Loading ...The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a document in April 2005 on performance-enhancing substance use in sport (1). It inquired about many statements concerning the supposed anti-doping fight and how it may be successful.
The document disputes that children need to be taken into account for a more restrictive moral and ethical anti-doping structure to be effective and recognised that the adolescent group naturally feels indestructible and regularly disregards any implication that performance-enhancing substance use may create a health risk or hamper their suitability for sport (1). Also, adolescents are extremely anxious about their self-image (1).
The AAP directs a responsibility on healthcare providers to encourage health and not performance. However, Clisby (2) argues that there are contradictory opinions as to whether healthcare providers should be drawn into the observation of performance-enhancing substance use by athletes. The one argument is that numerous authorities believe that this will promote doping if this had to happen (2). In contrast, several other authorities believe that healthcare providers have an obligation to observe their clients, thus avoiding any health risk to the athlete (2).
The AAP document shows that anti-doping policies and agencies need to reassess their priorities and place the more likely and actual danger of performance-enhancing substance use to minors at the forefront (1).
The ethical and moral problem of performance-enhancing substance use in sport has arguably surfaced because of a number of reasons. Some of these include media pressure to win, prevalent attitudes that doping is necessary to be successful, public expectations about national competitiveness, financial rewards for winning, desire to be the best in the world and to become famous (2,3). Other reasons include performance-linked payments to athletes from governments and/or sponsors, coaching which emphasises winning as the only goal and unethical practices condoned by national and international sports federations (2,3). Furthermore, the competitive characteristics of athletes, infallibility of the medical profession to cure and improve performance and psychological beliefs in aids to performance are also some of the reasons for the dilemma of doping in sport (2,3).
The motives for using these substances may be different but a mixture of the above reasons exists in why most athletes take performance-enhancing drugs (2). Doping can be seen as an easy alternative to hard training programmes by some adolescents because the rest of the competitors are in a setting of equal and fair play. However, it is through hard work and perseverance in sport that “the virtues of dedication, perseverance, endurance and self-discipline (4)” help build up an adolescent’s character.
1. American Academy of Pediatrics. Use of Performance-Enhancing Substances. Pediatrics. 2005;115(4):1103 -6.
2. Clisby L Drugs and the Athlete. In: Brukner P, Khan K (eds). Clinical Sports Medicine 2nd Edition. Sydney: McGraw-Hill, 2005.
3. British Medical Association. Drugs in sport: The pressure to perform. London: BMJ Books; 2002.
4. Dubin CL Commission of Inquiry into the Use of Drugs and Banned Practices Intended to Increase Athletic Performance. Ottawa: Canadian Government Publishing Centre, 1990.
I believe that it is imperative that more research is done regarding children and adolescents using performance enhancement drugs. I previously worked at a school for children with learning and other disabilities, where my colleague and I brought it to the attention of the First Rugby team’s coach that some of the boys were using various forms of performance enhancement drugs, including steroids. Even though we voiced our serious concerns to the boys and the coach, nothing was done about it! Adolescents with conditions such as ADHD seem to be quite prone to risk-taking behaviour, including substance use and using performance enhancement drugs.
(Report abuse)