Negative Effects Of Performance-Enhancing Drugs On Athletes

Sports are the physical activities that provide enjoyment and delight to the contestants and amusement to the spectators. The athletes are well known for their stunning performances and are cherished by their fans, but the reputation of many athletes has gone down after their vulnerable association with performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). It is an old practice among athletes to boost their performance by utilizing PEDs. This paper will talk about the possible negative effects of performance-enhancing drugs on athletes and the myths associated with their safe use. The use of such drugs is not only physically harmful to the athletes but is also morally and ethically a wrong attempt to cheat the standards.

Many performance-enhancing drugs have been proven to be seriously harmful to athletes. PEDs include diuretics, anabolic steroids, human growth hormones, and stimulants. Diuretics have been banned by the regulatory authorities because of their use as a manipulative mediator to facade other drugs in urine tests, and besides that, it also used as a rapid weight loss agent (Pope, 2013). Anabolic steroids could be a synthetic or natural substance that builds the mass of muscles and helps athletes recover from forceful workouts easily and quickly. For improved strength and endurance, the use of Human growth hormone (HGH) has got huge fame among athletes. Stimulants like amphetamines negatively affect the central nervous system, which, in turn, decreases appetite and increases alertness among athletes (Pope, 2013). All these PEDs have their side effects that are harmful if taken for longer durations without underlying concerns and cautions.

Despite the available evidence and facts from the databases and surveys, people all over the world still want to know the PEDs affect the normal functioning of the human body or do their risks vary from individual to individual. This concern has taken the attention of many athletes, USADA, and many other anti-doping organizations. Hence, PEDs have the potential and ability to alter the biological functioning of the body by providing little acute advantages but chronic side effects. These drugs can be deadly under the worst conditions. The most common side effects of PEDs are visible physiologically, psychologically and gender specifically. The general physiological effects of PEDs include leukemia, hypertension, anemia, strokes, pulmonary embolism, heart attacks, weight loss, dehydration, and thyroid problems (Hatton, Green, & Ambrose, 2014). These all are either acute or chronic side effects.

The psychological effects of PEDs include depression, anxiety, insomnia, mood instability, impaired thinking, suicidal thoughts, etc. The suspect becomes aggressive and repulsive. It is not that all aggressive athletes are PED users, and neither all PED users are aggressive, but it is a very common trait side effect of PEDs. The suspects become dependent on the use of PEDs and feel incomplete or disturbed if not provided with them. They become sexually disturbed and vicious and also face emotional challenges. Similarly, the gender-specific side effects include impotence, breast tissue development, reduction in sperm production, shrinking of the testicles etc., for males and cessation of breast development, enlarged clitoris, abnormal menstrual cycles, growth of hair on the face, stomach and upper back and deepening of the voice (Hatton, Green, & Ambrose, 2014). These side effects vary in their intensity.

Besides PEDs, athletes are also taking dietary supplements that have the same effect as the PEDs. Some studies indicate that a few of the supplements turn into steroids once they are consumed. The research by Gwen Knapp shows that athletes who consume PEDs above the mentioned dosage or mix the supplements with PEDs have shown higher death records as compared to cautious users who strictly observe the limits (Gwen, 2006). The association of celebrities with PEDs extends their use and marketing as after the declaration of Mark McGwire as a PED user; it became very common and accessible.

Research shows that the athletes of today are more athletic than the athletes of the past. This fact poses great susceptibility to the repute of older athletes and their outstanding performances, but on the other hand, it also justifies the notion of the use of PEDs by today’s athletes. Matt Barnard suggests that even outstanding athletes use PEDs to sustain their performance and credibility (Matt, 2006). The use of PEDs has become more of a fashion and trendy thing than an ethical concern. Moral and ethical concerns always surround such susceptibilities that are generated from the misuse of anything; in this case, these are PEDs that have to gain a lot of ethical and controversial attention.

Despite all the negative effects and controversies regarding the use of PEDs, some people and corporate sponsors encourage the use of PEDs among athletes to make them reach their higher potential. According to this group, there is nothing wrong with using these drugs as long as they don’t show adverse side effects. This concept has been adopted and supported only to reach and increase the record-breaking fan following and profit gains (Hayes, 2014). A group of studies also pose facts like alcohol and tobacco are the two leading causes of death, yet they are not banned and are legally available. Then why are PEDs given the double standard and negative image when they only enhance the performance of athletes (Hayes, 2014)? These are the fallacies that support the use of PEDs.

Such counterarguments are really strong and compelling and deviate the reality. Some vague articles with less information and assertive arguments confuse or convince people regarding fallacies about the use of PEDs (George Maroulis, 2012). Another research, “Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport,” by Savulescu and the team, suggests that PEDs should be allowed to athletes if they do not pose serious effects to them. Here, one can seriously get confused with the use of the word “serious” and its credibility (Savulescu, Foddy, & Clayton, 2004). Moreover, such statements and arguments encourage adolescents the use PEDs for their inter-school and college championships (White & Noeun, 2017). These practices have seriously threatened the youth concerning the vulnerabilities that these myths pose.

Strong evidence from the latest research of Nicholls and his group, “Personality traits and performance enhancing drugs: The Dark Triad and doping attitudes among competitive athletes,” suggests that PEDs/doping poorly affect psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism in athletes. Nicholls has been working with the Department of Sport, Health, and Exercise Science at the University of Hull, along with collaboration with the Department of Psychology at Edge Hill University. Their research has provided the most authentic and reliable evidence for the threat of using doping and its poor consequences on health (Nicholls, Madigan, Backhouse, & Levy, 2017). Hence, all the mentioned side effects are worse for the athlete’s health and cannot justify and support the ideas of minorities and corporate sponsors for merely publicity concerns.

Hence, despite the controversial nature of the use of PEDs among athletes, it is clear from the latest and valid research that the use of PEDs is highly linked with the development of acute and chronic side effects. Athletes need to play a fair and unbiased game while sustaining their sportsman spirit. The arguments in support of the use of PEDs are all biased, falsified and vague, which miscommunicated the health risks of PEDs to the consumers. The health and life of athletes are far more important than their induced or stimulated performance using PEDs. All athletes should be given a fair chance to promote sports without any irrational and inclined interests.

References

George Maroulis. (2012, November 8). Top 10 Steroid Myths Busted. Retrieved August 07, 2017, from http://listverse.com/2012/11/08/top-10-steroid-myths-busted/

Gwen, K. (2006). “Performance-Enhancing Dietary Supplements Are Dangerous.” Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Group. 2006. San Joaquin Delta College Library, Stockton, CA. 5 Dec. 2007 < http://galenet.galegroup.com >

Hatton, C. K., Green, G. A., & Ambrose, P. J. (2014). Performance-enhancing drugs: understanding the risks. Physical medicine and rehabilitation clinics of North America, 25(4), 897-913.

Hayes, F. J. (2014). Widespread Use of Performance-Enhancing Drugs—An Inconvenient Truth.

Matt, B. (2006). “Athletes Will Never Stop Using Performance-Enhancing Drugs.” Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale Group. 2006. San Joaquin Delta College Library, Stockton, CA. 28 Nov. 2007 < http://galenet.galegroup.com >.

Nicholls, A. R., Madigan, D. J., Backhouse, S. H., & Levy, A. R. (2017). Personality traits and performance enhancing drugs: The Dark Triad and doping attitudes among competitive athletes. Personality and Individual Differences, 112, 113-116.

Pope Jr, H. G., Wood, R. I., Rogol, A., Nyberg, F., Bowers, L., & Bhasin, S. (2013). Adverse health consequences of performance-enhancing drugs: an Endocrine Society scientific statement. Endocrine Reviews, 35(3), 341-375.

Savulescu, J., Foddy, B., & Clayton, M. (2004). Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport. British journal of sports medicine, 38(6), 666-670.

White, N. D., & Noeun, J. (2017). Performance-Enhancing Drug Use in Adolescence. American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, 11(2), 122-124.