Performance-enhancing drugs are substances used illegally to enhance athletic performance. They have been used since the days of the first Olympic Games and the first rule against doping in sport was introduced in 1928. When we hear on the news about an athlete being "doped", the public is quick to assume that athletes use them for medical purposes. for the wrong reasons and should be banned from competition immediately. While this may be true for some athletes, are we correct in assuming that this applies to all athletes? Or should we try to understand the reasons that push so many athletes to make this radical decision which can have major consequences on their careers. If we legalized certain drugs, could we solve this seemingly never-ending problem? Would athletes and the public become more aware of the problem and save the sport? To investigate this question, I decided to choose the topic “Should performance-enhancing drugs be legalized in sports?” ". Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay My first source is titled “Why It’s Time to Legalize Doping in Athletics” and was published on August 28, 2015 by Julian Savulescu, a professor at the University of Oxford. The author claims that zero tolerance drugs clearly do not work. The possibility that doping techniques are advancing faster than testing has confused the majority of the public. Do all winning athletes cheat? Athletes are under immense pressure to succeed, leading them to constantly look for ways to increase their competitive edge. He says we could increase testing, which would be helpful, but wouldn't necessarily catch everyone. The system is unfair and needs to be changed due to the advantage given to certain athletes. To improve the system, we could introduce so-called “physiological doping” which guarantees the protection of the normal functioning of living organisms. This means that if the drugs are too dangerous or harm the spirit of the sport, they will be declared illegal. This results in a more efficient system since we are able to focus our research more on the real problem. This alternative system is ultimately better for all aspects of the sport and should be introduced in order to protect athletes, maintain stricter laws and therefore have a more level playing field. Another argument against drug legalization is that the richest countries will be able to obtain the most expensive PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs). But this is not the case because this disadvantage already exists: richer countries have better machines to legally increase endurance, for example. So if we legalize them, they will be cheaper and more accessible in all countries. He summarizes his article by stating that when rules and regulations are abused, they should be changed. The second source is titled “Should performance-enhancing drugs remain illegal in sport?” and was posted on February 25, 2019 by athlete Catherine Campbell Reid. More and more athletes are using PEDs to improve their performance and beat the competition. The author claims that technology is constantly improving and testing is more frequent. As a result, drugs that were previously undetected are now easily detected, meaning athletesreceive an appropriate sanction. While there are many reasons to support legalizing PEDs, she says in reality most of the benefits are false and the current system is the most effective. “Doping” ruins major events like the Olympic Games because of the damage it causes to the 3 main values ​​of sport: excellence, friendship and respect. Excellence is obviously affected by PEDs because if you are under the influence of drugs, how can you accomplish anything when you know it's not really you who is winning or breaking a personal best. Friendship unites people all over the world. How can you happily say that you contributed to this when it's not really you yourself who is building relationships? Finally, Respect is undoubtedly the greatest value betrayed by taking PEDs because you are deceiving the public, other athletes and yourself. It can affect your health without knowing the risks and also your mental health. Catherine agrees that legalizing “doping” could take the sport to another level and increase its popularity. But could you trust athletes if there is uncertainty about whether drugs help them win medals? Legalization of drugs will be unfair as richer countries will have more advanced drugs available to them, regardless of their previous disadvantage. Finally, she speaks passionately about the hope and power of sport and the negative impact of drugs in sport that harm sport and society in the future. Research author Julian Savulescu, I discovered that he is a philosopher who studies the ethics of various technologies, including the effect of an athlete's performance through drugs or genetic manipulation. The author clearly knows the subject very well and is able to give the reader a very intellectual opinion. Introducing the article, he talks about the World Championships and the glorious athletes who inspired many people with their performances and attitude towards the game. But the mood quickly changes when we are suddenly told how 2015 was a terrible year for athletics. He uses the expression “annus horribils” which makes the reader think more since it is italicized and obviously not in English. The phrase stays in the readers mind throughout the article and as they progress through the article, it becomes clear why the author used the strong phrase and message right from the beginning of the article. The language used is formal and the writer uses words like “it is clear” and “it should be” to persuade the reader to agree with him. Additionally, the reader ends with rhetorical questions that lead them to think further and question their previous opinion. I think the information is well presented and the reader clearly understands the author's opinion. Thanks to the subtitles and the various paragraphs, it is easy to understand the gist of what he is saying. I think overall the source is very effective because it gives us the key points of the positive effects of the legalization of doping in athletics. While researching Catherine Campbell Reid's article, I discovered that she is an athlete who has competed in various competitions and has written several articles. This makes the source effective because it gives us a very different point of view than the first author. Since becoming an athlete, she has experienced the pressure and emotions of competing against competitors who have used performance-enhancing drugs. This means she will have a personal and unique opinion since only a small percentage of people are involved in athletics at the highest level. The article provides a?