"I was given a gift to hit home runs," is how the famous baseball player described his use of performance-enhancing drugs (ESPN, 2010). A gift is usually something that a person has naturally, and for it to be given to someone is what every individual wants. The words that McGwire used illustrate how powerful steroids are, and how much of an effect they can have on an athlete. Other than McGwire, a huge amount of athletes have been caught using performance-enhancing drugs in numerous sports in nearly two centuries. The first baseball player who used PEDs to improve his abilities was Pud Galvin in 1889, which is two centuries ago; at that time, only a few people disapproved of him using performance-enhancing drugs (Cummings, 2009). Nowadays, the debate has been on going on whether athletes should be allowed to use steroids to improve their athletic abilities or not. Some say legalizing performance-enhancing drugs would improve sports, and decrease health risks. On the other hand, other people say that PEDs are considered a form of cheating, and may cause health problems, which is why they are against legalizing the use of PEDs. Although legalizing performance-enhancing drugs may have some positive impacts on sports, I stand against legalizing the use of athletes of PEDs because I think they are a form of cheating, could cause health issues, and that it would diminish the value of a natural gift of being an athlete. 

What makes sports enjoyable to the viewer is the competitiveness between athletes. Using steroids would decrease the competitiveness in sports because it would give the user an advantage over the rest of their opponents. Some might say that legalizing these kinds of drugs would mean that everyone would have the right to use them; however, not every athlete wants to use these drugs, which means it would be an unfair advantage for the users of steroids over other athletes. 

John Whetton, a former Olympic runner, was quoted saying "Using chemicals to do what your body isn't capable of doing is cheating, but it is a form of cheating that is hidden and therefore it is a nasty form of cheating" (Gale, 2015). Using drugs to enable your body to do stuff it would not normally do is surely unnatural; every sport is based on the athletes of that sport being natural, and if these players decide to consume such drugs, the sport that they represent would not be seen as competitive as before. 

In addition, if a player gets caught using PEDs, many of the viewers would not have respect for this athlete, and might demand for the player's accomplishments to be taken away because of their disrespect to sportsmanship, which is the most important thing in sports. For example, every Saudi soccer fan loved Mohammed Noor, who is a huge Saudi soccer legend, because of his accomplishments, personality, and his great style of playing. However, everything changed after he was caught using steroids and was banned for four years from playing soccer; most of the Saudi soccer fans lost respect for him and his individual achievements because of his use of performance-enhancing drugs (Football Channel Asia, 2016). 

This example shows that sportsmanship is really important to the viewer, and for a player to disrespect this thing, in any way, can result in the fans not respecting them because of their actions, which would not be ideal for any athlete in any sport. Many other examples of athletes using PEDs resulted in the same impact as the example of Mohammed Noor, which stresses the fact that cheating is not taken well among many of sports' fans.

Another aspect of legalizing the use of performance-enhancing drugs that should be taken into consideration is the health issues they might cause to athletes. Undoubtedly, legalizing something that might cause problems to a person's health would be an awful decision to make by the authorities because it would cause numerous of unnecessary and avoidable health problems.

The risks of using PEDs on the health of athletes are really huge. Chris Doorley mentioned in an article "the big three" drugs that are banned by WADA: synthetic testosterone, erythropoietin (EPO), and human growth hormone (HGH). Synthetic testosterone, he mentions, can cause liver issues, cholesterol problems. As for HGH, it can impair heart function, and might lead to type 2 diabetes. As for EPO, Chris mentions it might lead to heart attacks (Doorley, 2015). Reading about these risks that PEDs might cause to athletes is itself terrifying, which would explain how frightening it would feel if an athlete would actually suffer from one of these issues only because he decided to use steroids. 

Even though the benefits that these drugs provide to athletes are huge and can positively impact hugely on their career, is using them really worth putting yourself in a risky situation where you might suffer from any health issue? Sports were meant to be a healthy exercise for the body; and legalizing performance-enhancing drugs would mean that original meaning of sports would change entirely from being a way to be healthier and full of energy no matter how old a person was to a way of threatening your life by taking the risk of suffering from avoidable and unnecessary diseases only to experience the feeling of winning. 

 Knowing that steroids might cause such diseases, even if it was a small chance, should put them in the danger zone in any sane person's mind. If legalizing performance-enhancing drugs would cause some athletes to suffer from any bad side effect, then legalizing them should never be considered because the lives of people are much more important than increasing the level of competitiveness in sports.

Sports nowadays are full of superstars who have worked hard since the beginning of their careers, which excites the fans to see those superstars enjoying the results of their hard work while also entertaining them at the same time. Seeing the likes of LeBron James in the NBA, Cristiano Ronaldo in Soccer, Novak Djokovic in Tennis excites every fan of that sport because these three people, and many others, are a perfect example of a hard working, talented, entertaining athlete. Talent, entertainment, and hard work are three traits that every fan sees in their favorite sportsman. 

Cristiano Ronaldo, for example, has shown great work ethic since the first day he started his career, as many of his coaches say. His hard work combined with his talent made him a better player with each year. Cristiano Ronaldo is now considered one of the best players in Soccer history for his many individual or team accomplishments. In short, Cristiano Ronaldo is a great demonstration of the perfect athlete. 

Legalizing performance-enhancing drugs would diminish one of the most important things that people watch sports, which is the likes of Cristiano Ronaldo. There will not be an athlete fighting his way to the top using natural methods. Athletes would depend mostly on PEDs to improve their abilities rather than practicing to be better. 

Legalizing these drugs would change the meaning of a perfect sportsman from being a natural hard-working, talented person to a robot, disguised as a human, who depends on technology to perform better and be more entertaining to the viewers. If legalizing performance-enhancing drugs would cause athletes to change to robots, most sports fans would surely disapprove of that decision because natural talent and hard work are appreciated highly in the eyes of the fans, and they surely do not want to watch robots playing and entertaining them. 

As mentioned before, sports are all about naturalism; it is the most important thing that the fans regard highly. Legalizing performance-enhancing drugs would destroy naturalism of sports, which means it would destroy sports as a whole. If you destroy the base of the building, the whole building would be destroyed. 

The arguments as to why performance-enhancing drugs should not be legalized have been mentioned above; however, this part of the paper would concentrate on the arguments of advocates of legalizing PEDs, and what they respond to the anti-legalization side. 

One of the arguments that they believe in is that these drugs have become necessary for athletes to use in order to win. Stephen Wang gives the example of Cycling and that doping has become important for them if they want to win the competition they are participating in (Wang, 2015). 

One of the quotes Stephen used in his article is a statement made by the famous cyclist, seven-time Tour de France winner, Lance Armstrong when he was asked if a cyclist could win a race without using steroids he replied "That depends on which race you wanted to win. The Tour de France? No. Impossible to win without doping" (Wang, 2015). This is a huge statement to make by the most famous cyclist because it comes from the mouth of a person who was involved in that sport, and is speaking of an experience. 

In addition, one of the information that Wang mentions in his article is that if cyclists who used PEDs were removed from the Tour de France in 1999, the winner would be the cyclist who finished in the seventh place; and in 2000, the winner would be the 10th place finisher (Wang, 2015). These facts that were mentioned gives a clear image on how PEDs have become widely used and normal in Cycling. They also justify the argument that PEDs have become a necessity to win the Tour de France. 

Another argument the advocates of legalization argue is that legalizing PEDs would not cause health issues to athletes because it would be under medical supervision (Wang, 2015). Bennet Foddy, a Princeton University professor, was quoted saying, "Because doping is illegal, the pressure is to make performance enhancers undetectable, rather than safe. Performance enhancers are produced or bought on the black market and administered in a clandestine, uncontrolled way with no monitoring of the athlete's health" (Wang, 2015). They argue that legalizing PEDs would mean a safer use of them, not the opposite. Instead of making athletes who want to use steroids go through dangerous and unsafe ways to obtain steroids, advocates argue that by legalizing the use of these drugs, safer and healthier ways would be provided to sportsmen. 

In short, people who are in support of legalizing PEDs argue that legalization is necessary for athletes' careers, and their health as well. 

Although the arguments of people who are in support of making performance-enhancing drugs legal to athletes are strong and have a lot of sensibility in them, I still think PEDs should not be legalized. 

First, In response to the argument that steroids have become important for athletes in order to win in their sports, I think instead of legalizing such drugs, the difficulty of the competitions should be lowered down to make it fit the abilities of athletes. Instead of making the Tour de France such a hard competition to win, the people who are in charge of it should put athletes' health in consideration before making it this challenging. Lance Armstrong said that when asked if you can win without doping "That depends on which race you wanted to win" (Wang, 2015). His statement tells you that the problem is not the abilities or stamina of cyclists, but it is in fact the difficulty of the Tour de France that forces cyclists to use steroids to help them win it. In other races, it is possible to win without doping, according to Armstrong. 

Second, even though health risks would be minimized because of the fact that PEDs would be manufactured well after legalizing them, I think PEDs would still have some, might be minor, side effects. So, the question still stands as to why would an athlete risk the chance, even if it were a little one, to suffer from an avoidable side effect? You can stay natural, healthy, and practice like every other athlete, and still be successful in your sport. Using performance-enhancing drugs and knowing that it might have a negative effect on your health is not a decision that a sane person would make. 

The debate on whether sportsmen should be allowed to use PEDs to help them improve their skills is an ongoing debate that will not finish in the near future. Even though the pro-legalization side has some strong arguments to make towards this topic, the anti-legalization side has even stronger arguments to make. PEDs being a form of cheating, causing some health issues, or destroying the value of a natural gift of an athlete are only few of the arguments that the anti-legalization side have argued. Looking at the arguments of each side, it should be obvious to any sports fan that performance-enhancing drugs should not be allowed because they would have negative impacts on any sports. Sports have always been known to be a way for any athlete to be a healthier, better person. The beauty of sports is the naturalism of its athletes, and their ability to be great by using natural methods. In addition, sports are not just a way of entertaining, they are also a way to teach great life lessons. Numerous examples have been seen throughout the history of sports that all people who are related to sports have learned a life lesson from. Legalizing PEDs would have a few positive impacts on sports in general, but it would also have many negative impacts. Sports will not be beautiful anymore because naturalism would be diminished. Sports will be solely entertaining rather entertaining and giving great life lesson at the same time.

