ABSTRACT

Athletes who flout doping bans are generally thought to have gained an unfair advantage. In this paper, I critically examine this view. I begin by defending an effort-based account of desert in sport, explaining why it is preferable to the hybrid account that is favoured in the literature. Drawing on the effort-based account, I construct the Unfair Advantage Argument formally, in what I take to be its most plausible form. I then argue that the Unfair Advantage Argument should be rejected, for two main reasons. First, I challenge its assumption that dopers have put in less effort than their opponents. Second, I explain why, even if dopers have put in less effort, they have still exerted a sufficient amount. Though doping is problematic from an institutional perspective, it is not – from a pre-institutional perspective – cause for moral concern.

摘要

人们普遍认为，轻拍禁令的运动员获得了不公平的优势。在本文中，我将严格审查这种观点。我首先捍卫基于努力的沙漠运动理论，并解释为什么它比文献中偏爱的混合理论更可取。利用基于工作量的说明，我以最合理的形式正式构建了“不公平优势争论”。然后，我认为不公平优势论点应该被拒绝，原因有两个。首先，我质疑它的假设，即与对手相比，兴奋剂付出的努力更少。其次，我解释了为什么即使掺杂剂付出了较少的努力，它们仍然发挥了足够的作用。尽管从制度的角度来看掺杂是有问题的，但从制度前的角度来看，这并不是引起道德关注的原因。