John Berardi - Ethical Andro (Text Version)

Ethical Andro - The Ethics of Prohormone Use
By John M Berardi and Lonnie Lowery
First published at www.virtualmuscle.com, 2001.

What happens when two andro researchers who also happen to have philosophy education and are former competitive bodybuilders examine the rights and wrongs of using over-the-counter androgens? Lets find out…

Introduction: Objectivity and Emotion

"Cheater!" "Juice head!" "Steroid boy!" Such verbal slurs pepper the conversations in gyms across the country when the issue of prohormone use crops up. Why is it that some athletes see nothing wrong with using "andro", while others look at these products with fear and skepticism? Not coincidentally, many of the arguments surrounding these controversial dietary supplements are similar to those that have raged over the steroid issue for decades. The main relevant difference being that testosterone and anabolic steroids are controlled substances while over-the-counter androgens like androstenediol are not. Well, not just yet anyway.

Barry McCaffrey, President Clinton's advisor on drug issues, has recently issued a statement indicating that it is the intention of the federal government to target androstenedione (one of the types of over the counter androgen supplements) for immediate removal from store shelves. In addition, androstenedione would be placed in the same legal category as testosterone and anabolic steroids and made prescription only. Presumably the other types of over-the counter-androgens would soon follow.

In this article however, we're not interested in discussing either the legality or the safety and efficacy of "andro". There are plenty of discussions about those topics already out there. No, with our old and dusty philosophy caps placed firmly upon our meditative heads, we're interested in discussing the ethical issues associated with the use of "andro".

When discussing ethics, we all must admit that most "ethical" debates are fueled by emotion. And most of our opinions sit atop this shaky emotional foundation. If this is true then the important question to ask would be: Where do the emotions and opinions that we associate with certain issues come from? Friends? Advertisements? Religion? Personal aspirations? The press? Be honest with yourself. Chances are, you've formed some very strong opinions based upon repeated exposure to some pretty flimsy "facts". You see, we all have opinions that are founded on the precarious platform of socially indoctrinated bias. We take-in information throughout the days, weeks and years without always considering the validity of the source. As Einstein once pointed out, "common sense" is the collection of biases we acquire by age 18.

In the interest of objectivity, however, we must try to step away from our "common sense" and view things from an angle unclouded with emotion. In science, the goal in separating fact from opinion is to take a systematic approach to problem solving. It is the use of objective measurement to eliminate opinion and thereby see things as they really are. In ethics, things are not so black and white but we believe the idea is the same.
One has to examine issues in objective and unhabitual ways in order to see the issues as they really are. And often when we can honestly do that, the issues tend to be far less black and white and much more gray than any of us like to admit.

How do "the experts" assess right and wrong while minimizing personal bias?

Many ethicists use three main models to evaluate the right and wrong of an issue and each has its own set of positives and negatives.

The Golden Rule: Place ourselves in the position of those who will be helped or harmed by our decisions and actions. In addition, it asks us to examine our intentions and whether we would want others to harbor the same intentions toward us.

The Golden Rule Applied: What are the intentions of the athletes taking andro? To cheat and avoid hard work - or to reach a new level of personal growth? Also, would they appreciate their competitors taking the same course of action?

II.

Utilitarianism: Consider the realistic consequences of actions and to weigh the good that the act will produce against the harm it will cause. It seeks to maximize benefit while reducing burden. It examines the classic "end justifies means" mentality.

Utilitarianism Applied: Would the wide-spread acceptance of andro be beneficial to the majority of athletes involved in competition and will the total benefit outweigh the total burden associated with its use? As Mr. Spock might say, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."

III.

Rule of Universality: Behave only in those ways you feel appropriate for all people at all times, despite potential outcomes. Specifically our intentions must reflect a respect for all people's well being at all times with no excuses, even excuses that look at long-term outcomes down the road.

Rule of Universality Applied: Not that it would be required or necessary, but would it be acceptable if all athletes had access to and took andro in competition despite the potential outcomes? Would there be any situations where it would not be acceptable? Would my decision to take andro and intentions for doing so show respect for all involved?

Many experts suggest using a combination of the three models in ethical decision-making. According to the Josephson Institute of Ethics, "People tend to operate on an instinctive, unreflective level that…exaggerates the importance of personal and professional goals…scrutiny would reveal that, in many cases, our motivations are no more noble than the desire to get a job done, to build our reputations, to satisfy our pride, to win, or to avoid the shame of failing... Many people pursuing worthy goals do not search diligently enough for acceptable ways of achieving them. Ethical ways are available - though they may be less convenient and more costly. In many cases, ethical means of reaching worthy ends only require a little more work, a little more sacrifice."

Instead of this pursuit of extreme self-interest, it has been suggested that individuals seek to take into account the current well-being of all parties involved, to place "ethical" values such as truth and fair-play over "non-ethical" values such as money or victory, and to seek actions in which the consequences will produce the greatest good for the greatest number in the long run. If two "ethical" values are at odds (like fair-play and loyalty) then the consequences of actions should be weighed and the greatest good for the greatest number concept should be used.

Applied to athletics, we must recognize the purpose of and the values associated with sport competition. The NCAA contends, "Involvement in sport provides opportunities to experience and develop life skills in areas such as leadership, teamwork, discipline, self-worth, goal-setting, and respect for others." In addition, ethical conduct in sport includes: respect, fairness, civility, honesty, seeking to triumph but surviving loss, trust in others, and responsibility. Any ethical actions by an athlete would therefore support these values.

Getting Philosophical

Using the ethical models presented, how could we evaluate the "andro" debate? The following are some of the arguments for and against the use of andro. When evaluating them, keep in mind the suggested rules for ethical decision-making and these three suggestions as well… In making a decision, think of the following: Are you "doing as you would have done to you"? How comfortable would you be if your decision was broadcasted on 11 o'clock news? And what decision would you make if your mother or child was sitting in on the conversation?

Question #1: "If andro gives a competitive edge, doesn't taking it violate the "ethical" value of fair play?"

Argument: Andro violates the value of fair play.

First, using andro, when it is banned by the particular organization that the athlete competes in, runs counter to any ethical position. Sport involves a set of rules to which all competitors either explicitly or implicitly consent. And true competition exists when people pit their natural abilities and hard work against one another within the confines of a rulebook. If a substance is banned, its use is by definition, outside the boundaries of the sport, therefore defying the very nature of competition. There is no way to justify the use of a banned substance on ethical grounds.

Secondly, if competition is to exist in an ethical way, it must be about "fair play" and a "level playing field". It can be argued that some athletes have access to substances that others do not. This inequity can be due to financial reasons, specific health reasons, or geographical reasons (e.g. some substances that are accessible in the US are not accessible in Canada). Fairness - and ultimately the sport itself - is therefore destroyed. This scenario is best illustrated in "open" bodybuilding competitions, where those with the best drugs and supplements often win. When this happens, the sport no longer exists because the best man doesn't win. In addition, some athletes, for whatever reason, simply prefer to avoid chemicals - including andro. In this case there may be a situation of coercion - where those who rather not risk their health feel forced to "keep up with the competition". No athlete should have to take andro if he doesn't want to, just to stay competitive.

Counter-Argument: Andro does not violate the "ethical" value of fair play.

Competitive athletes have a right to goal setting, self-actualization, and victory. Each athlete enters his or her sport with a different set of conditions and circumstances. These include different genetics, different youth athletic experience, different coaching, different nutritional considerations and different competitive records. How then, can anyone assume that there is an athletic equity or a "level playing field" that the use of "andro", or any other ergogenic aid for that matter, could disrupt? Some athletes may need to use "andro" as a nutritional equalizer due to personal limitations such as lower exercise tolerance, lower recovery ability, lower genetic limits on musculature and power. Do the "experts" who deem andro unethical have to suffer the realization that despite a Spartan lifestyle dedicated to a nothing but competitive success, some athletes will never be able to compete? Doubtful. Their goal, then should be to objectively measure performance, not to place limitations on what can and cannot be done to achieve that performance. It is, in fact, a purpose of sport to foster, not retard, personal growth. And if "genetically-challenged" athletes have the right to take andro then all athletes should have the right to take it as well.

OUR VERDICT: Both sides have valid points. We suggest that since many athletic organizations have banned "andro", then it is truly unethical to take it within those organizations. If your sport has not banned andro, then you must decide for yourself what the ethical solution would be. We tend to feel that in this case andro use is not unethical since athletic inequity exists on many levels and it is ridiculous to suggest that prohormones would interfere with "fair-play". After all, if athletes were the same on all levels, it would reduce any sport to a mere game of chance.

Question #2: Isn't it true that andro is unnatural?

Argument: Taking andro is not natural and therefore unethical.

Andro is not natural because it is unlike the carbohydrates, protein, or caffeine that naturally occur in large quantities in foods. In addition, it is already made by the body and is therefore not necessary. Substances that cannot be consumed from normal sources and are not needed in the diet should not be allowed in competition because they are unnatural.

In addition, andro is not natural because it is used to elevate humans' testosterone levels beyond any normal physical range. Using a ton of real testosterone, most people would agree, is not natural for the same reasons. We are all dealt a genetic hand and those are the confines within which we must operate. It is unnatural and unethical to "mess with" our hormones in order to enhance athletic performance because it violates the "ethical" values of discipline and hard work. If andro is deemed acceptable, then, by the same logic, we would also have to conclude that implanting new muscle tissue into athletes to make them stronger would be okay too.

Counter-Argument: Andro is no more unnatural than other means of preparing for competition.

Technically speaking, natural is defined by Webster as "produced or existing in nature…innate and not acquired". By this definition, almost everything a competitive athlete does is "unnatural". Is lifting weights natural? Probably not since iron weights and specialized machines do not exist in nature. Neither do cross trainers, wrist straps or lifting belts. By formal definition, the only way to lift weights "naturally" would be to lift the tree trunks and rocks that exist in nature - naked. Even "Strongman" competitors, who do lift rocks and logs, wear special attire and use "tools". All humans do - it's what sets us (and other higher primates) apart from other species. Going one step further though, even if we do use our natural surroundings to train; the neuromuscular, respiratory, endocrine, and metabolic adaptations to exercise are not natural because they are not truly innate but are acquired as a result of the training. So, we cannot arbitrarily define "nature" without nixing both aerobic and anaerobic training. Need we go further? Essentially almost everything done by a competitive athlete is unnatural by definition. This leaves sports governing bodies with a ridiculously long list of things upon which to arbitrarily decide the "natural-ness". I

According to the DSHEA act of 1994, dietary supplements like "andro" are found within foods and within the body. Therefore they are no different (from that perspective) than non-essential amino acids. Both are found in foods and can also be made by the body. Thus, the law agrees on the natural-ness of "andro".

Finally, there is currently no pill that can substitute for hard work. Typically, nutritional supplements only enhance performance in conjunction with intense exercise. The discipline and hard work are the cake while andro is the icing. No athlete is going to be able to make up for a lack of effort by taking prohormones.

OUR VERDICT: Since almost all human activity, with respect to training anyway, can be considered unnatural, you must ask yourself where YOU draw the line on what nature intended. We don't believe that andro is any more unnatural than weight training or fancy athletic shoes (both are tools that may help performance) but we are unwilling to be the experts on "natural-ness". We will let "higher authorities" decide that one.

Debate Summary:

In conclusion, as we stated earlier, ethical issues are never as black and white as most people try to make them. Some situations have no clear answers - we're not "copping-out" here, it's what many philosophers refer to as an "ethical dilemma". In the case of the andro debate, there are clearly good arguments on both sides of the coin.

Rather than attempting to persuade you in one direction or the other we hope that we were able to present some of the arguments that are being debated. In addition we have attempted to provide information on some of the tools one can use to evaluate them. Remember, most people indiscriminately choose sides based on random affiliations and social bias. Don't be one of them. Employ logic and ethical reasoning to help you see through flimsy arguments and evaluate each of your own decisions.