Stop trying to control doping in sports

1. The Libertarian

1.1. Controlling every aspect of anyone's life is dictatorial, totalitarian and a basic violation of their human rights

1.2. Sports can make rules for what happens on the pitch, during the race, etc, but becomes basically invasive when it goes beyond that

1.3. And anyway, the amazing advances in chemistry, biology and medicine that doping demonstrates are a real showcase for the human spirit - these advances should be celebrated, not criminalised

2. The Utopian

2.1. Let the best man/woman win - that's what sport, at its most basic, is about. Not the best cocktail of chemicals; not the best technlogy. The best athlete. And that means a human.

2.2. It's just defeatist to claim that because there are some bad eggs, we need to give up the whole enterprise. You might as well never attempt to do anything that requires an appeal to the better side of human nature. Let's give up on civilisation just because there are some terrible people around who abuse the system. Crazy!

3. The Realist

3.1. Com'on. Get real. There's always going to be a doper in the pack. And that means that anyone who wants to win is likely to be highly tempted. So, if you've won a major event in sports, you've got to be in the category most likely to have doped to have achieved what you've achieved. That's just human nature. Give these winning machines a goal, and they'll do what they need to win. So you're not going to get rid of it,

3.2. If doping's always going to be around, it brings all sport and the authorities and all rules into disrepute to go around pretending that the whole business is clean - abandoning the fight against doping is a matter of basic honesty about where we are.

3.3. And hey! It's not so bad. When everyone dopes, it's just as good sport as when no one dopes. It's the intermediate positions that are messy and bad.

3.4. What's more, a bit of doping is probably good for these guys on medical grounds - they're doing terrible things to their bodies, and they need all the chemical help they can get.

4. The Deontologist

4.1. The first, and very simple point is, that the rule is the rule until the rule is changed in a legitimate way, according to pre-set rules. So be clear: anyone who doped under the current rules is a cheat and deserves no honour. That's a simple statement of how things work.

4.2. Now, having established the basics, you'll have to admit that the rule we have - the anti-doping code - which came about in a process that is as good as a process can be, with federations and international bodies all consulted - is a damn good rule. It rests on the following excellent principles: dope is bad if it harms the athlete's health and it is bad if it contravenes the spirit of sport. Now the spirit of sport is all about human achievement and fair competition within the rules. Doping gets rid of our natural conception of fairness. So it's against the spirit of sport. Simple. Which of these basic principles do you actually, when you think about it in the cool light of day, disagree with? OK. Debate won.

5. AGREE

6. DISAGREE