Athletes, Lawbreakers: Should They Be Banned?

There is an ongoing debate about whether athletes who break the law should be banned from their sport. On the one hand, athletes are human beings who make mistakes and should be given second chances, just like anyone else. On the other hand, athletes are often seen as role models, especially for young people, and their actions can have a significant influence. When an athlete breaks the law, it sets a negative example for their fans and can even encourage others to follow in their footsteps. Additionally, some argue that certain laws are broken more often by athletes, such as the use of performance-enhancing drugs or betting on competitions, which can call for stricter consequences. The decision to ban an athlete from their sport after breaking the law is complex and depends on various factors, including the severity of the crime, the athlete's influence, and the potential impact on their fans and the sporting community.

Should athletes be banned for betting on their sport?

There are several high-profile cases of athletes being banned for betting on their sport. For example, in 2024, Jontay Porter, a Toronto Raptors player, received a lifetime ban from the NBA for violating league gambling policies. Porter disclosed confidential information to bettors, manipulated his performance, and bet on NBA games. Similarly, in 1983, the Baltimore QB was banned for the entire season for betting on at least 10 NFL games during his rookie year. In 2019, Arizona Cardinals player Josh Shaw was suspended indefinitely for betting on NFL games, including his team's games.

These cases highlight the strict stance of sports leagues and teams against betting by athletes, with policies in place to restrict such activities. However, the question of whether athletes should be banned for betting on their sport is complex. While betting by athletes can compromise the integrity of the sport and lead to competition manipulation, there are arguments for a more nuanced approach.

One argument against a blanket ban is that athletes' rights and freedoms need to be respected. Leagues already have strict policies prohibiting athletes from a wide range of activities to protect their health and the team's investment. Banning all forms of gambling may be an overreach and an infringement on athletes' personal choices. Additionally, existing policies can be unclear, leaving room for unintentional violations. For example, Virginia Tech linebacker Alan Tisdale was suspended for betting on the NBA Finals using an app permitted in his state, Virginia, but it was a violation of NCAA rules.

Another consideration is the vulnerability of athletes to gambling disorders. Research shows that elite athletes are more susceptible to gambling disorders than the general population. Banning all forms of gambling may not address the underlying problem and could even enable it. A comprehensive solution may involve increased investment in problem gambling education and mental health support for athletes, in addition to clear and consistently enforced policies.

In conclusion, while there are valid concerns about the integrity of sports and the potential for competition manipulation, a blanket ban on athletes betting on their sport may not be the best solution. A more nuanced approach that balances athletes' rights and freedoms with the need to maintain the integrity of the sport may be more effective. This approach could include clear and consistently enforced policies, education, and support for athletes to make informed choices and address any potential gambling disorders.

Should athletes be banned for using performance-enhancing drugs?

Performance-enhancing drugs, or "doping", have been acknowledged as a problem in sports since the 1960s. The use of performance-enhancing drugs is prohibited, and athletes found to have used them may be banned from competition for a length of time that reflects the severity of the infraction. Typically, athletes who test positive for banned substances after having served a previous ban receive a lifetime ban.

There are several types of performance-enhancing drugs, including anabolic steroids, stimulants, human growth hormone, and diuretics. Anabolic steroids are natural and synthetic substances that help build muscle mass, enabling athletes to train harder and recover quickly from strenuous workouts. Stimulants, including amphetamines, impact the central nervous system, increasing alertness and decreasing appetite. Human growth hormone (HGH) is taken for improved endurance and strength. Diuretics are banned because they can be abused to mask other drugs in urine tests, and they are also taken to achieve rapid weight loss.

There have been many high-profile doping scandals involving athletes and sports teams from around the world. For example, in 2012, American cyclist Lance Armstrong had his seven Tour de France titles (from 1999 to 2005) revoked after evidence of a multifaceted doping scheme was exposed. In 2014, Swedish hockey star Nicklas Backstrom was kept out of the gold-medal game at the Winter Olympics in Sochi due to a positive test for pseudoephedrine. In 2015, tennis player Maria Sharapova was initially suspended for two years after failing a drug test at the Australian Open (the ban was later reduced to 15 months).

In summary, the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports is a serious issue that has been addressed through bans on athletes and teams found to be doping. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) is responsible for determining which substances are banned, and there are several types of performance-enhancing drugs that athletes may be tempted to use to gain a competitive advantage.

Should athletes be banned for committing a crime?

There are several arguments for and against banning athletes for committing crimes.

Arguments for banning athletes who commit crimes

Athletes are often seen as role models and are heavily revered by the media, franchises, and organisations. When an athlete breaks the law, they set a negative example for their fans, which can include young people. Athletes are also human beings and should be treated as such, which means they should face the same consequences as an average person when they commit a crime. Committing a crime is often seen as a violation of the values that athletes are supposed to uphold, such as fairness and integrity. Banning athletes who commit crimes can also be a way to uphold the integrity and fairness of the sport itself.

Arguments against banning athletes who commit crimes

It is important to remember that athletes are human beings and, like anyone else, they can make mistakes. Banning an athlete for life for a single mistake can be seen as excessive, especially if the crime is not directly related to their athletic performance. People also generally believe that athletes should not be ruined or defined by a single mistake, and that they deserve a second chance. In some cases, athletes may be able to learn from their mistakes and use their platform to educate or inspire others.

The decision to ban an athlete for committing a crime is complex and depends on various factors, including the nature of the crime, the athlete's influence and impact on their sport, and the potential consequences for the athlete's career and personal life. It is important to consider the arguments on both sides and to ensure that any decision is fair, just, and proportional to the offence.

Should transgender athletes be banned from participating in women's sports?

The participation of transgender athletes in women's sports has been a highly debated topic in recent years. On one hand, some people argue that transgender athletes should be banned from participating in women's sports to protect fairness and safety for female athletes. On the other hand, others argue that transgender athletes should be allowed to participate in women's sports to promote inclusion and non-discrimination.

Those who support banning transgender athletes from women's sports often cite concerns about unfair advantages and safety risks. They believe that transgender athletes, particularly transgender women, may have physical advantages over cisgender women due to their physiological characteristics. This advantage, they argue, could lead to cisgender women being outperformed or even injured by transgender athletes. For example, in 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled "Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports," claiming that it would defend the tradition of female athletics and protect women from being beaten or cheated by men.

However, these concerns about unfair advantages are not always supported by scientific evidence. Research on this topic is still ongoing, but a 2017 review in the peer-reviewed journal Sports Medicine found no direct or consistent evidence that transgender people have an athletic advantage. Additionally, a 2023 review concluded that while sex differences may develop following puberty, many of these differences can be reduced or erased over time with gender-affirming hormone therapy. It is also important to note that natural variations in physical characteristics exist among all athletes, and these variations can provide advantages in certain sports regardless of gender identity.

In contrast, those who oppose banning transgender athletes from women's sports emphasize the benefits of inclusion. They argue that excluding transgender athletes hurts all women by inviting gender policing and reinforcing stereotypes about women's weakness and need for protection. By including transgender athletes, sports can promote values of non-discrimination and inclusion for all student athletes. Additionally, transgender youth face various forms of mistreatment and discrimination due to their gender identity, and participation in sports can help improve their physical health, self-esteem, and sense of belonging.

It is worth noting that the number of transgender athletes in women's sports is relatively small. For example, out of approximately 510,000 athletes in the NCAA, fewer than 10 are known to be transgender. Despite this, the debate surrounding their participation has been highly politicized, with anti-LGBTQ+ groups and far-right politicians advocating for transgender sports bans. These bans often impose burdensome and invasive requirements on transgender athletes, such as traumatic medical exams or "gender" tests, and can lead to harassment and discrimination against both transgender and cisgender athletes.

In conclusion, the debate surrounding the participation of transgender athletes in women's sports is complex and multifaceted. While some argue that banning transgender athletes is necessary to protect fairness and safety for female athletes, others emphasize the benefits of inclusion and the lack of scientific evidence supporting claims of unfair advantages. Ultimately, the decision to ban or allow transgender athletes in women's sports involves a balance between competing values and considerations, and it remains a highly contested issue.

Should athletes be banned for cheating at play?

Cheating in sports has existed since the beginning of sports history, and it occurs at all levels of play, from professional leagues down to Little League. There are many ways to cheat in sports, including fixing games, placing bets on teams, lying about one's age, and taking performance-enhancing substances. While cheating can provide athletes with a competitive edge and increase their chances of winning, it can also damage the integrity of the sport and lead to criticism from fans and the media.

Performance-enhancing substances have been a significant issue in sports such as baseball, track and field, weightlifting, and cycling. Even athletes with clean records, such as Lance Armstrong, Usain Bolt, and Michael Phelps, have faced accusations of using these substances. Doping scandals involving prominent athletes suggest that corruption and cheating are prevalent in sports, with some coaches and sponsors enabling and supervising the illegal doping of athletes.

Another form of cheating is match-fixing or spot-fixing, where athletes or officials manipulate aspects of a game without necessarily determining its outcome. This can involve disclosing confidential information to bettors, influencing one's own performance, or betting on games using associates' accounts. Jontay Porter of the NBA received a lifetime ban for violating league gambling policies, including manipulating his performance and betting using an associate's account.

Cheating is not limited to individual athletes but can also involve schools and athletic associations. In college basketball, players may fix games using point spreads to generate money for living expenses, as they receive no financial support from the NCAA. Additionally, schools may illegally recruit athletes, further contributing to cheating in college sports.

While cheating in sports is challenging to eradicate, there are consequences and measures in place to deter and punish those who engage in it. Athletes found guilty of cheating may face disciplinary action, fines, suspensions, or lifetime bans from their respective sports. Legal consequences can also arise, with criminal fraud charges and civil liabilities pursued by affected parties such as betting agencies or sponsors.

In conclusion, while athletes may be driven by the desire to win and gain a competitive edge, cheating undermines the integrity of sports and can have severe repercussions for those involved. To maintain fair play and protect the reputation of sports, it is crucial to enforce anti-cheating measures and impose appropriate penalties on those who are found guilty of violating the rules.

Frequently asked questions