If You're Not First, You're Last: Are the Empirical Premises Correct in the Ethics of Anti-Doping?

In the ethical discussion of anti-doping, a number of normative arguments rely on empirical premises. The truth of these premises, however, often remains unverified. This article identifies several examples where normative arguments for anti-doping employ unsubstantiated empirical premises. It then...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Sport, ethics and philosophy ethics and philosophy, 2021-10, Vol.15 (4), p.495-506
Main Authors: Pitsch, Werner, Gleaves, John
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
doping
Drug testing
empirical
Ethics
fairness
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In the ethical discussion of anti-doping, a number of normative arguments rely on empirical premises. The truth of these premises, however, often remains unverified. This article identifies several examples where normative arguments for anti-doping employ unsubstantiated empirical premises. It then focuses on one example-the effects of testing and sanctioning athletes to ensure fair contests-to show how the available empirical evidence does not support the empirical premise asserted in several normative arguments. The article concludes that normative arguments for anti-doping should include empirically informed premises.
ISSN:1751-1321
1751-133X
DOI:10.1080/17511321.2020.1818277