In today's society there is an urgency to always try and be on top. Whether it's women, starving themselves and going under the knife just to try and look like the airbrushed models that are considered to be the idea of perfection, or big businesses, poorly treating workers in an effort to increase their profit margins and outsell their competitors. Perhaps the most prominent place we see this issue is in the professional sports world. Athletes are constantly pushing the limits to try and beat their competitors. Injecting themselves with needles and putting substances into their bodies without giving the possible health or participation penalties a second thought.  Steroids, whether we like to recognize it or not, have become something that athletes in almost every sport rely on.  The use of performance enhancing drugs should be permitted in professional athletics in order to make the regulation of these substances easier, level the playing field, and take pressure off of athletes. 

There are currently many legal substances that have similar effects as prohibited anabolic steroids. Creatine is an example of a popular over the counter supplement used by athletes. It is a compound formed in protein metabolism. Chad Kerksick, Ph.D., assistant professor of exercise physiology at the University of Oklahoma, explains that when used "it pulls water into your muscle cells, which increases protein synthesis" (Risher). By increasing levels of protein, your body in return has high levels of energy which allows for longer and more intense workouts to be completed. Studies have found that "creatine use can increase maximum power and performance in high-intensity anaerobic repetitive work by up to 15 percent" (Nordqvist). Although creatine and similar supplements do help improve athletes' abilities, there is a distinct difference between them and the steroids prohibited in professional sports. Testosterone and human growth hormone, both contributing to muscle growth, are the objects of distinction between what is and is not permitted in athletics. Supplements induce the body to create more hormones on its own where as anabolic steroids are the synthetic versions of the actual hormones (Supps in Flux).  

Anabolic steroids, the main form of prohibited substances, have much greater health risks than over the counter supplements that can be purchased at nutritional stores. According to the New York State Department of Health, using steroids can cause serious health problems such as high blood pressure and heart disease; liver damage and cancers. They also affect your psychological well being and can result in mood swings, depression, and violent behavior. The unfortunate story of Taylor Hooton, reported by the New York Times, is a prime example of just how extreme the repercussions of using these substances can be. Hooton was a high school baseball player who was told by his coach that he needed to get bigger for the upcoming season. "Taylor used steroids, became depressed, and hanged himself from his bedroom door on July 15, 2003" (Grossfeld). The negative effects of steroids are definitely concerning, but legalizing these substances can allow doctors to monitor side effects closely and regulate drug use more effectively. Steroid use has been around since sports were created. Although in much less risky forms, such as caffeine, the use of different performance enhancing drugs has evolved over time. Preventing the use of steroids is virtually inevitable. Athletes in every sport use steroids of one form or another. Most recently, professional players have turned to designer drugs, "these being substances specifically synthesized to escape drug tester" (Cashmore). Although it is a known fact that these types of drugs are being utilized, the World Anti-Doping Agency has a budget of 30 million dollars per year (Cashmore). This money is being utilized to no avail. In fact in cycling, '"more than a third of the top finishers of the Tour de France have admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs in their careers or have been officially linked to doping"' (Honan). Infamous athletes such as Lance Armstrong have tricked drug tests throughout their whole careers. Armstrong was only caught because one of his teammates broke the silence over his drug use. The U.S. Anti-Doping Agency reported on the many ways in which Armstrong and his teammates tricked the drug tests. The first, being doping in micro doses, a process where they "They would dope regularly, but use small amounts, or "micro-doses" which they would take at night so as not to fail a test in the morning" (Honan).  Another method used by the cycling team was masking, a process where additional drugs are taken in order to stabilize the pH of blood or urine to normal levels. Armstrong's go to drug was EPO, a blood booster that would dilute or thin his blood without being detected on tests (Honan).  Since science is evolving, and athletes are continually becoming more savvy at evading drug tests, prohibiting performance enhancing drugs serves no purpose. Allowing them will insure that athletes are informed of the effects and taking safe and studied substances.  

Athletes' decisions to risk their health and resort the use of these substances often stem from the pressures put on them by society. Celebrities, athletes, and normal people alike are held to an unrealistic standard of perfection where anything else s considered to be not good enough. This makes it hard to blame athletes for doping in a society where we encourage them to continue to push their limits and condemn them if their performance does not continue to improve. After all, spectators pay to see the best performing teams. The super bowl is a prime example. According to the international business times, 114.4 million Americans watched the 2015 Super Bowl on TV, a game where the two best teams in the league go head to head. If spectators enjoy higher levels of competition, it is quite hypocritical to be shaming athletes for 

giving them what they are asking for. Many athletes have opened up about the pressures put on them by fans and their staff. Tyler Hamilton a professional cyclist, detailed the pain that lying caused for him while using performance enhancing drugs. However, "He could either take erythropoietin, inject himself with testosterone and have bags of his blood replaced before and during a race or he would not be able to make a living as a professional cyclist" (Silverman). This is the case for many professional athletes. Being paid based on performance heightens athlete's urgency to increase their level of play, so that they can make a living like everyone else. A study done on the MLB revealed that players who use performance enhancing drugs make an average of 2 million dollars per season. On an even larger scale, using career data accumulated through the 2005 season, "steroid use was found to increase the average players slugging average from .428 to .460 which led to an approximately $700,000 dollar increase in the average steroid-using players salary, an average percent increase" (Pantuosco). Not only do players profit from steroid use, but franchise owners do as well. In 1998, during the home run race between  Mark McGuire (who admitted to using steroids) and Sammy Sosa who were both trying to shatter the what was the current record,  owner's watched their franchise value increase from an average of $111 million dollars in 1994  to $286 million in 2001. If the use of steroids satisfies spectators, helps players earn and maintain a stable income, and increases revenue for owners and professional leagues it is needless to say that their use should be permitted. 

