Sports-governing bodies maintain that sports are largely drug-free and appropriate detection methods are available and being employed to ensure that they stay that way. If at times the problem appears to be getting out of hand, all that is needed is to spend greater sums of money to enhance detection and therefore reduce demand by making the activity too precarious to warrant continued involvement. The policy of prohibition, combined with the policy of testing for drugs and the consequent castigation and public shame if caught, seems to act as sufficient deterrent and thus as successful policy. There are, however, a number of reasons why current policy regarding performance-enhancing drugs is both inadequate and misinformed. The author examines this claim with particular reference to harm reduction as an alternative basis for policy on drugs in sports. He discusses the following: (1) Will athletes stop using performance-enhancing drugs? (2) Can athletes be prevented from using performance-enhancing drugs? (3) The effects on policy of sports as commercial undertakings; (4) Reasons and justification for the prohibition of performance-enhancing drugs; and (5) Does prohibition do more harm than good? References