The enhancement of athletic performance using procedures that increase physical ability, such as anabolic steroids, is a familiar phenomenon. Yet recent years have also witnessed the rise of direct interventions into the brain, referred to as “neuro-doping”, that promise to also enhance sports performance. This paper discusses one potential objection to neuro-doping, based on the contribution to athletic achievement, particularly within endurance sports, of effortfully overcoming inner challenges. After introducing the practice of neuro-doping, and the controversies surrounding it, I describe two major mechanisms some have proposed to explain how it might produce its putative performance-enhancing effects. I then clarify the notion of effort, and its relationship to neuro-doping. I also briefly address common concerns about access and safety. My central argument invokes considerations of effort to maintain that we have at least a significant reason for prohibiting the use of neuro-doping in officially regulated endurance competitions – though only conditional upon a specific set of empirical assumptions. I consider three possible objections: that neuro-doping is no different from widely accepted enhancement methods, that it can make athletic competition fairer, and that a broader range of factors can compensate for a reduced scope for effort than I recognize. I ultimately conclude that these objections do not refute the argument from effort, while stressing nonetheless that this argument applies more clearly to hypothetical improved forms of neuro-doping than to existing ones, and is not meant to offer a final overall verdict on how neuro-doping should be regulated.

使用增加身体能力的方法（例如合成代谢类固醇）来提高运动成绩是一种常见的现象。然而，近年来也见证了直接干预大脑的兴起称为“神经兴奋剂”，它有望提高运动成绩。本文基于努力克服内在挑战对运动成绩，特别是在耐力运动中的成就的贡献，讨论了对神经兴奋剂的一种潜在反对意见。在介绍了神经兴奋剂的做法以及围绕它的争议之后，我描述了两种主要机制，有人提出了两种主要机制来解释它如何产生其公认的性能增强效果。然后，我阐明了努力的概念及其与神经兴奋剂的关系。我还简要介绍了有关访问和安全的常见问题。我的中心论据援引了努力的考虑因素，以维持我们至少有一个重要的理由禁止在官方规定的耐力比赛中使用神经兴奋剂-尽管仅以一组特定的经验假设为条件。我认为可能存在三个反对意见：神经兴奋剂与被广泛接受的增强方法没有什么不同，它可以使运动比赛更加公平，并且广泛的因素可以弥补我认识不到的努力范围。我最终得出的结论是，这些异议并未驳斥努力的论点，同时强调说，该论点更适用于假设的改良形式的神经兴奋剂，而不是现有的，并且无意于就神经兴奋性做出最终的总体判断。兴奋剂应该受到管制。