Category: Doping

Why are athletes not being tested more frequently in professional sports? As to many people, professional athletes serve as role models, idols, and heroes to them. However, the use of performance enhancing drugs taken by professional athletes have led to doubt on wondering if they’re truly the best or not. A 2017 quote by Tom Murray, says that “The first hard truth about elite sports is that it’s relentless competitiveness, and the tiny margins that separate winners from also-rans, press athletes not to surrender anything that gives them an edge”. The argument for the positive reasons for use of PEDs is obvious in Dione Koller’s, article that stated, “research has suggested that these meds help injured athletes to better heal” (Murray). What both Murray and Koller are noting in their articles are valid points of view. However, the key difference between their views is that Murray is saying that PEDs are being used artificially to be better than their elite competition while Koller is just stating that PEDs have some positive use during recovery. These drugs, such as steroids, should not be used without proper regulation because taking steroids to help an athlete perform better while completely healthy has unknown long-term effects.

The usage of PEDs or steroids is already banned from almost all professional sports such as baseball and cycling, yet athletes continue to use these drugs to enhance their natural capabilities. The story of Lance Armstrong has Tom Murray stating that “Some critics say this problem isn’t athletes who break the rules but the rules themselves specifically, the prohibition on doping. Lance Armstrong’s supporters are running out of plausible defenses” (Newsweek). Because of athletes like Lance Armstrong, not only are fans retreating from loving the sport of cycling, but people are beginning to doubt all athletes clean or not whether they are a fraud or a true elite athlete. For instance, in today’s Major League Baseball (MLB), if an up and coming baseball player like Ronald Acuna were to hit over 60 homeruns in a season, the average fan may wonder if Acuna is on steroids. Referring to Baseball’s Almanac, the average number of home runs for a home run leader in MLB over the past 5 years (2013-2018) is 39 home runs in a season. Compare that to a 5-year span during MLB’s steroids era (1998-2002) in which the average home run leader achieved 61 homers in a typical season.

In addition to fans questioning if an athlete is cheating or not with PEDs, another key reason why there should be more regulation on PEDs is because athletes won’t confess to taking PEDs on their own. If leagues and our national government do not do something to stress the importance of clean athletes then cheating athletes will simply think that it is appropriate to take drugs such as steroids, stimulants, and painkillers. Clearly, those athletes that cheat will not stop themselves unless something impactful gets in their way. Some would argue that the only way to significantly reduce the usage of PEDs is to bring professional sports leagues and the government together to develop a meaningfully way to regulate it. For example, what if a professional baseball player gets caught taking PEDs? He is suspended or banned from league. If the government got involved and enforced regulation, this player not only would be banned from the league, but he would also have to serve time in jail. This added consequence would likely make athletes to think twice before using PEDs.

The intake of PEDs has built up a huge controversial issue between athletes and investigators. Yet there is one specific group of people that make professional sports the way they are today. Fans are one reason why the issue of intake of PEDs is under so much controversy. Money also plays a major role in the intake of PEDs. For instance, a basketball player that has a good season with stats upward of averaging a triple double might get a new contract for millions. The other side is that if he gets hurt, he gets cut from the team and is out of the league. So, money could be a serious possibility for athletes taking PEDs.

All the debate about whether athletes should be allowed to take PEDs should concern the authorities that have power and authority to make a difference and make a final decision. USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency) was created in 2000 as a private, nonprofit corporation with the strong support of Congress. Its mission is to investigate, test and sanction athletes in accordance with the World Anti-Doping Code, which must be followed by every sports federation, as well as every nation that wishes to participate in the Olympic movement. Taking PEDs also has a major affect long term in a sense of the highest vindication of all. The Hall of Fame. “Imagine if USADA had authority over professional and college sports. If it did, there would not have been a cloud of suspicion over this year’s baseball Hall of Fame class. Instead, we would have long ago had real answers and likely a far more productive debate about the players’ place, or not, in the Hall because, as we eventually did with Mr. Armstrong, we likely would have heard from the players themselves” (Koller). I agree with that because if they were into stopping the steroid usage, everyone would have to come out and confess.

Athletes have every right to use and take any steroids and PEDs, but that doesn’t make it right. By the looks of things, it is very uncertain that we will see a change in the number of athletes coming forth and speaking on taking steroids. And for those who are taking steroids and are randomly drug tested and get caught, USADA and whoever the league officials of the sports have to come together and solve that issue.

Works Cited

1. Koller, Dione. “All U.S. Sports Need an Anti-Doping Agency.” Baltimoresun.com, 24 Jan. 2013, www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bs-ed-doping-armstrong-20130120-story.html.
2. Murray, Tom. “TOM MURRAY: Why Sports Need Rules against Doping.” The Register Citizen, The Register Citizen, 28 Aug. 2017, www.registercitizen.com/news/article/TOM-MURRAY-Why-sports-need-rules-against-doping-12064322.php.
3. Newsweek. “An Easy Way to Improve the Olympics: Make Performance Enhancements Legal.” ACM, 21 Feb. 2014, cacm.acm.org/opinion/articles/172420-an-easy-way-to-improve-the-olympics-make-performance-enhancements-legal/fulltext?mobile=true%3Fmobile.

Drug, its effect on human its is any substance which when consumed causes bad effect on human physiology and health .

To begin with the topic, first I would like to elaborate on what doping is. The very meaning of doping says that it is an illegal and banned product or drug that can be used to enhance once ability in the sport. So the basic point that can be drawn out from this definition is negative as it involves something that is banned by the authorities already. According to my opinion, doping is an unfair mean because it gives a upper hand to those people who have greater access to such drugs/substances because of availability of funds or suggestions and boost their performance and recovery. It is unfair on the part of those sportsmen who do not indulge themselves or are not able to access such drugs.

But if each and every sports personnel gets fair and impartial access to such drugs, would then it be fair for all? In my opinion, fairness and justness comes from one’s own hard work and dedication. Drugs are not universal to each and every body type. It is not necessary that they will have same and similar reaction on everybody’s body consuming it. So even if everybody is doing it still it is wrong and inappropriate.

Every field of work is different and diverse from each other. Some require hard work where as other may require smart work. Jobs that are based on merit or skill are no less easy to achieve or handle. They also require a lot of persistence and dedication. But the only difference here is of one’s’ capabilities. In sports one has to showcase his physical strength and persona whereas in such jobs one has to prove his Mental strength and power. Doping can not be compared to these jobs because they do not come easy.

Different people come from different backgrounds and diverse history and storyline. Some may be proficient enough to have the best equipments, best coaches or access to everything that is superior and more effective than the other. On the other hand there are also people who might not be able to have such access to things they desire. In this case also I believe that doping is not the solution. The government or the authorities should be held entirely responsible for providing equal basic and necessary things to every player related to the sport irrespective of the place they belong to or the background they have or the colour of their skin etc.

As a matter of first importance, what is sports doping? Sports doping is the point at which a competitor takes a medication that improves his/her playing capacity. Such a large number of competitors around the globe have been blamed for doing this which raises the inquiry. Should competitors who have been found doping be permitted to keep their trophies and awards? (Essays, UK. November 2018) Numerous fans dread that doping is subverting the very idea of games. They might be correct. All things considered, inasmuch as certain competitors’ dope while others adhere to the standards, winning has as a lot to do with deceiving as it does with expertise or exertion.

Doping is a serious matter that has been on the ascent for some time now, numerous competitors have been discovered doing it and it can cause medical issues. A few people have acknowledged that it is a thing and trust they ought to be permitted to do it and the vast majority with presence of mind supposes it is idiotic and ought not be permitted. Answer this is doping justified, despite all the trouble, realizing that it will cost every one of the awards and trophies they buckled down to get and potentially even their life. Everybody has a different opinion to doping some agree while some do not.

Here are why societies might agree with sports doping being legal. “If each of us ought to be free to assume risks that we think are worth taking, shouldn’t athletes have the same freedom as anyone else?” (S,Robert, 2003) Specifically, if competitors lean toward the additions in execution professedly given by the utilization of steroids, alongside the expanded danger of damage to the option of less hazard and more terrible execution, what gives anybody the privilege to meddle with their decision? All things considered, in the event that we ought not disallow smokers from taking a chance with their wellbeing by smoking, for what reason would it be advisable for us to preclude track stars or weightlifters from going out on a limb with their wellbeing in quest for their objectives?

Not only that, Numerous competitors as of now do it, if not all. So what’s the point in forbidding them and taking all that they have accomplished and offer them to the second person who is most likely have taken similar substances as well. Besides, It would make sports considerably more exhilarating since everybody would be permitted to assemble the accurate sort of body that is suitable for their game and the position that they are playing in. Asides that, ‘There is no coherent argument to support the view that enhancing performance is unfair; if it were, we would ban coaching and training. Competition can be unfair if there is unequal access to particular enhancements, but equal access can be achieved more predictably by deregulation than by prohibition.’ (F. Norman, 2005). With these reasons it is understandable why sports doping should be legal.

While those are very reasonable reasons, here’s why sports doping should be illegal. Sport is all about competing based off of skill. legalizing dope would force all athletes to use dope or to finish in last every time eliminating the importance of skill and training. and besides it’s not even necessary. “Take baseball for example: Babe Ruth, Joe Dimaggio, Mickey mantle Derek Jeter. They are all hailed as some of the best baseball players in history and none of them doped”. (S. Julian, 2012) . If doping is allowed, sport will become a competition of medicine science. The more advances they use, the more advantage the athletes may have. The spirit of sportsmanship is to compete in a fair situation not enhanced by drugs. If doping is accepted, how about the use of artificial implant performance machines, oxygenators to enhance pulmonary capacity, etc. Competition will no longer rely on humane natural strength and endurance, but science and medicine.

The last acts of justice finally have been handed down in the Lance Armstrong doping scandal of more than 12 years ago. A cognitive bias, on the other hand, is a genuine deficiency or limitation in our thinking which is a flaw in judgment that arises from errors of memory, social attribution, and miscalculations. Although there are several Cognitive Biases in the Lance Armstrong doping scandal. The main cognitive biases here, is the flaw in his judgment and reasoning as well as current moment Bias, Confirmation Bias, and the bandwagon effect. These flaws resulted in the outcome of lance and his teammates taking banned substances, or just flat out steroids to enhance their performances.

As everyone knows or maybe does not know that Lance Armstrong got caught taking steroids. The evidence put forth by the anti-doping agency drew a picture of Armstrong as an infamous cheat, a defiant liar and a bully who pushed others to cheat with him, so he could succeed, or be vanquished. The story behind all of this In 2002, Armstrong summoned a teammate to his apartment in Girona, Spain. He told his teammate that if he wanted to continue riding for the team he would have to follow the doping program outlined by Armstrong’s doctor, a known proponent of doping. Many of the teammates followed him because “Lance called the shots on the team,” and that “what Lance said went.” “His goal led him to depend on EPO, testosterone and blood transfusions but also, to expect and to require that his teammates would likewise use drugs to support his goals if not their own,” the agency said in its 202-page report. The Lance Armstrong doping case was a doping investigation that led to American former professional road racing cyclist Lance Armstrong being stripped of his seven Tour de France titles and his eventual admission to using performance-enhancing drugs. That is the main idea with what this case is clearly about.

One of the three cognitive biases shown here is confirmation bias. Confirmation bias means that we love to agree with people that agree with us. This was one big issue that Armstrong had on the team. He had to have everyone on the doping routine, and if they were opposed to it, they were kicked off the team. Everyone had to be on the same page, so it was not just in Lance’s best interests even though a lot of it was, but his former teammates as well. One of the drugs taken was called EPO. Which is used basically to add oxygen in your red blood cells by creating more of them? As it was very well encouraged for everyone to do it. When Hamilton arrived one day before the tour, he badly needed some EPO, and he asked Armstrong for some. “Lance pointed casually to the fridge. I opened it and there, on the door, next to a carton of milk, was a carton of EPO I was surprised that Lance would be so cavalier.” So as one can see the confirmation bias involved here. These Biases were either overcome by saying they wouldn’t take enhancing drugs. Or not overcome by doing what Lance says. The confirmation bias was shown how they both agreed that they needed to depend on EPO to be one of the top athletes.

The next Cognitive Bias shown here is the current moment bias. Current moment bias means that most of us would rather experience pleasure in the current moment while leaving the pain for later. The big issue Lance Armstong had with this bias is that he wasn’t paying attention to what the consequences were gonna be if he got caught. In mistakes were made but not me they mentioned: “ The scientific method consists of the use of procedures designed to show not that our predictions and hypotheses are right, but that they might be wrong” (Tavris, Carol, Elliot). His experience in pleasure knowing that he could win a race with ease with all the enhancements he was taking, but he was wrong for doing so. He predicted that the outcome would just be him winning titles and being one of the best to cycle. It turned out that he was a big cheat or so the stories say. The steroids did benefit him because they enhanced his performance both athletically and mentally but there is also a bigger picture. Taking steroids will also take a toll on one’s body. The scary thing is that lance did have cancer before all of this, and another drug he used was testosterone. Now that doesn’t cause cancer itself but if one has that in their body. It will make cancer grow and spread even faster. He was thinking only about the benefits and saving the pain for later. As well as his doctor Michele Farrari. He was the one that supplied Lance and his teammates with the performance-enhancing drugs. One may wonder why he would be apart of the current moment Bias because he was just giving them out and not taking them for himself. Instead, he was receiving loads of money for it. So he was indeed in the current moment bias phase. Lances outcome for all of that was being stripped of all the titles that he won. As well as Michele Farrari the Italian doctor was issued a lifetime ban by USADA in 2012 and did not contest it.

The third cognitive bias displayed here is the bandwagon effect. The bandwagon effect is quite simple it is the tendency for people to do or think things because other people do or think them. This wasn’t so much Lance, but Lances teammates. As once said in the article, “what lance says, goes.” Lance was the best of the best and whomever was on his team had to dope to stay there. His team was the team that ‘ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.’ All eleven of his teammates suffered greatly after being suspended disqualified appropriately in line with the rules. Armstrong’s most trusted adviser was Dr. Michele Ferrari, who was nicknamed Dr. Evil because he could figure out how to beat any doping test, writes Hamilton. This is how on board they were with the bandwagon effect. They thought they were invincible and able to glide under the radar. The bandwagon effect didn’t last long until Hamilton said “We all wanted to win. But Lance needed to win. He had to make 100 percent sure that he won, every time, and that made him do some things that went way over the line, in my opinion … I think people have the right to know the truth” He told everyone what had been going on and how it was all done. Even claiming to do it himself. In the end, the bandwagon effect was overcome by snitching and then facing the consequences.

Of the three cognitive biases shown in the Lance Armstrong Doping case, there was a whole bunch of flaws in judgment and bad reasoning. The way Lance went about all of this is his choice. These Biases contributed a big deal that no one is invincible, and you cannot get away with everything. It teaches all the athletes on that team a lesson to be humble and realize the scam they were putting on everyone. That taking steroids may contribute to a great victory for a brief time, until one gets caught and makes everyone realize it was all just a cheat. Then all those titles won and all the fame brought upon them by those victories. To just be stripped away like it never happened.

Nowadays, doping is everywhere in athletic world. Professional athletes are tested almost every week or month and they cannot escape from doping control, it is their life routine. Every athlete has his or her own doctor, or medical group that helps athletes to choose, which type of medicine is the best to use, or what kind of vitamins athlete should take. Athletes must trust their personal medical crew and follow, what kind of medicine or vitamins they recommend to athlete, because medical crew can use medicine or vitamins that are PEDs (Performance-Enhancing Drugs) or doping. Some athletes, if they are caught by the World Anti-doping Agency, athletes blame their medical crew, however, it is also an athlete’s fault too.

Athletes after long recovery process, which can be an injury, uses medicine or vitamins that can be doping, however, if athlete really needs it to heal the injured part with medicine or vitamins that is doping, athlete can still do it, but the risk of getting caught by using doping is very high. Here the problem starts, if athlete really needs to use medicine or vitamins that are includes in doping to heal the injury and no other medicine can help or replace it, is it doping or not? Some will say it is, some will say it is not.

In the article, “Performance-Enhancing Drugs Should Not Be Legalized” by Michael Rosenberg, he shows why he is against PEDs or doping legalization and how it will change sport if athletes who takes an advantage of doping legalization, and athletes who stay clean and that will be their disadvantage. Rosenberg states, that if PEDs or doping are legal, the world records and athletes’ performances would enormous and artificially, which is not humanly achieved without using PEDs or doping. Of course, legalization of PEDs would make any sport more watchable and enjoyable, for example, Lance Armstrong (cyclist) would be an unbelievable hero in cycling world with seven Tour de France victories. Also, it would make almost everyone as a professional athlete, everyone, probably, would take steroids, PEDs, or doping until their body starts to be unhealthy, or in the worst scenario, their organs starts to fall out. Rosenberg goes on to say if people will start to use PEDs or doping that will be their only chance to will and there will be no other way to beat someone else. Another thing is, in the world there will be athletes that want to be the best in his or her sport in a natural way, without using PEDs. Then the World Anti-doping Agency or performance-enhancing drug test comes in handy. Finally, Rosenberg goes on to say that if athletes or organizations come all together and get rid of the performance-enhancing drug test, it will punish athletes who are not using PEDs and will forgive athletes who are using. Elite sports, which is all Olympic sports, are about the best human or the team, what can they do, but it is not about which are the best drugs to use to win.

In contrast, an article titled “Performance-Enhancing Drugs Should Be Legalized” by Stephen Wang points out that he supports PEDs legalization in professional sports or athletics. He says, that only way to become a champion or win an event is to use PEDs or doping. Making PEDs legal, athletes have less health risks, PEDs makers or developers would develop medicine that will make athletes avoid or pass the performance-enhancing drug test. Wang reviewed an interview on the French newspaper “Le Monde” and he found out that winning Tour de France (road cycling event) it is impossible to win without using PEDs or doping, like Lance Armstrong (cyclist) did seven times. In some certain sports where PEDs are used a lot, becomes a necessary to be competitive and win event, or do good at practices. Some of the athletes take part in many doping techniques that are becoming difficult to catch, if an athlete is using PEDs or not. Wang point out that when the latest and the newest PEDs are created, there is a minimal chance that the performance-enhancing drug test can caught athlete for using it. Wangs goes on by saying, especially, pattern shows that before major event, such as world championship, Olympic Games, officials, like World Anti-doping Agency, clear out athletes who used PEDs to eliminate as mush athletes as possible, which leads to change to policy to legalize PEDs.

In conclusion, after reading both articles I felt that both authors have a very good idea and made their point about why performance-enhancing drugs should be legalized or not. Doping nowadays is becoming popular and difficult to not use PEDs when athletes are practicing and doing workouts. I agree about the fact that it is not fare that it will punish athletes who are not using PEDs and forgive those who are using, however, I disagree, when athlete is caught after a long injury period while the only medicine that athlete can use is included in PEDs system. That should not be against the PEDs using rules or called as “Athlete is using PEDs to become faster”, it is a completely different story. Although, PEDs do not affect all the sports, every athlete should be careful and knowledgeable, if an athlete is at the risk of getting caught by using PEDs or if an athlete is clear of PEDs.

Works Cited

1. Rosenberg, Michael. ‘Performance-Enhancing Drugs Should Not Be Legalized.’ Performance-Enhancing Drugs, edited by Roman Espejo, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints.
2. Wang, Stephen. ‘Performance-Enhancing Drugs Should Be Legalized.’ Performance-Enhancing Drugs, edited by Roman Espejo, Greenhaven Press, 2015. Opposing Viewpoints.

Sports throughout the world are absolutely stunning. Anything from backyard horseplay all the way up to the professional level, athletics bring out the raw amount of talent people have. Yet, what would happen if people were to take away the natural skill that someone worked for? That’s exactly what doping does; it takes away from hardwork and dedication, and adds a unworked for and unfair advantage that causes several problems.

In competitive sports, doping is the use of banned athletic performance enhancing drugs by athletic competitors. The term doping is widely used by organizations that regulate sporting competitions. The use of drugs to enhance performance is considered unethical, and therefore prohibited, by most international sports organizations, including the International Olympic Committee. Athletes taking explicit measures to evade detection exacerbate the ethical violation with overt deception and cheating.

Historically speaking, the origins of doping in sports go back to the very creation of sport itself. From ancient usage of substances in chariot racing to more recent controversies in baseball and cycling, and many of the mainstream sports. Popular views among athletes have varied widely from country to country over the years. The general trend among authorities and sporting organizations over the past several decades has been to strictly regulate the use of drugs in sport.

The reasons for the ban are mainly the health risks of performance enhancing drugs, the equality of opportunity for athletes, and the exemplary effect of drug free sport for the public. Anti-doping authorities state that using performance enhancing drugs goes against the ‘spirit of sport.”

Since professional athletes are at the top of the food chain when it comes to athletics, whether it be football, cycling, bodybuilding, or gymnastics, athletes are always striving to achieve perfection to get there. Doctor Thomas Kosten of Baylor College of Medicine studied and examined the effects of pro athletes doping in sports. Kosten explains that doping boosts performance of athletes. “The simple reason that athletes start doping is because they want to win, and these substances can help in a variety of ways.” But he also sheds more light onto the topic by explaining that substances can be addictive and cause health issues down the road. “More typically, the complications of these substances are long-term health problems such as liver cancers. Other organs can also be damaged by heavy doping over long periods of time. Life-threatening complications can come up months or years later.” Kosten said. The USADA (United States Anti-Doping Agency) also lists the harm that doping, both physical and physiological,can cause. Some physical issues that may occur are acne, liver damage, stunt in growth, and many more. Following that, some examples of physiological damage includes increased anger, and sexual problems. Also, withdrawal symptoms have been linked to depression and suicidal tendencies. The medical risks aren’t worth taking performance enhancing drugs.

Regardless of league divisions and testing, the underlying issue is that getting a man-made advantage through doping is clearly immoral. Sports doping involves the utilization of drugs (such as steroids or human growth hormones) or medical techniques (like blood doping or sequence manipulation) for the purpose of gaining an unfair, and nonlegal advantage. Once one considers the physical and psychological damage it causes, and the violations of rights inflicted, doping is clearly an ethical violation. In an exceedingly sporting context, participants rights center around an honest competition in the attempt for personal and team achievement. The utilization of performance enhancing drugs violates the globe Anti Doping Agency’s rules, violates competitors rights and could be a variety of cheating. Actions, like doping, that cause injustice, short and semi permanent damage to health, or the violation of participants rights are thought of to be immoral. In fact, it’s been argued that no alternative sport violations, be it violence, game fixing, or cheating, violate the attribute of sport the maximum amount as doping will. Understanding the psychological characteristics of athletes World Health Organization dope is also even as vital as the sports world approaches supported testing, catching, and penalizing athletes World Health Organization dope.

From a moral perspective, one will concentrate on their ethical development, or emphasize the stress of the game itself as an extremely competitive sport, during which finishing in second place is typically seen as unacceptable. From a theoretical perspective, sport ethics are studied from an achievement goal perspective, a social perspective or body structure perspective (gaining muscle). An example, factors on personal morality and social values, ethical values, cheating, performance and social control, external motivation and negative mood states, and sportspersonship orientations. All of those changes when using performance enhancing drugs. Yet, none of those viewpoints has proved to all athletes that doping is morally wrong.

Albert Bandura, a American-Canadian psychologist came up with a theory pertaining to ethics and morals that can be connected to the use of performance enhancing drugs. Bandura’s social psychological feature theory of ethical thought and action offers a promising approach to understanding performance enhancing drug use. Bandura proposes engagement in transgressive activities is deterred by anticipation of negative emotions ensuing from such behavior. Athletes are deterred from doping and as a result they associate doping with unpleasant emotions like guilt (for breaking rules), shame (the possibilities of peers finding out), or fear (of unpleasant health consequences). However, Bandura additionally explains however individuals will scale back or eliminate anticipation of such emotions through the use of any of eight psychosocial mechanisms jointly termed mechanisms of ethical disengagement. Ethical disengagement permits individuals to reduce their personal responsibility for the act or its consequences, distorting the results of the act, or dehumanizing or blaming the victim of the act. Then showing that ethical disengagement could permit athletes to dope while not experiencing associated negative emotions that ought to deter doping.

Believing that anabolic steroids can improve competitiveness and performance, uninformed or misguided athletes, sometimes encouraged by coaches, abuse these drugs to build lean muscle mass, promote aggressiveness, and increase body weight. Anabolic steroids are not the same as steroid medications, such as prednisone or hydrocortisone, that are legitimately used to treat asthma and inflammation of the skin or other parts of the body. Anabolic means bodybuilding tissue. Anabolic steroids help build muscle tissue and increase body mass by acting like the body’s natural male hormone, testosterone. Steroids have become popular because they improve endurance, strength, and muscle mass.

Since performance enhancing drugs cause multiple forms of damage and ruin professional sports, there must be a way to stop athletes from using them. In most sports there are usually tests and screenings, but there aren’t enough, and athletes usually know when they are, so they know how to avoid getting caught. Preventive measures must be based on the following two assumptions, acknowledgment that doping exists, even in an “honest” environment, and realization that prevention is much needed. There needs to be more tests and screening that aren’t announced to the athletes, combined with the announced screenings. There also needs to be stricter rules and regulations pertaining to the athletes. That would possibly help prevent use before it happens, and make sure that further use is stopped. Along with stricter rules, there needs to be harsher punishments and fines to not only make a statement that is is wrong to use performance enhancing drugs, but to stop repeat offenses. Following that, there needs to be help and rehab for athletes that dope. Once figuring out that an athlete has a problem the next step is recognition and then rehab. Helping the athlete off an addictive substance and helping them through emotional strains and possible withdrawal symptoms can make the recovery of an athlete smoother and more beneficial. After rehab, provide options for the athletes future whether that be getting back to the sport, or maybe finding an alternative path going forward.

All in all, doping in sports is wrong in many ways. It takes away from natural born talent that athletes are born with. It makes working to achieve higher standards a waste of time by providing a way to cheat the system. It is morally wrong in many ways such as lying, breaking rules and regulations which is illegal, and possibly creating guilt. It also creates both physical and mental health problems such as creating negative effects down the line for organs like an athlete’s liver, or even making an athletes mood act up, making them have an increase in anger or depression. There needs to be actions to stop the use of doping in sports because it negatively impacts all parts of the game.

The usage of performance-enhancement substances in sports has always been strictly monitored and prohibited. The assortment of cheating methods in sports has recently spread to a new field, biotechnology. As gene therapy is slowly becoming a reality, we will soon be forced to decide what we most value in sports. Will we choose to value the displays of physical excellence athletes develop through years of dedication, or will we chose to value the feat of victory, regardless of the cost. Since the beginning of organized sports, spectators and athletes alike, have put fairness over everything else. While the end goal of every sporting event is winning, the road to victory is as important, if not more. Athletes that use biotechnology or any variation to give themselves an unfair advantage should be banned from professional sports.

Gene doping is a new technology scientists are experimenting with in order to manipulate an individuals genetic code. The goal of this genetic manipulation is to enhance performance through avenues such as strength, endurance, and stature. In the article “Gene Doping”, author Stephen Pincock explains, “ Gene doping has emerged from the promising therapeutic specialty of gene therapy, in which carefully selected fragments of genes are delivered to specific tissues or cells by means of viral or other vectors to fix genetic problems” (Pincock par. 3). What started out as a medical venture searching for the cure to diseases such as Parkinson’s and Muscular Dystrophy, gene doping has evolved into something much more.

H. Lee Sweeney is a professor and researcher at the University of Pennsylvania who has pioneered the research in gene doping technology. In 2007, Sweeney and his colleagues conducted a lab experimenting with possible ways to restore muscle growth in patients with muscular dystrophy. During this lab, Sweeney and his colleagues created mice in a lab that developed unnaturally large muscles and strength that did not decay with old age. These “super” mice, nicknamed “Schwarzenegger mice” after the American bodybuilder/movie star, were developed through the injection of a virus withholding the gene for insulin growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is a protein that interacts with cells on the outside of muscle fibers and makes them grow (Kelland paragraph 18). In an interview with H. Lee Sweeney conducted by Gregory M. Lamb and published in Lamb’s article, “Will gene-altered athletes kill sports?”, Sweeney analyzes that “These same rats, showed up to 50 percent muscle growth. Rats altered in the same way gained 35 percent in strength when the technique was combined with exercise” (quoted in Lamb 13).

While technology is progressing steadily year by year, genetic modifications are still years away from being a true threat to athletics. H. Lee Sweeney has performed tests on rodents but humans are much more complicated organisms. Dominic Wells explains in his article, “Genetic Engineering in Athletes”,

Widespread genetic modification of somatic rather than germ-line tissues can be achieved in mice by using modified viruses to deliver the genetic modification, but only when used at very high doses. Scaling up such doses from a 25 g mouse to a 75 kg human will prove challenging, both in terms of the facilities needed to generate such viral vectors and the potential difference in immune responses to such viruses between mice and humans (Wells paragraph 4).

Gene doping is undoubtably an extremely complex scientific feat. It is going to take years before performing this on humans is in the realm of possibility.

Regardless of the timeline, gene doping is still a looming threat. The International Olympic Committee’s, World Anti-Doping Agency, has taken notice of this potential threat and wisely started to draw attention to it. For the first time in 2002, WADA called for a meeting with the leaders in sports and science at the Banbury Conference in New York. There, the issue of gene doping was assessed. The individuals involved in sports learned just how far science has advanced in the gene therapy field. The scientists learned how far some athletes will go to avoid the traditional route to physical excellence. Hearing from their colleagues who had already received phone calls from coaches and trainers asking how gene therapy could be applied. (Pound 3)

In its current state, gene doping if virtually unrecognizable in athletes. This is due to the lack of abnormalities or illegal substances most current tests pick up. To get ahead of the issue, WADA, has devised a plan to eradicate any temptation athletes may have. WADA is considering making Olympic athletes submit copies of their full genetic code in the near future (Houser paragraph 11) However, this could lead to even more problems in terms of privacy; especially when you take into account that some Olympic athletes are minors. This full genetic code submission would also have to be accomplished in the very near future due to the strict timeline before gene doping is achievable in humans. In addition, this would not halt genetic modification across all sports. The Olympics would be a challenge in itself but attempting to force every professional athlete in the world to submit a full genetic mapping is just unrealistic. Currently, this is the best solution WADA has developed, illustrating just how large of an issue genetic modification in athletes truly is.

The “academic doping” trend of Adderall (Ritalin) has specifically affected high school and college students. Many students are engaged in this trend to perform better in their studies. Students believe Adderall is helpful in their schoolwork because of the positive results they have gotten from it. Adderall can easily negatively impact an individual as it impacts one in a positive way short-term.

Prescriptions like Adderall are used for the treatment of ADHD in individuals. Many students are using Adderall without a prescription to feed their needs and wants to perform well in school. Adderall has the effect of improving one’s focus and boosting energy during studies. Many college students, for instance, are using this drug for successful school work studies. The trend is known as “academic doping,” and many students do not understand the long-term effect it can have on the human mind and body. The drug can lead to addiction, mental breakdowns, and suicide when misused.

Drugs like Adderall and Ritalin are becoming addicting for students because they enjoy the outcomes it has given them. For example, a student who has an upcoming exam will use Adderall during their studies and on the exam to perform well. Once the student receives their exam score, they notice it’s at a higher rate than when taking the exam sober. This causes an addiction and allows the student to use the drug because of the positive results continuously. I believe this leaves students wanting more and causing a repetitive cycle or habit. Many students who use Adderall for the benefits of school purpose avoid the risks that it can have on them. I believe when students repeatedly use the drug, it starts to become a need instead of a want. They’re mind, and body will eventually ask for it and even ask for a higher dosage because of tolerance levels. This is when it starts to become a major concern because it can lead to depression, heart problems, seizers, suicide, etc.

I believe students view “academic doping” as an easy way in performing their best for academic work. I think the pressure of society, family, and friends has an influence on students and the reason behind there doping. The pressure of society has an impact on a student’s performance in school, such as their GPA average. For example, to be considered “smart,” one needs to have a high GPA score that averages around a 3.5-4.0. I believe this gives students the motive to start doping because its seen as an easy solution to their problem. Most of the time, they want to fit in with society’s norms and expectations. I believe students who are doping do not realize what they are doing because of the addiction behavior. In general, one could personally have an addictive personality in nature and could easily get hooked on a drug like Adderall without thinking twice about it.

Many students are also pressured by their families to do well in school. One could have strict parents who expect the most out of them, such as being at the top of the school. For example, an article mentioned a young girl who used Adderall for exams in school for a field she was pressured to enter by her family. “My dad is an engineer, my mom’s a doctor, and my sister graduated from the same program, so I had to take [science courses] even though it was never my strength. It was a lot of pressure to make sure I passed the class,” she says. (Smith-EngelHardt, 2017) This leads to misusing the drug to fulfill their parents’ expectations. Which is only making the parents happy in the long run because the student is almost forcing themselves to fit their parents’ expectations. This also leads to anxiety and depression for the students.

Many students who are on the “academic doping” trend may have been introduced to it by friends. I believe students are accommodating with society, and there needs instead of their own true needs. College students who see their friends using drugs like Adderall to perform well in school are more likely to use the same drug as well. Everyone will eventually follow the bandwagon, which will lead to the same results for each one. This will hurt each individual mentally and physically because of the effects it can have on one. Competition among students will drive students to increase their dosage and build their tolerance higher to do better than the next student. It will lead to overdose and bitterness towards one another because of competitive results. In general, “academic doping” can become very addictive because of the results and should not be taken lightly when it comes to student’s mental and physical health.

The stress that students face throughout there years in school influences their reason for why they take drugs like Adderall, which fixes their problem. One article mentioned that students’ fake symptoms of ADHD to obtain a prescription from a doctor. The prescription of Adderall is then used on oneself or shared among friends. Most individuals who are faking these symptoms only have one motive, which is to obtain the medication. They do not need it to control their ADHD or ease their energy in social events. “They are looking instead to fortify their capacity to concentrate hard on their schoolwork and thereby enable themselves to do well on exams. In other words, they are taking drugs to help them achieve goals that will please the authority figures in their lives—their parents and teachers.” (Colb, 2012)

Many students also use Adderall to score better on ACT’s and SAT’s for college applications. Some would agree to disagree on whether one should get penalized for using this drug during those exams. I believe penalization should be taken into consideration only if a drug test is performed for each student in the exam room. Assuming someone used a drug during an exam should not be taken into consideration for “academic doping” unless verified. Adderall is strongly used in the form of ACT and SAT exams in scoring high. A second article mentioned that a student who took Adderall right before the exam felt as if he was focusing at a higher rate. “He believes that his heightened level of concentration strengthened his performance throughout the test, particularly during the critical reading section.” (Agrawal, 2019) I believe this can increase the level of one’s attention or could be the placebo effect for those who are not diagnosed with ADHD. A drug can enhance one’s mental effort like Adderall, but I believe one can easily have the same control over their mind with practice and discipline.

“Academic doping” is similar to those who take steroids for their muscles. Adderall and steroids can both be used to enhance and strengthen a muscle or mental focus. They are very alike in the way they impact performance and the addictive results they can receive from it. Furthermore, bodybuilders are also under pressure to have certain body weight and mass like students who are pressured to maintain a strong performance in school. Some cannot even perform at all without steroids or Adderall. For example, a student named Angela was cramming up in the library to finish her studies but needed something to concentrate on doing well on her exam. She took a “30-milligram tablet of Adderall and scored an A on her exam”. (Jacobs, 2005) She mentioned, “I don’t think I could keep a 3.9 average without this stuff.” (Jacobs, 2005) This led to addictive behaviors and lead to trying other drugs that are stronger or negatively impactful.

Once the mind and body start to get used to a certain drug, I believe one is not afraid to try a stronger drug or something else. Drugs can become very addictive, especially for one who possesses that trait in them naturally. Triggers are also a strong factor in why one takes a certain drug like Adderall. I believe every drug is meant to serve a purpose in one’s life, whether that is positive or negative. The way one takes a drug or the reason behind it is meant to serve them how they believe it is. I believe the placebo effect plays a role in certain people who believe Adderall will make them “smarter” or get them an A on their exam. I feel the way one thinks and acts on their thoughts determines the benefits or effects Adderall, and any other drug can have on them.

Abusing Adderall leads to a downfall eventually because of the cons that come with it. The negative attributes of Adderall are heart attacks, irritability, mood changes, social withdrawal, etc. These effects of Adderall can hurt students’ career and life without them realizing the dangers of abusing the drug. Another stated that “81% of students believe that they are using it for the right reasons which are to be more productive in class and be more competitive.” (“College’s Secrete Nightmare – Academic Doping”) Many students are blinded by the “great” results that they never bother to think about the side effects Adderall could have on their health. The article also mentioned that “they believe that the drug is not dangerous at all.” I feel as if students should learn and research about Adderall or any other drug before taking it or hearing the “amazing” stories it did for one’s academics.

Overall, “academic doping” is a serious matter concerning one’s health and academic consequences. This can be a form of cheating or failing to abide by a school’s rules and code of conduct. I believe one should seek help through counseling or rehabilitation centers if it is strongly interfering with personal life and the well-being of the mind and body. I feel as if drugs and addictions can be a sensitive topic to many, but the knowledge on it is beneficial for oneself, or another’s health.

The key functions and development environments of sport are comprised of regard for the defeated, identifying the most capable and making sure and offering equal opportunity for all in the environment of justice, democracy, fair play and rules (Arvaniti, 2006). However, over the past years, doping scandals have been on the rise (“New Wada report shows rise in doping cases”, 2019), which is detrimental to essential functions and developing environment of sport. To curb the utilization of performance enhancing medications and techniques, anti-doping policy was initiated, which was earlier pointed to “detection-based deterrence activities” (Backhouse, Patterson, & McKenna, 2012). Nonetheless, now it recognizes the appropriateness of providing “long-term”, “value-based” education programmes (Backhouse et al., 2012). Despite the presence of organisations and governing bodies to provide anti-doping education, there are still poor outcomes due to lack of resources, poor communication, coordination and regulation among different levels of these bodies, and a negative perception of anti-doping efforts (Patterson, Backhouse & Duffy, 2016). This paper will discuss the issues at the level of organization that inhibit anti-doping education as well as discuss possible solutions that sport managers can apply to these issues.

According to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), a substance or a method used to improve performance will be considered an anti-doping rule violation if it meets any 2 of 3 criteria: 1. A potential to enhance performance; 2. A threat to harm health; 3. A violation of spirit of sport (as cited in Engelberg & Skinner, 2016). According to Schubert and Könecke (2015),both classical doping (use of illegal substances and practices) and financial doping (performance-oriented financial resources not earned, directly or indirectly, by a club through its sporting manoeuvres or drawing potential) can impact the four values of sport which are central to policies of anti-doping: athletes’ health, fairness and equal opportunity as sport-intrinsic principles, naturalness of sporting performances and exemplary functioning of sport and its athletes.

Sport management is the best suited academic discipline that can apply managerial theories and its correlation with sports to better understand the intricate factors of doping practices (Engelberg & Skinner, 2016). Sport managers can guide and shape policies against performance enhancement substances and methods that control workplace environment of athletes, facilitate belief in the integrity of drug testing systems and build trust in governments and international federations (Engelberg & Skinner, 2016).

The proper anti-doping education, the correct guidance and encouragement of positive principles, are as critical as punishment is, for developing sports practice without doping (Arvaniti, 2006). The focus of education activities of WADA is not only on the athlete, but extend to the athlete’s staff and every person who has an impact on the athlete’s decision making (Cléret, 2011). Patterson et al. (2016) suggest that even though the sports person is the priority to be educated of anti-doping rules, anti-doping education for coaches and athlete support personnel is key to preventing the use of performance enhancement drugs. This is important because they should uphold information of anti-doping rules, abide by testing, promote anti-doping mindset in athletes, cooperate with doping-related inspections, proclaim prior doping participation to organizations and avoid use of prohibited substances and practices personally (Patterson et al., 2016). They point out that currently there is minimal anti-doping education for coaches, which is a cause of concern as coaches are obeyed without question. Thus, to tackle the problem, Patterson et al. (2016) propose that anti-doping education provided to coaches should be “coach centered” instead of “athlete centred”, which should involve educational activities that are tailored according to their work and made a compulsory part of coach development processes.

However, supplying such education encounters certain challenges which need to be solved by sport managers. Firstly, limited resources, including both money and personnel is a challenge (Patterson et al., 2016; Gatterer et al., 2019). In terms of manpower, individuals responsible for anti-doping education often had other responsibilities related to doping such as developing strategy, designing, and face-to-face delivery, and some even had other responsibilities beyond anti-doping within an organization (Patterson et al., 2016). Majority of national anti-doping organizations (NADOs) informed that with more money these organisations can offer increased number of activities on a more regular basis and hire more workforce and educate them to deliver the anti-doping programs appropriately (Gatterer et al., 2019). Secondly, lack of trust, negative perception of anti-doping efforts because of the common belief that their centre of focus is catching cheaters (Patterson et al., 2016). For example, WADA and the Russian doping scandal in which WADA supported their laboratory in Moscow for 5 years (2010 to 2015) even when notified of poor performance, which questions the integrity of results that the laboratories publish or present in court, thus reduces the trust (Boye, Skotland, Østerud, & Nissen-Meyer, 2017). Thirdly, anti-doping education system lacks communication, coordination and systematic regulation from organizations higher in the system (Patterson et al.,2016). Individuals in national governing bodies (NGBs) suggested that they be given not much advice or support from international federations (IFs) or WADA about minimum standards of their education requirement (Patterson et al., 2016). Fourthly, absence of interest from athletes and their support network leads to more difficulty in communicating to them because of their opinion that training routine is much more valuable then anti-doping education (Gatterer et al., 2019). This was reinforced when a study revealed that coaches prioritized performance of athlete, over including doping prevention in the athletes training (Gatterer et al., 2019). These issues restrict appropriate providence and progression of anti-doping education.

To address some of anti-doping education challenges the following recommendations might benefit. First, to begin a coach specific anti-doping education programmes which are not only focused on promoting athlete’s performance, but also highlight the present compliance and knowledge-based content (such as doping control, the Prohibited list of substances and methods) with a multidimensional method (Patterson et al., 2016). Second, reinforce researches that involve “stakeholders” at functional level to understand their dedication to provide knowledge to all the populations mentioned in the World Anti-doping Code (WADC) (Patterson et al., 2016)

References

1. Arvaniti, N. (2006). Ethics in sport: The Greek educational perspective on anti-doping. Sport in Society, 9(2), 354-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430500491371
2. New Wada report shows rise in doping cases. (2019, December 20). The Straits. Retrieved from https://www.straitstimes.com/sport/new-wada-report-shows-rise-in-doping-cases
3. Backhouse, S. H., Patterson, L., & McKenna. (2012). Achieving the Olympic ideal: Preventing doping in sport. Performance Enhancement & Health, 1(2), 83-85.
4. Patterson, L.B., Backhouse, S.H., & Duffy, P.J. (2016). Anti-doping education for coaches: Qualitative insights from national and international sporting and anti-doping organisations. Sport Management Review, 19(1), 35-47.
5. Engelberg, T., & Skinner, J. (2016). Doping in sport: Whose problem is it? Sport Management Review, 19(1), 1-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.smr.2015.12.001
6. Schubert, M., & Könecke, T. (2015). ‘Classical’ doping, financial doping and beyond: UEFA’s financial fair play as policy of anti-doping. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 7(1), 63-86.
7. Cléret, L. (2011). The role of anti-doping education in delivering WADA’s mission. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 3(2), 271-277. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2011.577084
8. Gatterer, K., Gumpenberger, M., Overbye, M., Bernhard, S., Schobersberger, W., & Blank, C. (2019). An evaluation of prevention initiatives by 53 national anti-doping organizations: Achievements and limitations. Journal of Sport and Health Science, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2019.12.002
9. Boye, E., Skotland, T., Østerud, B., & Nissen-Meyer, J. (2017). Doping and drug testing: Anti-doping work must be transparent and adhere to good scientific practices to ensure public trust. EMBO Reports, 18(3), 351–354. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201643540

ABSTRACT

During last few years, many researchers have worked and are working in the field of conducting polymers . This review article focuses on conducting polymers and their applications. Conducting polymers (CPs) have drawn considerable attention because of their economical importance, good environmental stability and electrical conductivity as well as due to their useful mechanical, optical and electronic properties. The effect of this oxidation or reduction on polymer is called doping.

INTRODUCTION

Intrinsically conducting polymers (ICPs) are organic polymers that conduct electricity[1]. Everyday polymers, which are more commonly known as plastics, are composed of simple repeating molecule units called monomers. Polymer name derived from the Greek words „poly‟ means „many‟ and „mer‟ means „part‟. Polymers are well known for their insulating properties, indeed it is this characteristic that has led to their wide usage in the packaging and electronics. Conducting polymers (CPs) are differ greatly from these insulating polymers because of they are intrinsically conducting. Developments of conducting polymers are largely due to the work of three scientists namely as A. J. Heeger, A. G. MacDiarmid and H. Shirakawa, who received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2000 for their work on polyacetylene [2].

Polyaniline (PAN) is one of the most interesting conducting polymers due to its environmental stabilit, [3−6] ease of synthesis and preparation,[7−10] and wide-ranging potential use through its particular electrochemical, optical, and electrical properties.[11−14] The physics and chemistry of polyaniline in its many forms have been the subject of intense study because of its fundamental and important technological properties with their possible applications in rechargeable batteries[15,16] microelectronics devices, biosensors,[17−19] chemical sensors,[20,21] electrochromic displays,[22] and electromagnetic shielding.[23−27] Superior control over the conductivity of polyaniline through doping is regarded as very promising due to the relative ease of scaling to large quantities and of designing electromagnetic behavior through final oxidation and protonation states determined by adjustable reaction conditions.[28,29]

SYNTHESIS AND CHARACTERIZATION OF CONDUCTING POLYMERS

PANI is a CP of the semi-flexible rod polymer family. Among all the above classes PANI is of much importance worldwide because of its unique properties. PANI was first explained in the mid-19th century by Henry Lethe by who studied the electrochemical and chemical oxidation products of aniline in acidic media.[30] Lee et al investigated the effect of the electrode material on the electrical-switching type of a non-volatile resistivememory apparatus based on an active poly(o-anthranilic acid) thin film.[31] They found that bottom-electrode material is responsible for the switching characteristics of the active polymer layer. Athawale et al studied PANI and its substituted derivatives as methanol, ethanol, propanol, butanol and heptanol sensors.[32] Author found that the PANI exhibits good responses for ethanol. Misra et al synthesized the high quality doped PANI thin films using vacuum deposition technique has been found to be appropriate for detection of CO.[33] Crawley investigated the fabrication and operation of a PANI/CuCl2 as a hydrogen sulphide sensor.[34] Banerjee reported the fabrication of PANI nanofiber reinforced nanocomposite crystal microbalance sensor as HCl sensor.[35] The author found rapid detection of HCl at low concentration in natural water systems. Subsequently, DeSurville reported high conductivity in a PANI by electrochemical polymerization.[36] Likewise in 1980, Diaz and Logan synthesized electroactive films of PANI that can serve as electrodes.[37]

BACKGROUND OR ASSOCIATED WORK

Polyaniline has many attractive processing properties. Because of its rich chemistry, polyaniline is one of the most studied conducting polymers of the past 50 years. [38] Conducting polymers have π-conjugation across the polymer backbone made up of carbon and hydrogen, along with heteroatoms such as nitrogen or sulphur. They include polyaniline (PANi), polypyrrole (PPy), polythiophene and polyacetylene. Polyaniline is a typical phenylene-base polymer having a chemically flexible –NH– group in the polymer chain flanked on either side by a phenylene ring.

Polymers have semi conducting properties due to their unique structural behavior such as formation alternating single and double bonds between the adjacent back bone carbon atoms. The semi conducting polymers have attracted considerable attention due to wide application. Since carbon atom is the main building blook of most polymers the type of bond that their Vance electrons make with other carbon atom or other element determines the overall electronic properties of the respective polymer. In general they can be categorized as saturated and unsaturated based on the number of the type of the carbon valance electron involved in the chemical bonding between consecutive carbon atoms along the main chain of polymer. Saturated polymers are insulator since all the four valence electron of carbon atom are used up in covalent bonds, whereas most conductive polymers have unsaturated conjugated structure. The fundamental single source of semi conducting property of conjugated polymer originates from the overlap of molecular orbital’s formed by the valence electrons chemically bonded carbon atoms [39,40].

Somewhat surprisingly, a new class of polymers possessing high electronic conductivity (electronically conducting polymers) in the partially oxidized state was discovered. Alan J. Heeger, Alan G. MacDiarmid and Hideki Shirakawa played a major role in this breakthrough, and they received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2000 “for the discovery and development of electronically conductive polymers” [41-46 ].

EXPERIMENTAL

Polyaniline (PANI) is one of most extensively studied conducting polymers due to its strong bimolecular interaction, superficial synthesis, existing electrochemical, electrical and optical features. Due to outstanding tuneable conductivity either by charge transfer doping and protonation, it holds great potential in comparison to other conducting polymers [47]. Due to its low synthetic cost, and outstanding thermal and environmental stability, it is most extensively studied conducting polymer.

There are three main forms of PANI, namely the fully oxidized (pernigraniline) state, fully reduce (leucoemeraldine) and the more conducting emeraldine base (half oxidized). Thus by doping to form emeraldine salt, emeraldine is most conductive form. Polyaniline can be easily synthesized either electrochemically or chemically from acidic aqueous solutions. The chemical route has great importance because it is sensible route for PANI mass production. Thus, the most common synthesis route is the oxidative polymerization with ammonium peroxodisulfate as oxidant [48]. Polyaniline is ranked among the most studied conducting polymers. Besides its electrical features, catalytic, optical, electrochemical, and surface features have been considered. However, in the typical approaches, PANI is synthesized from aniline, oxidant, and small molecule. It has very poor solubility in common solvents such as ethanol, methanol, and acetone. PANI nanostructures with large interfacial areas between PANI and their surroundings can have an enhanced dispersibility in the hosting matrixes [49].

Chemical polymerization In this polymerization monomers can be polymerized by various oxidizing agents like ammonium per sulphate, hydrogen per oxides etc. [50].

CONLUSION

From this review it can be concluded that, polymers are applicable in different ways for example solar energy cell sensors and corrosions in heritors and also polymers can be synthesized by differ techniques that is chemical and electro chemical polymerization and can be characterized by different techniques electrical, mechanical and elector chemical characterization and also polymer are doping with other field for example physics, due to this polymers it is more applicable.

REFERENCES

1. Inzelt, György. ‘Chapter 1: Introduction’. In Scholz, F. Conducting Polymers: A New Era in Electrochemistry. Monographs in Electrochemistry.Springer.,2008, pp. 1–6. .ISBN 978-3-540-75929-4.
2. MacDiarmid. A.G and A. J. Heeger, Synthetic Metals,1980, 1, (2), 101.
3. Nalwa, H. S. Handbook of Organic Conductive Molecules and Polymers 3, Conductive Polymers: Spectroscopy and Physical Properties; Wiley: Chichester; New York, 1997; Vol. 3.
4. Wan, M. Conducting Polymers with Micro or Nanometer Structure; Tsinghua University Press; Springer: Beijing; Berlin, 2008.
5. Jadhav, S. V.; Vijaya, P. Microwave Absorption and Permittivity of Polyaniline Thin Films Using Overlay Technique. Microelectron. J. 2008, 39, 1472−1475.
6. Qiu, H.; Li, H.; Fang, K.; Li, J.; Mao, W.; Luo, S. Micromorphology and Conductivity of the Vacuum-Deposited Polyaniline Films. Synt. Met. 2005, 148, 71−74.
7. Xia, H.; Wang, Q. Ultrasonic Irradiation: A Novel Approach to Prepare Conductive Polyaniline/Nanocrystalline Titanium Oxide Composites. Chem. Mater. 2002, 14, 2158−2165.
8. Bhadra, S.; Khastgir, D.; Singha, N. K.; Lee, J. H. Progress in Preparation, Processing and Applications of Polyaniline. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2009, 34, 783−810.
9. Li, D.; Huang, J.; Kaner, R. B. Polyaniline Nanofibers: A Unique Polymer Nanostructure for Versatile Applications. Acc. Chem. Res. 2008, 42, 135−145.
10. Saraswat, A.; Sharma, L. K.; Singh, S.; Singh, R. Electrochemical Assisted Synthesis and Characterization of Perchloric Acid-Doped Aniline-Functionalized Copolymers. Synth. Met. 2013, 167, 31−36.
11. Zhang, Y.; Wang, Z.; Ye, W.; Qian, H.; Lin, Z. Enhancement of Polyaniline’s Electrical Conductivity by Coagulation Polymerization. Colloid Polym. Sci. 2013,1−8.
12. Abdiryim, T.; Xiao-Gang, Z.; Jamal, R. Comparative Studies of Solid-State Synthesized Polyaniline Doped with Inorganic Acids. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2005, 90, 367−372.
13. Kulkarni, M. V.; Charhate, N. A.; Bhavsar, K. V.; Tathe, M. A.; Kale, B. B. Development of Polyaniline-Multiwalled Carbon Nanotube (Pani-Mwcnt) Nanocomposite for Optical Ph Sensor. Mater. Res. Innovations 2013, 17, 238−243.
14. Ju, Q.; Shi, Y.; Kan, J. Performance Study of MagnesiumPolyaniline Rechargeable Battery in 1-Ethyl-3-methylimidazolium Ethyl Sulfate Electrolyte. Synth. Met. 2013, 178, 27−33.
15. Zhao, Y.; Si, S.; Liao, C. A Single Flow Zinc//Polyaniline Suspension Rechargeable Battery. J. Power Sources 2013, 241, 449− 453.
16. Louis, D.; de Poncharra, J. d. P. Microelectronic Device Provided with an Array of Elements Made from a Conductive Polymer with a Positive Temperature Coefficient; US Patent 8,421,230, 2013.
17. Xiang, C.; Zou, Y.; Qiu, S.; Sun, L.; Xu, F.; Zhou, H. Bienzymatic Glucose Biosensor Based on Direct Electrochemistry of Cytochrome C on Gold Nanoparticles/Polyaniline Nanosperes Composite. Talanta 2013, 110, 96−100.
18. Mazeiko, V.; Kausaite-Minkstimiene, A.; Ramanaviciene, A.; Balevicius, Z.; Ramanavicius, A. Gold Nanoparticle and Conducting Polymer−Polyaniline-Based Nanocomposites for Glucose Biosensor Design. Sens. Actuators, B 2013, 189, 187−193.
19. Khan, R.; Radhapyari, K.; Das, M. R.; Kotoky, P. GraphenePolyaniline Nanocomposite Based Biosensor for Detection of Antimalarial Drug Artesunate in Pharmaceutical Formulation and Biological Fluids. Talanta 2013, 111, 47−53.
20. Jaymand, M. Recent Progress in Chemical Modification of Polyaniline. Prog. Polym. Sci. 2013, 38, 1287−1306.
21. Kulkarni, M. V.; Kale, B. B. Studies of Conducting Polyaniline (Pani) Wrapped-Multiwalled Carbon Nanotubes (Mwcnts) Nanocomposite and Its Application for Optical pH Sensing. Sens. Actuators, B 2013, 187, 407−412.
22. Liu, C. Y.; Chou, J. C.; Liao, Y. H.; Yang, C. J.; Huang, C. J.; Cheng, T. Y.; Hu, J. E.; Chou, H. T. The Investigation of the Electrochromic Characteristics for the Pani Thin Film by Cyclic Voltammetry and Potentiostatic Method. Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering, WCE 2013, London, U.K., July 3−5, 2013.
23. Tantawy, H. R.; Aston, D. E.; Smith, J. R.; Young, J. L. A Comparison of Electromagnetic Shielding with Polyaniline Nanopowders Produced in Solvent-Limited Conditions. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces 2013, 5, 4648−4658.
24. Wang, W.; Gumfekar, S. P.; Jiao, Q.; Zhao, B. Ferrite-Grafted Polyaniline Nanofibers as Electromagnetic Shielding Materials. J. Mater. Chem. C 2013, 1, 2851−2859.
25. Saini, P.; Choudhary, V. Enhanced Electromagnetic Interference Shielding Effectiveness of Polyaniline Functionalized Carbon Nanotubes Filled Polystyrene Composites. J. Nanopart. Res. 2013, 15,1−7.
26. Oyharcabal, M.; Olinga, T.; Foulc, M.-P.; Lacomme, S.; Gontier, E.; Vigneras, V. Influence of the Morphology of Polyaniline on the Microwave Absorption Properties of Epoxy Polyaniline Composites. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2013, 74, 107−112.
27. Ting, T.-H.; Wu, K.-H. Synthesis and Electromagnetic WaveAbsorbing Properties of Batio3/Polyaniline Structured Composites in 2−40 Ghz. J. Polym. Res. 2013, 20,1−6.
28. McManus, P. M.; Cushman, R. J.; Yang, S. C. Influence of Oxidation and Protonation on the Electrical Conductivity of Polyaniline. J. Phys. Chem. 1987, 91, 744−747.
29. Wang, Y.; Jing, X. Intrinsically Conducting Polymers for Electromagnetic Interference Shielding. Polym. Adv. Technol. 2005, 16, 344−351.
30. H. Letheby, “On the production of a blue substance by the electrolysis of sulphate of aniline,” J. Chem. Soc., 1862 ,vol. 15, pp. 161163.
31. D. Lee, S. Baek, M. Ree and O. Kim. “Effect of the Electrode Material on the Electrical-Switching Characteristics of Nonvolatile Memory Devices Based on Poly( -anthranilic acid) thin films,” Elec. Dev. let.,2008 vol. 29, pp. 694-697.
32. A.A. Athawale and M.V. Kulkarni, “Polyaniline and its substituted derivatives as sensor for aliphatic alcohols,” Sens. Act. B,2000, vol. 67, pp. 173-177.
33. S.C.K. Misra, P. Mathur and B.K. Srivastava, “Vacuum-deposited nanocrystalline polyaniline thin film sensors for detection of carbon monoxide,” Sens. Act. B, 2004, vol. 114, pp. 30-35.
34. K. Crowley, A. Morrin, R.L. Shepherd, M. Panhuis, G.G. Wallace, M.R. Smyth and A.J. Killard, “Fabrication of PANI-based gas sensors using piezoelectric inkjet and screen printing for the detection of hydrogen sulphide,” Sens. Jour.,2010, vol. 10, pp. 14191426.