The United States routinely spends more tax dollars per high-college athlete than per high-college math pupil—not like most international locations worldwide. And yet, per drug person, the amount of cash spent on combating medication in sport outweighs the amount spent on combating civilian drug use by orders of magnitude. It is one thing to argue that banning performance enhancing medication has not been successful, or even that it’s going to never be successful.\n\nThe direct risks from prohibiting performance enhancing medication in sport are related, but most likely rather more pronounced. The most effective purpose for adhering to this rule is that, if coaches had been made answerable for medication that they’d given to their athletes, then the coach could be banned or fined, and the athlete may still win the event.\n\nIn this scenario, other athletes would still be compelled to take medication to be able to be competitive, although the cheat” had been caught. But the doctrine of strict liability makes victims of athletes corresponding to those of the East German swim staff, who are competing in good faith but have been compelled to take medication.\n\nOur proposal solves this paradox—after we exclude athletes only on the premise of whether they are healthy enough to compete, the question of accountability and liability becomes irrelevant. Somewhat than fearing medication in sport, we must always embrace them.\n\nIn 1998, the president of the International Olympic Committee, Juan-Antonio Samaranch, instructed that athletes be allowed to use non-harmful performance enhancing medication. Hartgens F , Kuipers H. Effects of androgenic-anabolic steroids in athletes. Booth F , Tseng B, Flück M, et al. Molecular and cellular adaptation of muscle in response to physical training.