Performance-enhancing drugs are substances used illegally to enhance athletic performance. They have been used since the original Olympic Games and the first anti-doping rule in sport was introduced in 1928. When we hear on the news about an athlete being "doped", the public is immediately led to assume that the athletes are using for the wrong reasons and should be immediately banned from competition. While this may be true for some athletes, are we right to assume that it applies to all athletes? Or we should try to understand the reasons why so many athletes make this radical decision which can have important consequences on their careers. If we legalized some drugs, could we solve the problem that seems to never end? Would athletes and the public become more aware of the problem and save the sport? To investigate this, I decided to choose the topic: "Should performance-enhancing drugs be legalized in sports?". We say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay My first source is titled “Why It's Time to Legalize Doping in Athletics” and was published on August 28, 2015 by Julian Savulescu, a professor at the University of Oxford. The author states that zero tolerance drugs clearly don't work. The possibility that anti-doping techniques are progressing faster than testing has confused most of the public. Are the athletes who win all cheating? Athletes are under enormous pressure to succeed, which leads them to constantly look for ways to increase their competitive advantage. He says we could increase testing, which will help but not necessarily catch everyone. The system is unfair and needs to be changed due to the advantage given to some athletes. To strengthen the system, we could introduce the so-called "physiological doping", which guarantees the protection of the normal function of living organisms. This means that if the drugs were too dangerous or affected the spirit of the sport, they would be made illegal. This results in a more successful system as we are able to focus our research more closely on the real problem. This alternative system is ultimately better for every aspect of sport and should be introduced to protect athletes, maintain stricter laws and therefore have a more level playing field. Another argument against drug legalization is that countries with more money will be able to obtain more expensive PEDs (Performance Enhancing Drugs). But this is not the case, since this disadvantage already exists: richer countries have better machines for legally increasing resistance, for example. So if we make them legal, they will be cheaper and more accessible for every country. He summarizes his article by stating that when rules and regulations are abused, they should be changed. The second source is titled “Should performance-enhancing drugs remain illegal in sports?” and was posted on February 25, 2019 by athlete Catherine Campbell Reid, an athlete. More and more athletes are using PEDs to improve their performance and beat the competition. The writer states that the technology is constantly improving and testing is becoming more frequent. As a result, drugs that previously went undetected are now easily found, meaning athletes receive appropriate punishment. While there are many reasons to support the legalization of PEDs, she says that in reality most of the benefits are false and the systemcurrent is the most effective. “Doping” is ruining important events such as the Olympics due to the damage it has on the three main values ​​of sport: Excellence, Friendship and Respect. Excellence is obviously affected by PEDs because if you're under the influence of drugs, how can you achieve anything when you know it's not really you who wins or achieves your personal best? Friendship unites people from all over the world. How can you happily say you contributed to all this when you're not really the one building relationships? Finally, Respect is undoubtedly the greatest value betrayed by taking PEDs because you are deceiving the public, other athletes and yourself. It can affect your health without knowing the risks and even your mental health. Catherine recognizes that legalizing “doping” could take the sport to a different level and increase popularity. But could you trust athletes if there is uncertainty about whether the drugs are helping them achieve medals? Legalizing drugs will be unfair as richer countries will have more advanced drugs, regardless of their previous disadvantage. Finally, he speaks passionately about the hope and power of sport and the negative impact of drugs in sport which will be harmful to sport and society in the future. Research author Julian Savulescu found that he is a philosopher who researches the ethics of various technologies, including the effect of an athlete's performance through drugs or genetic manipulation. The author is clearly very knowledgeable about the topic and is able to give the reader a very intellectual opinion. Introducing the article, he talks about the World Championships and the glorious athletes who inspired many people with their performances and attitude towards the game. Although the mood changes quickly when we are suddenly informed of what a terrible year 2015 was for athletics. He uses the phrase “annus horribils” which makes the reader think further since it is in italics and obviously not in English. The phrase stays in the readers' minds throughout the article, and as they progress through the article it becomes clear why the author used the strong phrase and message right at the beginning of the article. The language used is formal and the writer uses words like “is clear” and “should be” to convince the reader to agree with him. Furthermore, the reader ends with rhetorical questions that push him to think further and question his previous opinion. I think the information is presented well and the reader gets a clear understanding of the author's opinion. Using subheadings and various paragraphs it is easy to understand the main point he is making. I think that overall the source is very effective because it gives us the key points of the positive effects of the legalization of doping in athletics. Researching Catherine Campbell Reid's article I discovered that she is an athlete who has competed in various competitions and has written several articles. This makes the source effective because it gives us a very different point of view from the first author. Since she is an athlete, she has experienced the pressure and emotions of competing against competitors who have used performance-enhancing drugs. This means that he will have a personal and unique opinion as only a small percentage of people are involved in athletics at the highest level. The article brings an emotional side to the topic and talks about the feelings that the athlete and the public get from sport because it unites many people. Throughout the text the writer uses many rhetorical questions and short sentences that convince the reader even more to believe her argument. The information is presented clearly in various paragraphs to give to the reader?