Content area
Full Text
A s i a n B i o e t h i c s R e v i e w D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 Vo l u m e 4 , I s s u e 4
A R T I C L E S
I. Introduction
There has been much discussion in academic conferences and sport policy-makers with respect to the role of anti-doping (McNamee and Mller 2011; Hanstad, Smith and Waddington 2008). Put simply, there is a potential schism between the overarching function of anti doping is it first and foremost a sports-related issue, or is it more generally to be understood as a public health issue? (Mller et al. 2009)? It is clear that these two aspects are not mutually exclusive such that the question cannot simply be a case of which should be its focus. Sports are, after all, social practices, engaged in by hundreds of millions of people. What goes on in these practices, to the extent that it affects the health of its participants, must also be a public health issue, irrespective of its (disputed) significance.
Nevertheless, one particularly problematic aspect of present anti-doping policy relates to the existence of what are often and variously referred to as social drugs, recreational drugs or substances of abuse, in the list of prohibited methods and substances that comprise doping as defined the global body responsible for anti-doping: the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA).
The focus of this article is whether and how the presence of Cannabinoids on the Prohibited List (PL) is justified or not. Many scholars, scientists, and key actors in anti-doping policy in confidential interviews have argued that it should not be included. They argue that the presence of Cannabinoids is present on the Prohibited List merely as an extraneous and unwelcome function of governmental intrusion on sport and not because of any coherent
3 7 4 3 9 2 2 0 1 2 T h e A u t h o r. A s i a n B i o e t h i c s R e v i e w D e c e m b e r 2 0 1 2 Vo l u m e 4...