Stakeholders List

The Athlete: * The driving force for many athletes is the drive to better themselves to be in their best shape possible. So athletes who choose not to dope, choose not to be in their strongest shape (minus the possible side effects of doping) and go against their motto.
Documentary-ish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IPnT1ZSXfaU * This video basically follows this body builder around as he talks about steroids and body building. * This video shows how athletes feel like they are not performing their best if they choose to not use steroids. * This video also shows how body builders felt when they found out their role models (Sylvester Stallone, Schwarzenegger) * Athletes who choose not to dope fall into conventional thinking as they abide to the regulations of the sport, rather than the outcomes made possible by winning. If an athlete chooses not to dope and loses to someone who does, they directly fall into conventional thinking. Post conventional thinking would be if the athlete dopes despite the regulations, wins, and brings home wealth to his benefactors. This thinking is considered utilitarian and can be considered rights based if his opponents doped as well. * As evidenced in Lance Armstrong’s case, he was able to dope for years and received the benefits of winning. This suggests two things. * Doping can be done successfully without the consequences of getting caught. * Lance lives the life of a very successful athlete despite admitting to his doping. This proves the example of post conventional thinking ~ utilitarian.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-confesses-to-using-drugs-but-without-details.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0 * Shows the Lance Armstrong case as an example of post conventional rights
Article 2: http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/lance-armstrong-charity-2012-10/ * Shows that Lance’s doping has raised nearly 500 million dollars for charity.

Charity * It is known that many successful athletes are also philanthropists, thus due to the number of athletes who admit to doping, a vast of amount of funds provided to charity are results of doping. * This does not mean that without doping that charities would not continue benefitting, however, it stands to case that doping has benefitted many charities greatly in the past years.
Article 2: http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/lance-armstrong-charity-2012-10/ * Same article as above
Article 3: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/sports/research-finds-wide-doping-study-withheld.html * Same article he linked, showing number of athletes anonymously admitting to doping.

Sports as a whole * Following the model of athletes trying to be in the best shape that they can, sports follow a similar model. A sport is further developed as athletes set new records, higher bars, and new skillsets. Doping enhances performance and in turn enhances the sport.
A Note Regarding “The Dignity of Sports” The problem with dignity is that it is subjective. We see dignity vary greatly from person to person in our culture, how about people from other cultures? We can discredit this concept because we can provide numerous examples of dignity out-weighting doping use. The example I used earlier with the athlete from a poor country doping to win money for his country is such an example.
Spectators and Sport * Continuing on from the paragraph above, sports are meant to provide entertainment to its viewers. This can be considered the base line for sports. Spectators are generated from exciting plays or stories that show the amazing feats of the human body. This is evidenced by youtube videos showing “amazing catches” receiving millions of viewership and movies such as “Rocky” being huge successes. * When the sport becomes more intense and new records are set, viewership becomes more and more intense to match. * Examples: Number of spectators in a regular game vs a rival game.
The Big Guys * The big guys refer to people who have a large sum of money in sports. This includes owner of football franchises (such as Viking’s owner Zygi Wilf). * As long as someone such as Zygi Wilf keeps the proper image, he can reap the benefits of doping with very little consequences. This is because these days, when an athlete is caught using steroids, they are directly criticized while their team owner… not so much. * This can be seen in the case of Barry Bonds while under his alleged steroid use, a storm targeted Barry and the controversity, but the owner of the San Franciso Giants received little to no flak. However, Barry’s success due to steroid use also benefited the Giant’s owner greatly. (The owner who I am referring to is William Neukom, but I think it’s supposed to be managing general partner instead of “owner”.). * This means that as long as their athletes dope and continuing winning, their pockets will continue to increase and even if their athletes get caught, as long as the athlete takes the flak, they will minimize loses.