The opposed view is saying that if doping …show more content…
My opponents argument of that taking these drugs in a professional matter, meaning that they are supervised by medical staff and that it will decrease health related issues. If an athlete takes a performing enhancing drug, the side affects are clearly harmful to not only the athletes body but also there hormones and mental state. Do we really want to put our athletes at risk when allowing drugs to be taken? Do we really need to encourage this to our younger talented athletes? Another argument proposed by the opposition is that it takes pressure of the players and puts pressure on the fact we need to create more safe enhancers. If we don't have any drugs involved in sport and we keep them banned it will allow no pressure to be given to anyone and the players will have the pressure to naturally work to get themselves in the best possible position of winning that champion or premiership or even a gold medal. It would also show the world due to a lot of people idolising and role modelling these natural talents that hard work pays off and that it is no acceptable to do performance enhancing drugs. Also if drugs become legal in professional sport it will bring distribute into the game . The next argument proposed by the opposition is it will draw the line between what is a sad drug and a not safe drug this is a invalid point due to all certain drugs have side effect which can effect people for the worse this will then increase health relate issues and then influence the athletes to may never play sport again. This will then make another athletes natural talent go to