the moral reasoning of student athletes and athletic training students

use their judgment in discriminating between which methods of doping they will or will not use.
If all athletes are unrestricted by regulations, then everyone will have an equal opportunity and
sport will be fair again (Savulescu, Foddy, & Clayton, 2004). This argument raises many moral
questions. Consider the following scenario: an elite athlete has trained hard for many years, made
sacrifices in his or her personal, social and educational careers. This athlete has found the
optimal combination of natural ability, intense discipline, training and commitment. Suddenly
this athlete recognizes that his or her competitors have an added advantage in their willingness to
practice doping. The athlete now has two options: (1) face the competition with a potentially
significant disadvantage given to other competitors in the form of doping or (2) choose to engage
in the practice as well in an effort to remain competitive (Catlin & Murray, 1996).
“One athlete’s decision to use performance-enhancing drugs exerts a
powerful effect on the other athletes in the competition. The athlete
remains free to choose whether or not to violate the rules of the sport as
their competitors are doing, but is not free to pursue his or her great dream
with confidence that the best athlete will win.” Catlin & Murray (1996, p.
237)
Thus, in order to remain competitive the athlete may be placed in an unfair position where he or
she feels coerced to take performance enhancing drugs.
Because few studies have been conducted with athletic training students, this study has
the potential to add to the body of knowledge not only about the moral reasoning of athletes and
athletic training students but the relationship of moral reasoning relative to higher education and
intercollegiate sports character development mission. Thus, the goal of this study is to examine
the general moral reasoning of student athletes and athletic training students when faced with
45