Considering reasonable limitations to prevent unreasonable risks, there are many benefits that can be argued for. The overall health of the athletes, faster recoveries, better entertainment, and also the reduction of the issues athletes currently go through to illegally take these drugs.

Athletes already take drugs. A world where there are no drugs is no longer an option. What happens is an "arms race" of pharmaceuticals and doping entities. The integrity of the competition is already in question. There are examples in many sports of athletes actively taking drugs, in some cases even funded by their nations. Which means athletes with the "biggest pockets" are currently enjoying advantages that others can't. I would also argue that it's possible that doping bodies are currently involved in corruption. Not offering proof, but it is the case that some top athletes are much less tested than others, for no apparent reason. There's also sufficient evidence to suggest many performance-enhancing drugs that are currently illegal provide benefits without significant side effects, including for the overall health of the athletes. A reasonable opening to these safer and tested drugs would provide better performances, better health for the athletes, and would actually open the playing field for the athletes that can't legally take these drugs at the moment. Given these safe drugs already exist and are even regularly medically prescribed to the public, then it would only create positive outcomes for everyone. I believe there needs to be an adjustment on what constitutes a "performance-enhancing drug". If a drug has already been used for years and has millions of data points. At what point does the banning become outdated or arbitrary?

I wouldn't assume a likelihood of athletes wanting to be "natty". The reality of the top in every sport, which is what we're referring to, is that hard work and genetics are equally necessary to reach that rarefied air. Meaning, it's reasonable to assume every athlete in the top already has an exceptional mindset of determination, working hard and doing everything they can to succeed. Which would indicate that these athletes would take the drugs. I think it's also proven by how many examples of doping there are and the arms race of pharmaceuticals and anti-doping agencies. I understand the serious risks of unreasonable drugs or dosing. Furthermore, I'm definitely against the examples we see in bodybuilding, where many athletes die in their 40s. I'm arguing for the more reasonable and safer drugs that already exist. Also, let's say there's a case where an athlete that wants to take legal drugs that increase their performance but at the cost of a lower quality of life after their 50s. Due to joint or muscle issues, it would reduce their mobility and add some pain and some manageable cardiovascular concerns. But nothing more serious than that. In this case, if given the chance, what would be the moral argument to prevent a fully informed, sane, and legal consenting adult to willingly take these drugs? In football, for example, players already have the option to inject some painkillers and anti-inflammatory concoction to be able to keep playing or training, compounding injuries. There are many cases of older football players with blown knees and joints. Given that doping is already practiced, that there are reasonable drugs and doses that can be taken, and considering the examples I've raised. At what point does the current ban become a problem? If civilians have easy access to these drugs, even though prescribed, I'm not sure how quickly the situation becomes ridiculous where an athlete fails the doping test because of a headache pill or something a doctor prescribes as he would to a civilian.