In the debate on the use of illegal substances for performance enhancing aims, commonly referred to as doping, perceptions and interpretations of doping by significant outsiders has received little attention compared to media attention for doping in elite sports. Therefore, this study focuses on opinions on doping in elite sports by students in human movement studies covering a period from 1998–1999 to 2005–2006 (N = 555). Three research questions were examined: 1) how much attention do students pay to the issue of doping in elite sports; 2) what are the students’ opinions; and 3) which arguments do students use to substantiate these opinions? A four-level model was developed to categorize the ethical arguments according to who or what is at stake: the individual athlete (the self), the athlete’s opponents and social environment (the other), the sport and its fair play essence (the play) and the spectator sport and its social role (the display). Over the years studied students seem to have developed a more diffuse ethical attitude on the doping issue. A shift from the zero tolerance principle towards a more lenient attitude towards doping in elite sports is observed and discussed.

Harm-reduction approaches are used to reduce the burden of risky human behaviour without necessarily aiming to stop the behaviour. We discuss what an introduction of harm reduction for doping in sports would mean in parallel with a relaxation of the antidoping rule. We analyse what is ethically at stake in the following five levels: (1) What would it mean for the athlete (the self)? (2) How would it impact other athletes (the other)? (3) How would it affect the phenomenon of sport as a game and its fair play basis (the play)? (4) What would be the consequences for the spectator and the role of sports in society (the display)? and (5) What would it mean for what some consider as essential to being human (humanity)? For each level, we present arguments for and against doping and then discuss what a harm-reduction approach, within a dynamic regime of a partially relaxed antidoping rule, could imply. We find that a harm-reduction approach is morally defensible and potentially provides a viable escape out of the impasse resulting from the impossibility of attaining the eradication of doping. The following question remains to be answered: Would a more relaxed position, when combined with harm-reduction measures, indeed have less negative consequences for society than today's all-out antidoping efforts that aim for abstinence? We provide an outline of an alternative policy, allowing a cautious step-wise change to answer this question and then discuss the ethical aspects of such a policy change.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract