Banning performance enhancing drugs seems to make no more sense than banning performance enhancing training. They should concentrate on what's harmful to health, including the training (including amateur, school kids, and possibly even non-competitive events; sportives, audaxes). Beyond sport, the same applies to eg exams.
Loads of PEDs are harmful to health (especially when abused). Salbutamol, in high doses is linked to sudden cardiac arrest. Amateurs were dying in the early-mid 90s because they took too much EPO and their heart couldn't pump the super thick blood at low bpm when asleep. Steroids have loads of nasty side-effects (especially in women).
The question is whether we want to protect athletes from themselves (numerous surveys of athletes show that they would consider taking a dug that would allow them to win everything, but drop dead at 40), or from being massively disadvantaged when compared to their competitors because they wouldn't take that risk.
As things stand, would you encourage your child to take up cycling? If they were a competitive type, would you allow them to race? For me, the answer is yes and yes. If you then change the rules so that to be competitive drug taking is mandatory, do you get the same answers? (Mine would be yes and no.)
This is massively off the topic of Sky though...