In October 2012, Lance Armstrong was stripped of seven Tour de France titles and an Olympic bronze medal. His charge? Using performance-enhancing drugs during training and competitions. The widespread backlash he received speaks volumes about where most people stand on the issue of using performance-enhancing drugs: It’s cheating, and cheating is unethical. 

There is little debate in the latter argument — that cheating is unethical — but what’s problematic about this charge is the first part: that taking performance-enhancing drugs is equal to cheating. But writing it off simply as cheating ignores reality. 

In the fantasy world where winners and losers are sorted out by their hard work, cunning, skill and other controllable factors, what’s too often ignored is the role of genetics. Hard work and training aside, athletes whose genes produce more erythropoietin (EPO) will always be better disposed to win the Tour de France. What performance-enhancing drugs do, in this case, is artificially stimulate the right cells to produce more of the chemicals necessary for greater stamina, speed, etc. 

In a genetically superior person, the same expression could be produced naturally. This natural inequality is considered perfectly fair to the athletic community, yet an artificial equalizing through performance-enhancing drugs is deserving of public humiliation.

Protests against performance-enhancing drugs aren’t entirely baseless, however, since there is some truth to the dangers of taking larger than the recommended dose and catering to your body’s needs during the recovery process. However, both of these problems would be solved through close supervision by a medical professional. Although some athletes have the privilege of obtaining performance-enhancing drugs legally, studies have shown that the majority of players get them from foreign or underground markets.

This question is certainly worth exploring, since Armstrong is far from alone in his guilt. Between 1996 and 2010, 80 percent of Tour de France medalists were also accused of being “tainted by doping.” But whether it’s steroids for the Tour de France or Adderall for finals week, the relevance — and prevalence — of performance-enhancing drugs extends beyond worldwide sporting competitions. 

Since it’s commonly accepted that taking performance-enhancing drugs is cheating, there’s no need to rehash this side of the debate. But let’s apply this same concept to an academic setting. Students whose brains naturally produce higher levels of dopamine and norepinephrine perform better on cognitive tests than those with lower levels. 

So say there are three students taking a final exam: one has naturally high levels of both chemicals, the second exercises before the test to “naturally” stimulate a higher production of the chemicals and a third takes Adderall to artificially increase chemical production. In the eyes of the academy, only one student is at fault. The same logic applied to PEDs used by athletes also applies to those used by students. Without medical supervision, PEDs for the classroom also come with the risk of addiction, heart complications, higher blood pressure, weight loss and an assortment of other medical problems. 

But once again, it’s worth noting that colleges and medical schools have reported a stimulant abuse rate as high as 43 percent, meaning that medically supervised drug use could dramatically reduce abuse rates on campuses across the country.

It should be pointed out that all performance-enhancing drugs come with a limit in terms of mental and physical benefits. At this limit, the chemicals in question will reach the maximum capacity for improved performance. A user could theoretically exceed this level, but this would only have a negative impact on performance and even threaten the user’s health. This too-common consequence is why careful, professional monitoring is so crucial when using performance-enhancing drugs. Misuse and physical harm are much more likely when the use of these drugs is so scandalized. 

If chemical levels were measured and leveled across the board using performance-enhancing drugs, effort and self-determination would then become key factors in a competitor’s success. Provided that the drug use is safe and supervised, it makes logical sense to allow performance-enhancing drugs in competitive settings. 

Though there’s some debate in the scientific community, many studies have concluded that genetics are the strongest predictors of future success. A high IQ is often correlated with other genetic advantages, such as physical attractiveness, good health, mental stability, social fitness, height and strength. Higher IQs are also correlated with higher education levels, higher incomes, greater marital satisfaction and generally higher levels of reported happiness. These possible connections prove that hard work isn’t usually a determining factor of success. For most of us, the future is written from birth. 

So how should we view these advantages? Should we shrug them off as the unavoidable selectiveness of the genetic lottery? Euphemize them with terms such as “giftedness?” Or present inequality as “diversity” to make it more palatable? 

The most obvious and easiest solution would be to chemically equalize these differences through the use of performance-enhancing drugs. Some might feel uneasy by this proposition, as it has a somewhat dehumanizing implication: that talent and the human experience can be reduced to formulas and functions. But there are so many immeasurable complexities of behavior that it’s unlikely such a step would lead to a world of pre-programmed drones. 

A society that refutes the ethical soundness of performance-enhancing drugs creates a breeding ground for inequality because it encourages covert use by those with the right resources. But by accepting the dominant role of genetics and regulating safe drug intake, we could at least bring a clean slate to the starting line.

Write to Natalie at [email protected].