This paper, based on a chapter of my PhD dissertation, argues that the common arguments invoked against the use of performance enhancing procedures fail to satisfy the demands they claim. While I agree with their conclusion, namely that performance enhancements should be prohibited, I will suggest that the arguments used are insufficient and ultimately give way to arguments in favor of enhancements. This paper will explore the four major arguments against enhancements in sport and analyze their strengths and expose their weaknesses. These are secondary arguments that neglect the core issue in determining the morality of performance enhancing drugs in sport. Ultimately, the arguments concerning cheating, coercion, unnaturalness and health risks to the athletes all rely on inadequate arguments that focus on the consequences of actions rather than the character of the moral agent. I will suggest that an understanding of the virtuous nature of sport in which Sport contributes to the common good of society through developing moral character is more prepared to justify banning substances and procedures that give corrupted advantages to athletes. This paper will not detail this thoroughly but suggest some ideas for moving forward. The purpose here is to draw attention to the problems facing current arguments against enhancement.