The argument in favour of TUEs, which were first introduced in the early 1990s, is that they level the playing field for athletes deemed to be suffering from legitimate medical concerns that can be treated with otherwise-banned drugs.
I'm not sure I'm on board with this. Presumably, by "level the playing field" they mean "make the person better/more competitive." So why not let anyone take drugs to make it easier for them to compete as well? It isn't just hard work and dedication that makes a top athlete.
why not let anyone take drugs to make it easier for them to compete as well?
There's two robust reasons I know of for banning a performance-enhancing substance: health risks, and equality of opportunity (e.g. if a substance is expensive to get hold of or has been developed privately).
I'm guessing that in the case of therapeutic uses, the pros are considered to outweigh the cons.
Comments
I'm not sure I'm on board with this. Presumably, by "level the playing field" they mean "make the person better/more competitive." So why not let anyone take drugs to make it easier for them to compete as well? It isn't just hard work and dedication that makes a top athlete.
If anything it creates an incentive that we shouldn't be encouraging. I'm surprised that more elite athletes haven't already sought an ADHD diagnosis.
There's two robust reasons I know of for banning a performance-enhancing substance: health risks, and equality of opportunity (e.g. if a substance is expensive to get hold of or has been developed privately).
I'm guessing that in the case of therapeutic uses, the pros are considered to outweigh the cons.