Worked solution
A strong answer explains that illegal drug use can have significant implications for sports performance: substances such as anabolic steroids, stimulants, or erythropoietin (EPO) can directly enhance performance, for example by increasing muscle mass and strength, delaying fatigue, or increasing oxygen-carrying capacity, giving athletes who use them an unfair advantage over those who do not; however, these implications extend beyond simple performance gain, since illegal drug use also carries serious health risks to the athlete (for example cardiovascular strain, hormonal disruption, or dependency), can end an athlete's career and reputation if detected (through bans, disqualification, and loss of sponsorship), and more broadly undermines the fairness, integrity and public trust in sport as a whole, potentially discouraging clean athletes and damaging spectator confidence. Turning to technology, developments in sports clothing and equipment (for example lighter, more aerodynamic clothing, improved footwear, or advanced equipment materials) can also have significant implications for performance, improving speed, power transfer, comfort or safety; unlike illegal drugs, these developments are generally legal and can be seen as a legitimate part of sporting progress, but they can still raise concerns about fairness if access to the most advanced (and often expensive) technology is unequal between athletes, teams or nations, effectively creating an advantage based on resources rather than pure athletic ability — a milder but still relevant fairness concern compared with doping. Evaluating governing bodies' strategies to counter illegal drug use, such as random and out-of-competition testing, athlete education, published banned-substance lists, and sanctions/bans for those caught: these strategies have real strengths, since testing and the threat of significant sanctions act as a meaningful deterrent for many athletes, and education helps ensure athletes understand what is and is not permitted, reducing accidental breaches. However, these strategies also have limitations: testing technology and detection methods can lag behind new or designer drugs, meaning some doping may go undetected for a period; testing (particularly comprehensive, frequent out-of-competition testing) is expensive and resource-intensive, and may not be applied equally across all sports, countries or levels of competition, potentially creating an uneven playing field in enforcement itself; and ultimately, strategies rely on athletes (and sometimes support staff) choosing to comply, meaning determined individuals may still find ways to circumvent the system, at least temporarily. A well-evidenced judgement should weigh these points together, for example concluding that governing bodies' strategies are a necessary and broadly effective deterrent and detection system that meaningfully reduces (though cannot entirely eliminate) illegal drug use, and that continued investment in testing technology, international consistency of enforcement, and athlete education remain important to keep pace with evolving methods of doping. Final answer: illegal drugs can meaningfully enhance performance but carry serious health, legal, and integrity-of-sport implications; technological developments in clothing/equipment can also improve performance and are generally legal, though can raise fairness concerns linked to unequal access; and governing bodies' strategies (testing, education, sanctions) provide an important, broadly effective but imperfect deterrent, limited by the cost/reach of testing and the evolving nature of doping methods.
Marking scheme
Levels of response, assessing Quality of Written Communication. Band 3 (11-16 marks): comprehensive, accurate, balanced discussion of the implications of both drug taking AND technological developments on performance, together with a genuinely evaluative (not merely descriptive) assessment of governing-body strategies, weighing strengths and limitations to reach a justified overall judgement; excellent use of specialist terminology and a clear, coherent, well-organised structure throughout. Band 2 (6-10 marks): reasonable coverage of at least two of the three required areas (drug-taking implications, technology implications, evaluation of strategies) with some balance and detail, adequate terminology and organisation, but limited or underdeveloped evaluation/judgement. Band 1 (1-5 marks): basic, general, largely descriptive statements covering at most one area in any depth, little or no evaluation, weak organisation/terminology. Band 0 (0 marks): no creditable response. Indicative content includes: performance-enhancing effects of illegal drugs (e.g. increased muscle mass/endurance, reduced tremor); health, legal/career and integrity-of-sport implications of doping; performance and safety benefits of technological developments in clothing/equipment; fairness concerns linked to unequal access to technology; governing-body strategies — random/out-of-competition testing, athlete education, banned-substance lists, sanctions/bans; strengths of these strategies (deterrence, clarity); limitations (detection lag behind new substances, cost/resource constraints, inconsistent global enforcement, reliance on compliance).