Abstract
This article analyses the ban on drugs in sport from a market perspective. It argues that the ban can only be justified if the following three requirements are fulfilled: (a) There must be a persistent and widespread problem with the market solution, (b) the introduction of a ban must be able to reduce the market problem, and (c) the value of resources used up enforcing the ban must be less than the value of resources used up by the market problem. The evidence presented suggests that there is not a problem with the market. It is demonstrated that in the absence of a ban on drugs, fair contests result because any advantage gained from taking drugs is competed away. It is also concluded that the removal of the ban would improve athletes' health because they could have access to medical advice and supervision. The authors conclude that the ban is not justified.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.