Philosophy on steroids: why the anti-doping position could use a little enhancement

Disruptive Technologies and the Sport Ecosystem: A Few Ethical Questions

The paper addresses the impact of disruptive technologies on the sport ecosystem, represented by four constitutive elements: athletes, coaches, judges, and fans. In particular, the paper argues that to understand the changes introduced by Artificial Intelligence, biotechnologies, and other disruptive technologies, we have to look at this sport ecosystem as a whole and ask ethical questions related to how each of these elements—and not just the athlete—is affected by them. The paper discusses some of the real-life applications of disruptive technologies that are being currently introduced within different sports and works out their most critical aspects both in terms of positive and negative impact on the sport ecosystem as we know it.

Usage and perceptions of anabolic-androgenic steroids among male fitness centre attendees in Kuwait--a cross-sectional study

Background

Considering the recent popularity of bodybuilding and the apparent spread of anabolic androgenic steroid (AAS) use amongst bodybuilding enthusiasts in Kuwait, there is a relative lack of scientific investigation into the use, knowledge and attitudes towards AAS amongst the population at risk of abusing it. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the frequency, knowledge, attitudes and practice of AAS use amongst male fitness centre attendees in Kuwait.

Methods

A cross sectional survey utilizing a self-administered questionnaire was used. Information on demographics as well as knowledge and attitude about and towards the use of AAS was included in the questionnaire. Ten fitness centres in Kuwait were randomly selected and questionnaires were distributed to all individuals leaving each centre on randomly selected days and periods of time for each centre. Overall n = 400 questionnaires were distributed.

Results

A total of n = 194 questionnaires were returned completed (~49 %). Of the responders, 22.7 % used AAS. The 19–25 age group had the highest occurrence (46.8 %) of first-time AAS use. In contrast with non-users, most (70.5 %) of AAS users believed that having an optimally muscular body can only be achieved by using AAS, and a small minority (6.8 %) believed that AAS usage would have significant harms to health. Only 18.2 % of AAS users had appropriate knowledge regarding the side effects of AAS. Non-users were as much uninformed as AAS users regarding the side effects of AAS.

Conclusion

The usage of AAS is high amongst male gym users in Kuwait and is likely to present an additional burden to the health service. An effective initiative to minimize the burden of AAS abuse should focus on changing the attitudes towards AAS rather than spreading awareness of their side effects.

Vulnerability and the intention to anabolic steroids use among Iranian gym users: an application of the theory of planned behavior

This correlational study explored the psychological antecedents of 253 Iranian gym users' intentions to use the anabolic-androgenic steroids (AAS), based on the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). The three predictor variables of (1) attitude, (2) subjective norms, and (3) perceived behavioral control accounted for 63% of the variation in the outcome measure of the intention to use the AAS. There is some support to use the TPB to design and implement interventions to modify and/or improve individuals' beliefs that athletic goals are achievable without the use of the AAS.

Dispelling a few false-positives: a reply to MacGregor and McNamee on doping

McGregor and MacNamee recently, in this journal, offered several criticisms of an earlier article in which I attempted to refute a number of arguments for the claim that doping in sports is morally wrong. Their criticisms are numerous, but focus on four domains. First, they sketch a view on which the risk profiles of different sports may make doping permissible in some and impermissible in others. Second, they suggest that my criticisms of safety-based arguments assume that doping opponents are bent on harm elimination, rather than harm management. Finally, they offer two methodological criticisms, the first pertaining to my use of analogical arguments, and the second pertaining to the general difficulties of making revisionist arguments in ethics. I defend my criticisms of safety-based arguments by showing that these do not rest on the assumptions McGregor and MacNamee attribute to me and by noting that their own view about the variable relevance of safety considerations is underdeveloped. As for their methodological arguments, I endeavor to show that these are misplaced, in that they either rest on misinterpretations of my earlier article or on an excessively high standard for ethical argumentation.

Harm, risk, and doping analogies: a counter-response to Kious

Brent Kious has objected to our previous criticism of his views on doping, maintaining that we, by and large, misrepresented his position. In this response, we strengthen our original misgivings, arguing that (1) his views on risk of harm in sport are either uncontroversially true (not inconsistent with the views of many doping opponents) or demonstrably false (attribute to doping opponents an overly simplistic view), (2) his use of analogies (still) indicates an oversimplification of many issues surrounding the question of doping in sports, and (3) his doping analogies are insufficiently precise to support his conclusions.

Philosophy on steroids: a reply

Brent Kious has recently attacked several arguments generally adduced to support anti-doping in sports, which are widely supported by the sports medicine fraternity, international sports federations, and international governments. We show that his attack does not succeed for a variety of reasons. First, it uses an overly inclusive definition of doping at odds with the WADA definition, which has global, if somewhat contentious, currency. Second, it seriously misconstrues the position it attacks, rendering the attack without force against a more balanced construal of an anti-doping position. Third, it makes unwarranted appeals to matters Kious considers morally 'clear', while simultaneously attacking a position many others take to be equally morally 'clear', namely that of anti-doping. Such an inconsistency, attacking and appealing to the moral status quo as befits one's argument, is not acceptable without further qualification. Fourth, his position suffers from a general methodological flaw of over-reliance upon argumentation by analogy. Moreover, it is argued that the analogies, being poorly selected and developed, fail to justify his conclusion that the anti-doping lobby lacks philosophical and moral authority for its stance. These issues are symptomatic of a more fundamental problem: any attempt at providing a blanket solution to the question of whether doping is morally acceptable or not is bound to run up against problems when applied to highly specific contexts. Thus, rather than reaching any particular conclusion for or against doping products or processes in this article, we conclude that an increased context-sensitivity will result in a more evenhanded appraisal of arguments on the matter.