ‘spirit of sport’ (e.g. fair play and honesty; health; character and education; fun and joy; teamwork; respect for self and others; courage; community and solidarity).
• It sends an unacceptable message about the place and impact of sport in society.

The important thing to note here is that anti-doping advocates vary in their relative emphasis on the above arguments. For some, it is all about the rules of sport, and related ethics and integrity requirements. While for others, the health risk and harm issue is paramount.

For doping in sport

Some people in academic circles argue that doping should be permitted in sport – either in an open free for all as it used to be, under medical supervision, or under the framework of regulated decriminalisation.

The proponents of these more liberal positions on doping commonly argue the following:

• The level playing field ideal is a myth — there are numerous legal performance enhancing strategies that are unequally available across sports and countries (e.g. expensive training facilities and programs, technologically superior equipment, nutritional, medicinal and other aids etc).
• Current banned drugs and substances are not inherently harmful, nor the biggest sources of risk and harm when you consider injury rates and long-term physical outcomes in some sport.
• The true spirit of elite sporting competition is closer to the Athenian ideal of superhuman effort at any cost (including risks and injuries), and doping is consistent with that.
• Supervised regulated use of performance enhancing drugs and substances, and other banned practices (e.g. blood transfusions) would reduce health risks and harms.
• Prohibition policies and punitive measures create hidden, uninformed, and riskier doping which exacerbates health and other harms.

Again, people who argue for doping in sport may place different weight on some of the above arguments over others. Further, belief in one or other of these arguments doesn’t commit you to all of them.

Doping prevention approaches

If you are opposed to doping, you should also have a position on how to prevent or reduce it – your discussions on the topic won’t get far if you’re against doping but have nothing to say on what to do about it.

On doping prevention you could take a zero tolerance stance, where you favour restrictive surveillance and testing protocols, and punitive responses for even minor doping transgressions. Implicit in this stance is the belief that because the individual chooses to break known rules by doping, they should take responsibility and be punished accordingly if caught or if they confess, or make later admissions.

Zero tolerance advocates might also believe that doping in sport can ultimately be eradicated. But this is not a necessary belief for this position — for example zero tolerance proponents might simply favour the strong public message in sports doping policy that includes punitive responses.

Alternatively, you could adopt a prevention stance based on harm minimisation principles. Implicit in this position is the belief that doping will always exist in sport, and so the pragmatic aim of prevention is to reduce doping harm (to dopers, other athletes, spectators, sport generally), rather than total eradication of the behaviour.

Harm reduction proponents emphasise an athlete health and welfare focus over harsh punitive measures (i.e. criminalisation specifically). People here are less concerned with upholding individual responsibility as far as punishment goes. They believe doping prevention is better achieved through a focus on broader social, cultural, and systemic factors (e.g. team/club/sport culture, sport governance systems, ethics and integrity culture and systems, etc) rather than individual factors alone.

Punishing dopers doesn’t work

People who argue for harm minimisation approaches believe punitive measures alone will be ineffective in reducing or preventing doping in sport. As above, one reason for this is they believe doping behaviour is driven by a range of factors, and so doping prevention too must take a broad focus (beyond individual behaviour and psychology) to achieve widespread and lasting change.

Another claim made here is that penalties for doping such as fines, suspensions, and even lifetime bans are unlikely to deter doping, and will not eradicate it. The analogy often cited here this is the case of death penalties for murder not halting murder rates, or harsh criminal penalties for illicit drug possession, supply and use failing to reduce or eliminate those proscribed behaviours.

People who are unconvinced about the effect of punitive measures might also point out that even the severest doping penalties are unlikely to work in most cases, because under the current system athletes would challenge such penalties legally to uphold their right to compete, or preserve their rights for future earnings.

Finally, many people against punitive responses to sports doping also place a high value on forgiveness and redemption – a chance to start again with a clean slate. What often comes with this position is the view that the punishment and public humiliations suffered by some dopers (and their families) can be wrongly disproportionate to their original doping offence.

Punitive measures have a place

Supporters of punitive measures do not accept the analogy made between doping and criminal behaviour. They would argue the social, cultural and individual factors (including psychological determinants) of doping in sport are very different to those for murder and illicit drug use. As such, they also claim the thinking behind doping prevention approaches, including the expected impact of severe sanctions (not necessarily criminal), should be different too.

Zero tolerance advocates believe that, if applied appropriately, punitive measures can achieve desired sports doping prevention outcomes (i.e. reduced doping behaviour, reduced harm, or complete eradication). The view here is if doping policy is to include punitive measures (as per the current anti-doping framework), then these should be implemented competently and consistently in accordance with the defined policy aims and processes; and with clear and consistent public messages from sports governing bodies giving unambiguous support.

Supporters of punitive measures might also argue that it is not the current anti-doping policy framework that has failed, but rather the inadequate implementation of this framework by sports governing bodies and systems weakened by inconsistent practices, ineffective leadership, and ambiguous public messages about high profile doping cases.

Middle ground or mixed messages?

Doping in sport debates are often framed around the two ‘sides’ of harm minimisation and zero tolerance. At first glance, such positions appear distinct. In reality, people commonly shift between positions or argue a mix of both.

For example, you might believe that doping requires social determinants focused education and prevention programs (including capacity building in ethics and integrity, athlete culture and health and welfare and so on), AND progressively severe punitive measures in certain circumstances (e.g. for repeat doping offences, systematic team-based doping, related fraud and criminal activity).

A significant challenge for the doping in sport debate is predicting how people will think about and respond to doping cases. Ideally, careful reasoning based on the types of beliefs and positions summarised in this article would lead us to consistent responses, but that is not what often happens.

We see this with the sport of cycling — for example, compare most people’s strident opinions and responses about the Lance Armstrong case, to the relatively muted reactions about other cyclists who have doped (e.g. David Millar, Jan Ullrich, Erik Zabel, George Hincapie, Tyler Hamilton, Stuart O’Grady, Matt White, Neil Stephens, Alberto Contador, Alejandro Valverde, Danilo Di Luca etc).

We also see this in the responses from governments, sports governing bodies, and the sport itself. Again, the official reactions to the above cases in cycling have been markedly different — take a moment to reflect on where each of these riders are currently.

Most sports governing bodies and officials would claim they occupy a middle position between ‘crime and punishment’ and ‘education and prevention’ thinking and approaches. At face value, this seems like a sensible space for doping policy — the best of both worlds. However, this middle space can also be a fertile ground for mixed public messages and inconsistencies on doping that can undermine prevention efforts — as I have argued before in this Column (here and here).

By trying to occupy the middle ground on doping between zero tolerance and harm minimisation — trying to have it both ways — sports governing bodies run the risk of subsequently failing to implement either aspect of their doping prevention policies competently and consistently. Again, take a look at the recent criticisms made about the International Cycling Union.

Doping prevention efforts in all sports are undermined when mixed messages emerge from inconsistent thinking and action around doping policy — and especially when they continue unchallenged in public discussion and debates (e.g. ‘say no to doping’ but ‘say yes to ex-dopers in coaching positions’; ‘our sport is anti-doping’ but ‘ex-dopers manage our pro teams’; ‘strong doping prevention messages are needed’ but ‘ex-dopers are sponsoring elite teams, sports blogs, and working in sports media’).

---

What does your position on doping in sport commit you to? What should be done to prevent doping? What should we say about the mixed messages that exist about doping in sport?

---

Further reading:
There is of a large academic literature, and a growing research evidence base, underpinning many of the points made in this article. If you are interested in further reading, a reasonable coverage of the issues can be seen at the Wikipedia doping in sport site, and Routledge have published a number of excellent academic books on this topic by some of the leading thinkers in this area.