Should olympic athletes be tested for drugs?

Olympic Athletes have been tested for drugs for decades. I don't know where you got the idea that they haven't been testing. You must not pay attention to all the athletes who've been suspended, sent home, had medals stripped from them in past Olympics. Do you remember Ben Johnson? Do you remember Marion Jones. Do some research and then you will find out that the Olympics has a much more stringent testing policy than any one else in sports. It is tougher than the policies for the NFL, MLB, NBA, NHL and NASCAR. Pay attention to the Winter Olympics in a few weeks, you may see some suspension during that Olympics.

All Olympic athletes are tested in and out of competition for illegal drugs. The fact that some programs and countries had extensive drug programs to enhance their athletes' performance requires this testing. Today, many elite athletes use drugs, they are caught continuously, and without testing you would never be certain that the elite athletes are not cheating.

In a world class sporting competition like the olympics where one race is the tester for lifetime of hard work and sacrifice you get certain people who willing to die to break a world records like tim Montgomery who was quoted to have said " If i could win a gold medal it wouldn't matter if i died right on the other side of that finish line". victor conte the man who gave marion jones the drug cocktail witch helped her to win 5 gold medals at sydney said this attitude is common among top athletes, witch i think shows a line needs to drawn to protect athletes from them selves and to protect the credibility of the sports individuals compete in it. after all sport is supposed to be about health and healthy competition As far as i can see there no good reason why athletes should be allowed to take drugs. If you took a group of ten, twenty stone couch potato's and a made them run a 200 meter race their would be a winner. olympic events are not in them selves a super human achievements especially if you train your entire life for them. the astonishing part is how much pros are compared to average people. As already stated above in the first paragraph at the top level the attitude of personal risk V's reward are very much skewed by an athletes desire to win, witch in tim Montgomery's case is literally at any cost and without conscience. something i read on forum about junior swimming really drove it home to me why sport should be clean. This guy was talking the junior team he coaches. He said if drugs are made legal at what point do i tell these kids there never gonna win without them. The dilemma for these kids would simple join in or quit swimming hardly the message any well respected organization should promoting. so what's in store for those who decide to take performance enhancing drugs. Growth hormones steroids and EPO have some fairly nasty side effects including but not limited to diabetes, impotence, strokes, liver disease, kidney failure, and In some cases sudden death form heart attacks. this is a choose no one should have make especially a minor should have to make. abolishing testing would not create a level playing field because once everyone has drugs a new level would exist that is one step higher than athletes who can't afford drugs and a ton of health problems for those can. standard created this way not only invite athlete to take unnecessary risks with their health it guarantees they have to simply to quailfy. where enough desire exist for people to no longer worry about theirs own deaths it highly their will plenty of people who will die a result. abolishing testing would be a disaster for sports and the individuals who choose to make it a career.

-pro: They would be more afraid to do drugs, which is good because they can destroy your body. -pro: The athletes would become more responsible for their bodies. -pro: This test could provide the judges and everyone else with certainty that no one is cheating and they would feel more delighted with the fairness. -con: Tests might cost money that people won't want to spend. -con: Athletes might refuse to be tested, which would be devastating to the fans if they were banned from playing because of it. -con: Also, not testing for drugs and finding out later would give people a suprise and the runners up one too.

Yes, they should be tested. Pro: Without testing, the competition becomes who can get the best pharmaceuticals, not who the best athlete is. Preserve the integrity of records made by people who used hard work, not drugs, to achieve great things. PED's have a detrimental effect on the long-term health of the athletes (see WWE wrestlers who admittedly took steroids dying in their 50s). Con: We get to see faster swimmers, higher jumpers, and stronger lifters.

i totally agree! especially with things like gymnastics and things on bikes and things like that. maybe you should not do it for every sport. i am saying this because things cost money. i hope you can make this a real thing in life. WWW and especially people horse riding!

It would be much more interesting if they were not tested! I for one would be more inclined to watch; runners on speed would be more entertaining :)

Well yes, yes they should