[cromulent]

I tried to find the original reasoning for banning doping and couldn't do so. According to Wikipedia the IOC banned doping in the 1960s after some sports federations began to do so. It was widespread at the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_at_the_Olympic_Games#Re...

Could it be simply part of a conservative response to drug-taking in the 1960's? Reefer madness? I don't know.

Please comment if you can find a source. If we know the original reasoning, then it would be good to critique it 50 years later.

[kmnc]

I imagine the original reasoning was mostly due to the notion that "it is against the competitive spirit and destroys the integrity of the game". Honestly that is still the best reasoning for banning doping in my opinion. Maybe it is just personal opinion but doping in baseball almost destroyed the sport because of a tarnished reputation. If I knew doping was allowed in say gymnastics for example I wouldn't watch it at all, it would become boring. Sure, I am likely overvaluing the effects of doping in gaining an advantage but I think the biggest problem is that of attribution.

How do I correctly attribute skill to a player I know is doping, or a sport that is full of doping? If we ever get to the point where sports radio is filled with discussions about "Well, this guy is really good but Jordan didn't have XZ-87 injected into his body so you know how can we compare them?" then I think the integrity of sports is simply dead. Maybe sports become something else and we are all fine with it but in my opinion doping destroys the integrity and spirit of sports and that is still the best argument against it.

[nosideeffects]

Drugs don't increase "skill," though. And on the contrary, if everyone was doping I think the event might actually be more interesting to watch since the average fitness of the players would be increased.

[irishcoffee]

I don't have a source, but possibly a rationale you might agree with: It tarnishes records.

Mark McGuire destroyed the home run record, and then it was discovered he was using juice. Would he have broken it either way? Maybe, we'll never know.

You can argue that baseball stadiums shape changes over time, bat technology changes, we learn more about nutrition and training, etc. and they're valid points. That should be how records are broken naturally. It diminishes the achievement, to me, when those before you did it naturally, and you did not.

Would lance have won that many tours, and in a row? Maybe, but now we'll never know, and its a record that may never be broken naturally. Yes, I realize its not actually an official record anymore.