Possible Actions

With the facts and issues laid out in the previous sections, it comes time to make moral judgments. Should steroids and gene therapies be allowed or should all stakeholders make a unified effort to define and then eliminate inappropriate actions?

Action 1: Allow controlled and approved methods of enhancement to be incorporated into the training programs of athletes.

Consequences
Creating a controlled environment for steroid use drastically reduces the side effects attributed to abuse. Users could open seek advice from doctors and could be monitored for possible complications. In addition, the more easily attained physical results could lead to less hazardous training and dieting practices, resulting in an overall improvement in health and safety of athletes (although it is likely that athletes will train just as hard and will simply expect more). Since steroids would be available to all athletes, there would be a huge leap in athletic achievements, but competitors could still remain on the same level. Records would be broken, but individual advantages would remain constant.
On the other hand, by allowing these methods of enhancement, a precedence of drug use and genetic manipulation would be set that could lead to a slippery slope. It would be difficult to prevent abuse! It is a time-tested fact that moderation is often overlooked when individuals are seeking to become the best. If running 5 miles is good, running 10 miles is better. If taking some steroids is good, taking more is better. In addition, younger athletes would be more prone to attempt seemingly condonable drug use. While adult athletes might be able to make a mature, rational decision about athletic enhancements, young people often ignore long-term issues and follow their icons. Finally, it will be very difficult to draw a distinct line between acceptable and unacceptable methods of enhancement. Weak leadership or enforcement of legislation can destroy the spirit athletic institutions.

Individual Rights/Fairness

Athletes are given the right to train as hard and long as they like, but is it fair to prohibit their right to take advantage of techniques that could help them attain safe goals. Adults should have the right to control their lives - if a man can choose to assume the risks of smoking and drinking, why can't he also assume the risks of steroid use? And if all athletes are given the opportunity to use these enhancement methods, a more level playing field could be obtained. But undoubtedly there will be athletes who continue to go beyond the rules to gain an advantage, so the level playing field will only be as good as the tests and enforcement of the rules.

The rights of parents must also be taken into consideration. By allowing role models to openly jeopardize their health by using drugs we would expose children to adult issues that could cause irreversible damage. Parents are responsible to shape the minds of their children, but they may be hard pressed to overpower the influence of sports icons. And since the success of sports organizations depends on the mainstream exposure, it is not a viable option to keep the issue out of the spotlight. Every young athlete in America will be very aware of exactly what professionals are doing and they are likely to feel that they must follow suit in order to reach the same level.

Common Good
A well-structured, highly regulated set of mandates concerning enhancement methods could ultimately provide athletes with the key to their athletic potential. They would be able to get stronger, faster, and better but an equal playing field would raise the bar of athletic performance. There might be an initial rise in industry profits, but this would probably level back out. The only real beneficiaries of legalized enhancement would be the competing athletes who would not otherwise partake in illegal actions and might suffer from a disadvantage. Overall, the common good is found in society, where the young people are looking at the athletes as role models. In this Utilitarian approach, the slippery slope situation would make it dangerous to condone drug use or genetic manipulation on any level.

Action 2:Maintain strict rules against drug/genetic enhancements and enforce the rules with consistent, universal, effective testing and detection methods.

Consequences
There is a constant struggle between athletes looking for an edge and organizations trying to maintain clean and fair competition. While some athletes could gain a tactical advantage by illegally enhancing themselves while their competitors do not, strictly enforced testing procedures would provide most athletes with a level playing field. It has been proven that effective tests administered to all competitors without bias virtually eliminate steroid use. According to olympic.org, the WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) administered over 3600 drug tests since April 2001 and have uncovered 27 positive results. The combined efforts the WADA, the IOC (the International Olympic Committee) and other organizations in charge of regulating drug use have made using performance enhancing drugs very detectible and generally not worth the risk. If the same efforts are put into developing better drug tests, as well as tests to detect illegal genetic manipulation, the ability to control and limit enhancement techniques would remain effective in upholding the rule and integrity of the sport. In addition, young people would not see open support for drug use and would, therefore, be less likely to turn to drugs as a source of athletic improvement.

Effective tests would drive athletes to find alternative methods of athletic improvement, which could prove more dangerous. Also, individuals who suffer from a disability could be excluded from competition unless exceptions were made to allow gene therapy or controlled steroid use. This would open the door for another set of problems: defining what is a disability that can warrant gene therapy? After all, an athlete who is considered healthy by today's standards might feel that he is too short and has a disability that warrants genetic correction.

Individual rights/fairness
By putting forth all necessary efforts to enforce the restrictions on all athletes, fairness among athletes would be maintained. It is fair to parents who do not want their children to be under added pressure and the sports organizations would protect their rights to clean competition. On the other hand, the athletes' right to progress would be hindered by this legislation. He/She would be denied the right to decide how far they are willing to push their bodies for the sake of competition.

Common good

From an athletic point of view, the common good is found through fair competition and concern for the health of individuals, both of which are provided by the proposed action. On a broad social scale, it would be better all around if efforts to eliminate drug use and extreme genetic manipulation were employed. Young athletes would not feel as obligated to experiment with enhancement therapies and the ideals of the "human spirit" would be maintained by forbidding genetic manipulation.