Abstract
The aim of this article is to present and critically discuss a gametheory-
based argument in favour of the view that sports organizations
ought to ban the use of performance-enhancing drugs in
sport. After presenting the argument in detail, I try to show that
the argument is not convincing. First, the argument cannot be used
to argue in favour of WADA’s (World Anti-Doping Agency) current
ban on doping, at least if it rests on the assumption, that doping use
is always harmful. However, that in itself may not be a problem for
adherents of the argument, and they can and should modify the
harm assumption to cover only harmful use of doping. Second,
even with this modification, it is argued that the harm assumption
is flawed, for example, because it is not obvious why we should
accept certain harms in sport but not harm to athletes caused by
doping. Third, the argument is also flawed because it entails the
non-competitive assumption: if all athletes dope, then no competitive
advantages are gained by any athletes assumptions. The noncompetitive
assumption is challenged in view of the observations
that doping can have some non-competitive advantages and is, so
to speak, not only a positional good and because doping, due to
unequal responsiveness, can give some highly responsive athletes
a competitive advantage over less responsive athletes.