An athlete’s natural capabilities is usually what we would say is being measured in sports. When teams play one another, it is the strength and ability of an individual as well as the stamina and effort of a group that allows for victory. And MVP awards are given to individuals who perform beyond outstanding. So the idea of drug use in enhancing an athlete’s performance creates a backlash against what sports and athletes stand for, right? As viewers, are we only looking for natural talent in athletes?
Drugs are not the only use of internal changing substances. Do matters of food substances not also affect the internal workings of an individual? Some may have access to better food and water sources, so why does that not create such debate? Is there a reason food intake is not restricted or restrained by sports organizations? Maybe it is because food is a necessity for bodies to function properly. It provides nutrition for the body to develop and sustain. And because so much money is pumped into sports organizations and athletes, the matter of fair nutritional value does not seem to be as large of an issue. A healthy diet along with a good physical training regime can create an athlete, but natural talent takes it to the next level.
In terms of drugs, an argument against them is that they can allow for one to increase strength and stamina without extra work from the athlete beyond the regular training they already do. Or that it would allow an athlete to train beyond what their natural body can already do, giving them an unfair advantage over others who do not use drugs to progress. Drugs can serve as a boost to push one beyond the natural boundaries of talent. Therefore, it could be the idea of a pure athlete, working on with what is innately theirs and performing to a capacity beyond what others are capable of that draws viewers to applaud and admire athletic talent and reject the use of drugs in sports for enhancement purposes.