Abstract
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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
