Performance-enhancing drugs and procedures are widely used by athletes in order to win and show the best gymnastics exercises. Athletes take drugs and undergo different medical treatments to increase their natural abilities. According to the dictionary, doping is “the use of a drug or blood product to enhance athletic performance” (Dictionary.com, nd). In other words, these are prohibited drugs, which are used to improve training and sports results. Ignoring the fact that the use of doping is illegal and dangerous for health, new substances have been obtained by scientists to pass doping tests. This question always takes the form of “black and white”, there is no middle solution to the problem of whether it should be banned or not. Some believe that banning drugs will not bring major results and that the question of illegitimacy should be examined. Others view sport as a competition of actual physical abilities and believe that there is no room for substance enhancement (Morente-Sanchez and Zabala 2013). This dilemma has become widespread and is one of the most controversial issues in sports. Doping is used not only among professional athletes, but also among amateur and school athletes. The introduction of anti-doping policies has become necessary in the face of increasing cases of use of doping products. The world of sport has accepted these rules and has followed a set of regulations, limiting the use of doping, since they were established, however, some support the idea of ​​legalization of drugs, checking it with the possibility of enchantment and security (Morente-Sanchez and Zabala 2013). The doping issue is not simply a question of legitimization, it is a slippery slope argument, meaning that a relatively small change leads to a chain of linked events making the problem more complicated (Merriam-webster. com 2014). A change in anti-doping policy can affect society, athletes, the economy, medicine and the sports industry as a whole. This research will discuss sport as a perpetuator of the humanist concept of the value of sport through trans-humanist qualities, which have been used to push the limits of people's capabilities and reach beyond humanity (Miah 2003). He will argue that even if anti-doping policies stop the development of human beings, they should exist to save the spirit of sport. First, it will examine the rise of anti-doping policy during the Cold War and find the reasons for the expansion of drug use. Secondly, it will examine the question of post-humanist approaches considering performance improvement in general medicine and sports medicine and examining the use of technology in sport in the case of Oscar Pistorius. Finally, the research will examine the humanist approach and arguments against the use of doping in sport. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay The use of doping is increasing in world competitions. Especially during the Olympic Games, the whole world watches and supports their countries in sports competitions. Using the situation, politicians exploit it for their own interests. A good example of success is the Cold War (1947-1991), when all cultural branches, from literature to the arts, including cinema and sports, were affected by the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. Sport was an arenapolitical conflicts, each side trying to show its superiority over the other (Soares 2009). As a result, this charge gave rise to the use of doping. Athletes were encouraged to take risks with their lives and take performance-enhancing drugs. Despite athletes' personal interests, one of the reasons for risky behavior could be pressure, which could come from family, friends or the country. In the case of the Cold War, sport was used as a tool of ideological propaganda; athletes were therefore under political pressure to win medals in international competitions. After the death of Danish cyclist Knud Jensen at the 1960 Rome Olympics, caused by the constant use of amphetamines, different national and transnational levels of Olympic governance began to pay more attention and attention to the problem of doping. (Hunt 2007). . This resulted in the development of anti-doping policies by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) (Hunt 2007). In 1967, he first banned the use of performance-enhancing drugs in the Olympics; In 1968, IOC introduced the global drug testing system, which was one of the most significant changes. This method was first tested in 1972 during the Munich Olympic Games. Seven athletes were caught using banned substances and were disqualified. All these restrictions were necessary to save the central philosophical idea of ​​the sport. The humanistic approach, which represents the natural abilities of people, was used. The main argument in favor of preventing and stopping doping was its negative impact on the health of athletes; drugs have mental, physical and emotional effects on them (Coleman 2008). People accepted the anti-doping policy of the time, but the world is changing and transhumanism is no longer an unrealistic future. Fukuyama, an American philosopher, demonstrates that “our post-human future” has been recognized as our post-human present, and that anti-doping policy should therefore be reconsidered in terms of developing countries (Miah 2003). Sport can be seen as idealistic humanism, because it rejects most performance-enhancing substances and controls competition to be within natural abilities. However, sport is an interesting case, it offers a great opportunity to display humanist practices. Athletes can be considered ambassadors of transhumanism. They are already at the limit of natural human capabilities. Sport is therefore the case where transhumanism can be justified. Transhumanism is a philosophical approach, which lies between humanism and post-humanism (Merriam-webster.com 2014). It is about improving and fundamentally transforming human beings by developing technologies aimed at increasing their physical and intellectual capabilities. Which means going beyond humanism, the natural abilities of people. Francis Fukuyama declares these to be “the most dangerous ideas in the world” (quoted in Miah 2003). However, in a rapidly developing world, where human beings are surrounded by technology, it is difficult to distinguish humanism from post-humanism. One of the areas where the most compelling examples of transhumanism are practiced is in medical science. Since the first pharmaceutical products were mass-produced, people have become more dependent on technology. Recently, human organ transplantation, gene manipulation, emergence of advanced prosthetics and organ growth have been introduced to the world. People react positively to these findings, evenif this is the direct path to transhumanism. However, this may be undoable, since these treatments are intended to “repair” the human body, rather than improve it. There is a problem with defining when technology fixes a person or when it makes them better (Crawford and Manchanda, 2007). Logically, it seems easy to define the term “reparation” as making a person healthier after a state of illness. But what kind of person can be considered healthy? Therefore, repair means raising a person's health to the point before health, that is, to a level of normal functioning of the lifestyle. Conversely, enhancement modifies the human body to a level beyond the capabilities of normal human beings. However, medicine has always been focused on repair rather than improvement, people follow medical procedures to recover from illness and health problems remain the main reason why human beings refer to medicine (Anderson P. and Andreson R. 1945). the drug does notTo provoke post-humanism, sports medicine may have a more compelling context. As we mentioned previously, sport is based on idealistic notions of humanism. National and international federations have rules and moral codes to guarantee fair play. However, sport is already post-human. Athletes serve as ambassadors of transhumanism, opening the frontiers of human capabilities. Expanding boundaries is impossible without a distinct blurring between humans and technology. Sport is therefore the case where transhumanism can be justified (Edwards and McNamee 2005). Trans humanism in sport is brought about by “performance enhancement”. Drug use and doping are considered unacceptable performance enhancement and are prohibited. Doping is associated with elite competitions because the importance of winning is very high due to the "price of performance" or "achievement-oriented sport", which requires athletes to develop their abilities using the technologies. However, this sport cannot be called transhumanist, because sports policy refutes drug use and doping. Miah (2003), an academic in the field of technology and post-humanism, points out that the claims against doping are not convincing. Despite the moral issue of removing medications to save the “spirit of sport”, the fight against doping seems ineffective. To begin with, sport today is a big business in which money plays an important role. The amount of money spent on anti-doping policies is minimal compared to the entire sports industry. Furthermore, doping is not a priority for sports authorities, depending on the investments of the sports budget. Finally, athletes are, in most cases, ahead of medical control measures. It only catches those who made a mistake or used primitive doping techniques, making the future of anti-doping policies sterile (Vorstenbosch 2012). If we add to this the recent development of gene doping, the possibility of recognizing it would be difficult to implement. There is still no coherent and precise ethical policy distinguishing the different types of doping (Miah 2003). Having explained why doping is legal, we can say that it is easier to allow the use of doping, but anti-doping policies strive to control the situation. The things listed above happen when the use of doping is illegal and allowing it can lead to worse outcomes. Transhumanism means going beyond natural capabilities withthe use of different technologies, which include medical enhancements and outside technologies. Athletes, throughout history, have resorted to high-level training to achieve their goals. Technology was used to make their actions higher, faster and stronger. Innovations in tennis rackets, sports shoes, and training suits, combined with the special diet, increased the performance of athletes (Culberston 2011). The point of the argument is that it is difficult to distinguish between what is artificial and what is normal. The examples listed above could also be considered performance improvements, but they are not illegal. However, while enhancements such as drugs will never be allowed in sport, transhumanist ideals can be argued from the case for using other technologies. Many types of sports equipment are accepted, based on a condition that they diminish the integrity of the sport or not (Verbruggen, cited in Miah 2003). Additionally, devices used in sports allude to technology becoming a part of the athlete's body. It is comparable to prostheses that replace biological limbs. As we see, sports equipment has recently become more of an athlete's role than an extension. There was an interesting case in history; Oscar Pistorius, the below-the-knee amputee sprint runner from South Africa, competes in events for able-bodied athletes (Jones and Wilson 2009). At the 2011 World Athletics Championships, he became the first Paralympic athlete to win a world able-bodied medal. Moreover, he was the first to participate in the Summer Olympics in 2012, competing in the men's 400 meters. The case of Pistorius illustrates and defends the transhumanist vision which promotes the use of technology to develop the natural abilities of human beings. However, this case has been the subject of criticism, as it is assumed that his artificial limbs give him an advantage against physically strong and capable athletes. His artificial limbs could give him the stature of a “disabled”, “able-bodied”, or even “over-handicapped” athlete. The International Amateur Athletic Federation (IAAF) argued that Pistorius could not compete with able-bodied athletes and banned "the use of any technical device incorporating springs, wheels or any other element which gives the user an advantage over another athlete not using such a device. device” (Rule 144.2) (ibid.). The research was conducted to determine whether or not Pistorius has such an advantage. Results showed that its J-shaped blades, known as cheetahs, firstly increase the energy level by 25%, secondly they provide three times greater energy return and finally provide mechanical to lift the body (Hilvoorde and Landeweerd 2010). All advantages contradict rule 144.2 and Pistorius was therefore unable to participate in the 2008 Summer Olympics. Pistorius appealed the rule to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where his advantage was rejected. The CAS determined that the tests showed Pistorius' abilities only at full speed when running in a straight line. However, the 400 meter run is not straight. He therefore had the chance to represent South Africa at the Olympic Games (Marcellini et al. 2012). The Pistorius case showed that the technologies are already being used in sport, underscoring that sport is on the right path towards transhumanism and that policies banning performance enhancement only suspend the..