Since the thought of competition between two individuals came into existence, there has been a mentality of attempting to get an "edge" on the opponent. Nations are ever concerned with intelligence and counter-intelligence issues, which is essentially political competition. Historically, in ancient Rome, the "competitive edge" was accomplished by making chariots lighter for greater speed or adding extra leather or iron to the body, for protection in the arenas. The people with the most money were able to purchase newer and better tools in which they competed with. In the mid-eighteenth century, specific geographical conditions were found favorable to train Kings' armies. For example, Kings would take troops into the mountains for months before going to battle. The Kings found that their troops would fight better after training in such conditions. The concept of taking a supplement to enhance a person's natural ability, at the time, would still be a foreign and futuristic concept, only to be discovered in the late nineteenth-early twentieth centuries.
Now, in the twenty-first century it's hard to remember a time where contraband drugs in sporting events were not an issue. It is very probable that every professional or pro sport athlete in North America, at one point of time throughout their sport history has either entertained or seriously contemplated the thought of using a performance enhancing drug. Why does this focus on winning drive people to harm themselves by using performance-enhancing drugs? What is it about the motivation of athletes that continuously use these drugs? What social factors drive people to feel that they are inadequate, or do they feel inadequate? This paper will try to clarify the psychological, motivational, and social effects of performance enhancing drugs on athletes and societal responsibilities that follow.
The material that was used in the paper...