http://www.cagepotato.com/mma-steroid-busts-definitive-timeline/ |
I recently read a very interesting
academic article on doping titled “Blue Sky Steroids”1 from the Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology. In that article,
Geoffrey Rapp introduced a very interesting perspective on drug testing. Cleverly refuting several anti-doping
arguments and citing the ineffectiveness of drug testing, he argued that doping
should be allowed but subject to a full disclosure policy similar to the
so-called ‘Blue Sky’ laws enforced on corporations.
The ‘Blue Sky’ laws force companies to
give shareholders full disclosure of what they are doing with their money. So, though there are few direct
limitations on what corporations can do with their investors’ money, they do
have to take into account ‘market values.’ No want will want to invest with a company that makes
foolish or overly risky decisions.
Rapp believed that disclosure of players’
drug use would similarly subject team owners to ‘market values.’ If fans actually disapprove of doping,
players who dope would loose their support. I think that Rapp’s view deserves a second look because it
allows for judgment on a case-by-case basis by the people whose opinions
actually matter. After all, the
problem with doping is that detracts from the meaningfulness we find from
success in sports, and meaningfulness is a matter of opinion. An example Rapp used was that fans
might disagree with a young, healthy player’s use of human growth hormone (HGH)
but OK an older player using it to recover from an injury.
However, there is one problem I see with
this solution. If fans disapprove of
doping then won’t athletes will simply go back to doping in secret and won’t we
have the same drug testing problem all over again? What do you think?
1. Rapp, Geoffrey. "Blue Sky
Steroid." Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 99.3 (2009):
599-618. Web. 14 Apr. 2012.