If You’re Not First, You’re Last: Are the Empirical Premises Correct in the Ethics of Anti-Doping?

Abstract

In the ethical discussion of anti-doping, a number of normative arguments rely on empirical premises. The truth of these premises, however, often remains unverified. This article identifies several examples where normative arguments for anti-doping employ unsubstantiated empirical premises. It then focuses on one example—the effects of testing and sanctioning athletes to ensure fair contests—to show how the available empirical evidence does not support the empirical premise asserted in several normative arguments. The article concludes that normative arguments for anti-doping should include empirically informed premises.