The ethics of harm.
If PEDs become basicaly a requirement to compete more athletes use rhem and ever increasing types which inevitably has negative health effects.
Thus is becomes a trade off to become an athlete you kust sacrifice your health or have no chance
Which then mwans that it ethically falls to the judges/competition runners to outlaw ir to protect the athletes
Training to Olympic standards
****s your health up anyway.
A little bit of drugs on top isn't really going to make that much difference in the long term.
For the most part, the only "Athletes" that actually look reasonably healthy are the swimmers. (And Beach Volley ball of course
)
Most of The rest really do not look well at all
(The Marathon runners, in particular, all look as if they are escaping from a death camp!)
People who did well in their 20's will be crippled with arthritis and other health problems as they age. What do you think an Olympic "heavy" athlete will look like once he stops training. The weightlifters (for example) will turn into lard mountains. Unless they are very careful I doubt if any of them will live into their 70's, the cyclists will all need new knee and hip joints and their quads will turn to slush.
And so on
(Though, of course, there are many technical Olympic sports (Shooting, Bobsleigh, etc) where extreme physical capability is less important and the health wrecking effect of extreme physical training is less dramatic (and indeed where drugs would be a less significant advantage anyway) so I make a distinction between Olympic "Sports" and Olympic "Athletes")
sadly these days all too many people see no problem with cheating unless they get caught.
.
