Some argue that performance enhancing drugs (PED's) should be allowed in sports because prohibiting them unfairly restricts the autonomy of athletes.  The Coercion Argument Against PED's is an attempt to turn the Autonomy Argument on its head. According to the Coercion Argument, allowing PED's would undermine the autonomy of athletes by forcing them to either use PED's (and incur serious health risks) or not compete at the highest levels. And this, the argument goes, amounts to coercion. If we allow PED’s, we are coercing athletes into using them. Therefore, if we take human autonomy to be of fundamental value, then we should maintain the prohibition on PED's.  

I argue that there is no plausible conception of “coercion” under which it is true that allowing PED’s in sport would amount to coercing athletes. If there is anything to be salvaged from the Coercion Argument, it is the idea that maintaining the prohibition on PED's better serves the greater good. A world where athletes can compete at the highest levels without taking PED’s is, in general, better than the alternative. But to defend PED prohibition in this way is not to see human autonomy as a fundamental value. Proponents of the Autonomy Argument can still rightfully complain that their main concern in this issue is not being addressed.