A strong moral reason for prohibiting doping in sport is to be found in the bad choices that would be faced by clean athletes in a sporting world that tolerated doping. The case against doping is not, however, to be grounded in the concept of coercion. Instead, it is grounded in a general duty of sport to afford fair opportunity to the goods that are distinctively within sport's sphere of control. The moral reason to prohibit doping need not be balanced (...) against any autonomy claim of athletes who would prefer to dope because, upon closer examination, such claims have no force. The moral reason to prohibit doping does, however, need to be balanced against the enforcement costs imposed on all athletes by effective prohibition. (shrink)

D’Angelo and Tamburrini invited readers to consider doping in sport as a health issue and dopers as potential addicts who need therapy rather than offenders who need punishing. The issue of addiction in sport is important and very much under researched. In this essay I explore the extent to which addiction can be justifiably used as an excuse for offending behaviour. The favoured argument is that addicts experience a craving or compulsion to use over which they have no control. I (...) argue that there is insufficient evidence that addicts experience such compulsion. Although it seems science is unravelling some of the mysteries of addiction, it has not provided sufficient evidence that addictive consumption amounts to compulsive use. Nevertheless, it is clear that addicts do have difficulty with controlling their use and such difficulties ought to be considered in any judgements about moral responsibility. This does not mean that rules or laws including anti-doping legislation should be altered because not all.. (shrink)