Performance-enhancing drugs and procedures are widely used among sportspeople to win and show the best rhythmic gymnastics. Athletes dope and undergo various medical treatments to increase their natural abilities. According to the dictionary, doping is “the use of a drug or blood product to enhance athletic performance” (Dictionary.com, n.d.). In other words, these are banned drugs, which are used to improve training and sporting results. Ignoring the fact that the use of doping is illegal and dangerous to health, scientists have obtained new substances to pass doping tests. This problem always takes the form of “black and white”, there is no average solution to the problem of banning it or not. One side believes that banning drugs will not bring great results and that the issue of illegitimacy should be considered. Another side considers sport as a competition of real physical skills and thinks that there is no room for substance enhancement (Morente-Sanchez and Zabala 2013). This dilemma has become widespread and has become one of the most controversial issues in the field of sports. Doping is used not only among professional athletes, but also among amateur and school athletes. The introduction of anti-doping policies became necessary following the increase in cases of use of doping drugs. The world of sport has accepted these rules and followed a series of regulations that limit the use of doping, as it is establishing itself, however, some support the idea of ​​​​legalization of drugs, verifying it with the possibility of fairy and safety (Morente -Sanchez and Zabala 2013). The issue of doping is not simply a question of legitimacy, it is a slippery slope, meaning that a relatively small change leads to a chain of interrelated events that make the problem more complicated (Merriam-webster.com 2014). The change in anti-doping policy can have repercussions on society, athletes, the economy, medicine and the sports industry as a whole. This research will discuss sport as a perpetuator of the humanist concept of the value of sport through transhumanist qualities, which have been used to expand the boundaries of people's capabilities and go beyond humanity (Miah 2003). He will argue that even if anti-doping policies halt the development of human beings, they should exist to save the spirit of sport. We will first consider the rise of anti-doping politics during the Cold War and identify the reasons for the expansion of drug use. Secondly, it will examine the question starting from post-humanist approaches, considering performance improvement in general practice and sports medicine and considering the use of technology in sport in the case of Oscar Pistorius. Finally, the research will consider the humanist approach and arguments against the use of doping in sport. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essayThe use of doping increases during world competitions. Especially during the Olympic Games, the whole world watches and supports their countries in sports competitions. Using the situation, politicians exploit it for their own interests. A good example of success is the Cold War (1947-1991), when every branch of culture, from literature to the arts, to cinema and sports, was affected by the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union. Sport was an arena of political conflict, each side trying to show its superiority over the other (Soares 2009). Accordingly, this burden gavegave rise to the use of doping. Athletes have been pushed to risk their lives and taken performance-enhancing drugs. Despite athletes' personal interests, one of the reasons for risky behavior could be pressure that could come from family, friends or the country. In the case of the Cold War, sport was used as an ideological propaganda tool; therefore sportspeople were under political pressure to win medals at international competitions. After the death of the Danish cyclist Knud Jensen at the 1960 Olympic Games in Rome, caused by the constant consumption of amphetamines, various national and transnational levels of Olympic governance began to take an interest in and pay greater attention to the problem of doping (Hunt 2007). . This culminated in the development of anti-doping policies by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) (Hunt 2007). In 1967, he first banned the use of performance-enhancing drugs in the Olympic Games; in 1968 the IOC introduced the drug testing system to the world, which was one of the most significant changes. It was first tried in 1972 during the Munich Olympic Games, as a result 7 athletes were caught using prohibited substances and were disqualified. All these restrictions were necessary to save the central philosophical idea of ​​sport. The humanist approach was used, which represents people's natural abilities. The main argument in favor of preventing and containing the increase in doping was the bad impact on the health of athletes; drugs have mental, physical and emotional effects on them (Coleman 2008). People accepted the anti-doping policy of that time, but the world is changing and transhumanism is no longer a case of an unrealistic future. Fukuyama, an American philosopher, demonstrates that “our post-human future” has been recognized as our post-human present, therefore anti-doping policy should be reconsidered in terms of the developing world (Miah 2003). Sport can be seen as an idealistic humanism, because it rejects most performance-enhancing substances and controls competition to fit within natural abilities. However, sport is an interesting case, it has a great possibility of promoting practices of humanism. Athletes can be seen as ambassadors of transhumanism. They are already at the limit of natural human capabilities. Therefore, sport is the case where transhumanism can be justified. Transhumanism is a philosophical approach that lies between humanism and posthumanism (Merriam-webster.com 2014). It is concerned with improving and radically transforming human beings by developing technologies to increase people's physical and intellectual capabilities. Which means going beyond humanism, people's natural abilities. Francis Fukuyama states that these are “the most dangerous ideas in the world” (quoted in Miah 2003). However, in a rapidly developing world, where humans are surrounded by technology, it is difficult to distinguish humanism and posthumanism. One area where the most compelling examples of transhumanism have been practiced is medical science. Since the first pharmaceutical products went into mass production, people have become increasingly dependent on technologies. Recently, human organ transplantation, gene manipulation, the appearance of advanced prosthetics, and organ growth have been introduced to the world. People respond positively to these results, despite the fact that this is the direct path to transhumanism. However, it may be undoable, as these treatments are intended to “fix” the human body, rather than improve it. A problem arises relating to defining when technology repairsa person or when it improves them (Crawford and Manchanda, 2007). Thinking logically, it seems easy to define the term “repair” as making a person healthier from a state of illness. But what kind of person can be considered healthy? Repairing therefore means raising the person's health to a point before health, that is, to a level of normal lifestyle functioning. Enhancement, in contrast, changes the human body to a level that exceeds the capabilities of the normal human being. However, medicine has always aimed at repair, rather than improvement, people adopt medical procedures to recover from illnesses, and health problems are still the main reason why humans turn to medicine (Anderson P. and Andreson R. 1945). medicine does not provoke post-humanism, sports medicine can have a more persuasive context. As mentioned above, sport is based on idealistic notions of humanism, national and international federations maintain rules and moral codes to maintain fair play. But sport is already post-human. Athletes play the role of ambassadors of transhumanism, opening the boundaries of human capabilities. Expanding boundaries is impossible without a clear blurring of humans and technology, so sport is where trans humanism can be justified (Edwards and McNamee 2005). Trans humanism in sport is brought about by “performance improvement”. Taking drugs and doping are considered unacceptable performance enhancement and are prohibited. Doping is associated with elite competitions, because the importance of winning is very high due to the “price of performance” or “result-oriented sport”, which forces athletes to expand their capabilities using technologies. However, sport cannot be called transhumanistic, because sports policy rejects the use of drugs and doping. Miah (2003), an academic in the field of technologies and post-humanism, points out that anti-doping claims are not convincing. Despite the moral question about the abolition of drugs to save the "spirit of sport", the fight against doping seems to be ineffective. To begin with, sports nowadays is a big business, where money plays an important role. The amount of money spent on anti-doping policies is small compared to the entire sports industry. Furthermore, according to sports budget investments, doping is not a priority for sports authorities. Finally, athletes, in most cases, are ahead of medical testing measures. It only captures those who made a mistake or used primitive doping techniques, which makes the future of anti-doping policies barren (Vorstenbosch 2012). If we add to this the recent development of gene doping, the possibility of recognizing it would be difficult to implement. There is not yet a coherent and accurate ethical policy that distinguishes the different types of doping (Miah 2003). Having just argued that the reasons for doping are legal, we can say that it is easier to allow the use of doping, however, anti-doping policies work to control the situation. The above happens when the use of doping is illegal and its authorization can lead to worse results. Trans humanism means going beyond natural abilities with the use of different technologies, which include medical enhancements and external technologies. Athletes, throughout history, have used high-level training to achieve their goals. Technology was used to make their actions higher, faster and stronger. Innovations in tennis rackets, sports shoes and training suits combined with the special diet have increased theathlete performance (Culberston 2011). What the argument is saying is that it is difficult to distinguish what is artificial from what is normal. The examples listed above can also be considered performance enhancements, however they are not illegal. However, even if improvements such as drugs will never be allowed in sport, the ideals of transhumanists can be argued by the case for the use of other technologies. Many different types of sports equipment are accepted, based on whether or not they diminish the integrity of the sport (Verbruggen, cited in Miah 2003). Additionally, devices used in sports allude to the technology to become part of the athlete's body. It is comparable to prosthetic devices that replace biological limbs. As we see, sports equipment lately is more a part of the athlete than an extension. There was an interesting case in history; Oscar Pistorius, the below-the-knee sprint runner from South Africa, competes in events for able-bodied athletes (Jones and Wilson 2009). At the 2011 World Athletics Championships he became the first able-bodied Paralympic athlete to win a world medal. Additionally, he was the first to participate in the 2012 Summer Olympics, competing in the men's 400 meter distance. Pistorius' case illustrates and defends the transhumanist vision that promotes the use of technology to expand the natural capabilities of human beings. However, this case has come under criticism, as his artificial limbs are alleged to give him an advantage over physically strong and capable athletes. His artificial limbs could give him a number of “disabled”, “able” or even “surpassable” athletes. The International Amateur Athletics Federation (IAAF) argued that Pistorius cannot compete with able-bodied athletes and banned "the use of any technical device incorporating springs, wheels or any other element which offers the user an advantage over another athlete who does not use this device. device'' (Rule 144.2) (ibid). The research was conducted to determine whether Pistorius has such an advantage or not. The results showed that its J-shaped blades, known as cheetahs, firstly increase the energy level by 25%, secondly give three times greater energy return and finally provide mechanisms for lifting the body (Hilvoorde and Landeweerd 2010). All advantages contradict rule 144.2 and therefore Pistorius was unable to perform at the 2008 Summer Olympics. Pistorius appealed against the rule to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), where his advantage was rejected. The CAS ruled that tests showed Pistorius' capabilities only at full speed when running in a straight line. However, the 400 meter race is not straight. Therefore he had the chance to represent South Africa at the Olympics (Marcellini et al. 2012). Pistorius' case demonstrated that technologies are already being used in sport, which highlights that sport is on its way to transhumanism and that performance-enhancing banning policies merely suspend the process. However, in the case of Oscar Pistorius we can say that medicine was used for "remedial" purposes, not to enhance his abilities. Furthermore, medical technology was used, while doping is another case. Technology, unlike doping, does not harm athletes, the main reason for its ban, so even though technology and doping are both performance-enhancing. We cannot consider them the same thing (McNamee 2007). In a constantly developing world, some people try to stop the development of trans humanism and start it from sports, banning.