ABSTRACT

In the ethical discussion of anti-doping, a number of normative arguments rely on empirical premises. The truth of these premises, however, often remains unverified. This article identifies several examples where normative arguments for anti-doping employ unsubstantiated empirical premises. It then focuses on one example—the effects of testing and sanctioning athletes to ensure fair contests—to show how the available empirical evidence does not support the empirical premise asserted in several normative arguments. The article concludes that normative arguments for anti-doping should include empirically informed premises.

中文翻译：

---

如果你不是第一个，你就是最后一个：反兴奋剂伦理中的实证前提是否正确？

摘要

在反兴奋剂的伦理讨论中，许多规范论点依赖于经验前提。然而，这些前提的真实性往往未经证实。本文列举了几个例子，其中反兴奋剂的规范论点使用未经证实的经验前提。然后，它侧重于一个例子——测试和制裁运动员以确保公平比赛的影响——以表明可用的经验证据如何不支持在几个规范性论点中断言的经验前提。文章得出的结论是，反兴奋剂的规范性论点应包括经验丰富的前提。