I’ve read a few articles over the last week or so talking about how cycling no longer has any credibility left. Performances which used to be celebrated can no longer be trusted. Whilst I understand these sentiments, I find myself viewing those participating in le Tour with more faith than I do in other top sports.
In 1998 the Festina scandal started a long process of cycling airing it’s doping laundry in public. Other top sports need to do the same thing.
Cycling has a very public history of doping, the late 90s and early 2000s will remain tarnished. But the fact that doping is even part of the public discussion is part of why I am less cynical about cycling than I am about the likes of football and tennis. The many high-profile doping cases has meant that cycling’s anti-doping programme is one of the most thorough in the world. I’m not naive enough to think that a good anti-doping programme means no dopers. Testers will forever be behind those developing performance-enhancing drugs. But there appears to have been a real effort made to clean up the sport. Certainly it could go further, it’s worrying that those in charge of the UCI are some of the same people accused of turning a blind eye to rampant doping a decade ago. There is also the fact that people like Bjarne Riis, who doped, and ran doping teams, in the past is still allowed to own and manage a team competing. But all cyclists know that they are under a cloud. It clearly pisses them off, you only need to see Chris Froome’s reaction to being asked about doping after his win on Mont Ventoux to know that. His reaction is understandable, particularly when you look at Team Sky’s concerted effort to be a clean team, refusing to have anyone on their staff who has been associated with doping in the past. That’s not to say Froome could be doping on his own accord (or that Sky are just as full of lies as US Postal were), but it’s exactly the questions people should be asking, not just in cycling, but in all sports. Continue reading
After reading a blog post which argued in favour of gun rights for women on the basis that most women are unable to physically overpower a man attacking them, I started wondering if a similar argument could be applied to steroid use in sport. When I discuss the merits of women’s sport with friends the same argument inevitably surfaces: why would I bother watching women’s sport when I could watch men’s sport? Men can go faster, higher, and are stronger. Such an argument implies that if female atheltes were able to physically compete at the same standards as male athletes then women’s sport would become more popular. We have the tools do close this gap in physical prowess so why not use them. These tools are not guns, but performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). Allowing female athletes to use PEDs whilst continuing to enforce a strict prohibition against their male counterparts using such substances would not only allow women to get closer to male athletes but may see the dawn of mixed gender teams in otherwise male dominated leagues.
Use of performance enhancing drugs is nothing new in women’s sport
One of the iconic images in women’s football, Brandi Chastain wins the first women’s World Cup
After reading a recent article about the lack of women’s sport coverage I started to think how the profile of women’s sport could be improved. There have been several admirable suggestions from noble sporting bodies about how this might be achieved, but I can’t help but think that tighter shorts can only do so much to promote gender equality. In this post I will use football as an example as it is the most popular sport in the world, so realistically should be the easiest to grow. But there’s no reason my suggestions cannot be applied to other sports.
The popularity of women’s football has fluctuated over the last century. In the early 1900s crowds of as much as 50,000 people turned up to watch women’s domestic football in England before the FA decided to ban women from using their grounds in 1921, a ban that lasted 50 years. The recent World Cup in Germany saw crowds of 70,000 turn up to watch the host nation, and women’s football at the Olympics saw healthy crowds. Yet attempts to establish professional leagues consistently fail around the world. Arsenal Ladies, who dominate the English game only train twice a week.
The problem facing most sports is that the product produced by men will be superior to the product produced by women due to physiology. Men are able to go faster, higher, and stronger. But marketing plays a huge role in the popularity of sports. The English Premier League is arguably the most watched league in the world due to it’s ability to market itself, as opposed to it having more entertaining matches than, for example, the Bundesliga. If FIFA genuinely want to increase the profile and popularity of the women’s game then I think they need to consider taking a leaf out of tennis’ book. The four major tennis tournaments (Wimbledon, the Australian, French, and US Opens) are held each year with men and women competing simultaneously. Men are better tennis players than women, but the disparity in viewing figures is far smaller than the disparity in viewing figures in other sports. Integrated or simultaneous tournaments give exposure to women’s sports that no amount of marketing can. Rather than the viewing public being required to seek something out that they wouldn’t usually watch, it is presented to them as part of something that they would be watching anyway. In the case of the World Cup this means the most watched sporting event in the world outside of the Olympics (where women’s sport, as well us other low profile sports, get a boost from an integrated event). Continue reading
Two Polish climbers are missing presumed dead after making the first ever winter ascent of the 12th highest mountain in the Himalayas called Broad Peak, the expedition leader says. Tomasz Kowalski, 27, and Maciej Berbeka, 51, were among four Poles who summited the 8,051 metre peak. Climbers dying above 8,000 metres, in what is often referred to as the death zone is a common occurrence. Whilst Kowalski and Berbeka went missing without a trace, it is often the case that climbers will collapse in plain sight of others who continue on without attempting to help them. In this post I will investigate to what extent, if any, does the death zone change what one person is entitled to expect from another?
One of hundreds of dead bodies that litter the slopes of Mt. Everest
On the 15th of May 2006 a 34 year old Englishman named David Sharp sat dying, during the last few hours of his life as many as forty people walked past him without helping him to safety or making any great attempt to save his life. Controversy followed his death as people who heard the story of Sharp’s demise found it difficult to fathom how people could be so cold towards another human, perhaps imagining that they would have done differently in the same situation. However, Sharp didn’t merely lie dying on the corner of a quiet suburban street, he was over 8000m above sea level, a few hundred meters from the summit of the tallest mountain in the world, Mt. Everest. When you’re above 8000m you are in what climbers refer to as the death zone as at this altitude the oxygen in the atmosphere isn’t plentiful enough to sustain life. In this essay I will investigate whether or not being in the death zone changes what one person is entitled to expect from another person. I will start by looking into the case of David Sharp and whether the inaction of his fellow climbers was morally permissible, I will then assess what we can expect from another person in a normal situation; specifically from the point of view of Kantianism and will then apply the situation David Sharp was in to the Kantian view of morality. I will end by concluding that a person cannot be expected to risk their own life in pursuit of saving another. Continue reading
He never failed a test
So it has finally happened. Lance Armstrong has admitted to using performance enhancing drugs to win seven Tour de France titles. In the wake of the USADA report and his interview with Oprah there are still many who have defended Armstrong. These defenders don’t suggest that he didn’t dope, they tend to put forward the argument that everyone else was doping so there was a level playing field and he was just the best of the dopers.
While it probably isn’t true that everyone was doping in the Tour between 1999 and 2005, the fact that Armstrong’s titles haven’t been awarded to any other riders is certainly indicative of how difficult it would be to find an untainted rider from that period. However, it is wrong to think that everyone doping equals an equal playing field. Just because everyone was using performance enhancing drugs does not mean that everyone was using the same performance enhancing drugs, or that those drugs effected everyone in the same way.
2012 was a big year for sport, and by extension sporting controversy. This meant that there was plenty to write about during the first year of this blog. Unfortunately I wasn’t able to post as often or as in-depth as I would have liked as I was busy writing my Masters Thesis, which shares the title of this post. Below is the abstract for my thesis, which can be found in its entirety in the Essays section, or by following this link.
On the 4th of August 2012 South African runner Oscar Pistorius became the first athlete to compete at the Olympic Games while running on prosthetic limbs. Pistorius is a double below the knee amputee who runs on carbon J-shaped fibre blades. He represents a fusion of humanity and technology that will become an increasingly pressing issue for the sporting arena in the coming years. In this essay I use Pistorius as a case study to investigate how decisions regarding the use of enhancement technologies in sport should be made.
I argue that the key characteristic that should be assessed is whether Pistorius’ prosthetic legs mean that he is competing in a different sport to able-bodied athletes when he runs. I contend that the best method for deciding whether or not Pistorius is competing in the same sport as able-bodied athletes is to adopt a balance of excellences view of sport (Devine, 2010). I use this model to show that the excellence of exploiting technical aids is far more important for Pistorius than it is for his able-bodied counterparts. From this I conclude that what Pistorius does when he runs is not comparable to able-bodied runners. Thus he should not be allowed to compete against able-bodied athletes at the Olympic Games.
I’ve written previously on the ethics of diving, this post is not so much about ethical issues as it is about the way the laws of football are enforced when it comes to penalising/rewarding diving. In fact this post arguably doesn’t have much place in an ethics blog. However as it is about how the most popular sport in the world can be improved and bring a greater happiness to all who watch and participate in it, whilst preserving the integrity of the sport I will shoehorn it in (also I’ve not posted anything in a long time, luckily for me nothing ethically contentious has happened in sport since my last post). In this post I will argue that contact with a defender shouldn’t prevent referees from punishing players for diving, I will then look at whether or not contact should that is often punished should be considered a foul when based on the Laws of the Game.
Diving is nothing new in the game, but what sparked my recent reflection on it was this incident between my beloved Wellington Phoenix and Adelaide United a few weeks ago (skip to 1:09 for the incident):
Male tennis players are once again considering strike action during the first Grand Slam of the season – the Australian Open. The ATP player council considered similar action ahead of this year’s Australian Open, in protest of the level of prize money as a percentage of overall revenue generated by tennis tournaments. Strikes in sport are not uncommon; most readers will remember the NBA player ‘lockout’ (a term used when industrial action is initiated by employers rather than employees) of 2011 – which was only resolved late last year. The history of professional sport is checkered by player strikes; probably none more dramatic than the legendary NHL lockout in 2004; when an entire season of the sport was lost. Most major professional US sports (including NFL, NHL, NBA and baseball) have incurred multiple player strikes since the mid-twentieth century.
Strike action taken by sportspeople can simplistically be grouped into two main categories:
- Category A: when players seek to expand the payment pool available to them – or increase the size of the ‘pie’. Last year’s NBA lockout is a prime example of this; players were pursuing a guaranteed salary pool of 55% of all basketball related income (a larger pie than what NBA owners/administrators were offering).
- Category B: when players seek to change how the payment pool is distributed – or seek to change the way the pie is sliced up. A good example of this was the New Zealand Cricket Players’ Association strike of 2002, which focused on improving conditions for lower ranked players (increasing their share of the pie). This often occurs in conjunction with category A strike action, simply because it is easier to share pie when you already have plenty yourself.
The threatened strike action from ATP players incorporates elements of both categories. While the players are seeking a greater share of the revenue generated by major tennis tournaments (a larger pie), the communicated objective of doing so is to improve prize money for lower ranked players (altering how it is sliced).
Two major questions are raised by this. What percentage of overall revenue are players entitled to? How should this then be distributed?
It’s hard out there for an above average tennis player
Performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) are currently banned in elite competitive sport. In this essay I will argue that the reasons for their prohibition outlined in the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) World Anti-Doping Code are absurd, with specific focus on WADAs claim that performance enhancing drugs are contrary to the spirit of sport. I will address WADAs criteria for a substance to be banned and its description of the spirit of sport. I will argue that PEDs are; neither a threat to the spirit of sport; nor are they at odds with it. I will conclude that as any substance in the world can meet one of the criteria for being banned and that as PEDs are not contrary to the spirit of sport as outlined by WADA their use should be allowed.
Ben Johnson was stripped of gold in the 100m in Seoul, a race that has come to be known as the most doped in history.
WADA decides which substances will and will not be banned on the basis that they must meet two out of the following three criteria: They must have the potential to increase sporting performance. Or they must represent and actual or potential risk to the athletes health. Or their use must be contrary to the spirit or sport (WADA, World Anti-Doping Code, p.32-3). However, as Bennett Foddy and Julian Savulescu state this allows athletes to take drugs that are harmful but not performance enhancing or seen as being contrary to the spirit of sport, like tobacco. It also allows athletes to take drugs like caffeine, which enhance performance but isn’t considered to be harmful to health or contrary to the spirit of sport (Foddy and Savulescu, Ethics of Performance Enhancement in Sport, p.511). The wording of point two is particularly devious in the way it is so open, it states that a substance must represent ‘an actual or potential risk to health’. This allows for any substance in existence; too much water can potentially be harmful you. These criteria are absurd and allow us to see the reliance of WADA on the concept of the “spirit of sport” on which the decision to ban many substances can hinge.
This past week the body responsible for the rules and regulations of golf, the rather excellently name Royal & Ancient, indicated that it would review the use of long-handled putters in golf. At this stage the smart money seems to be on the R&A deciding to ban them. In this post I will be examining why a governing body might consider banning a piece of equipment. I will examine several examples and apply them to the case of the long-handled putter.
Before I get into the juicy good stuff it’s important for us to know what we’re dealing with. What’s the difference between a long and short-handled putter? As I had lead to believe that putting was all in the hips, I was shocked to learn that the key difference between the two putters was how they affect the arms. With a short-handled putter the club is held away from the body, floating in the void between the player and the green. This means that a golfer has to be in complete control of their arm movements when putting. The slightest variation can send the ball off course. The long-handled putter, on the other hand, is anchored to the players body. What this means is that the top of the club is pushed up against the body of the person holding it (either against the chest or the belly, see the picture below for examples of all three). This means that the club will move around less as it is swung due to the wrists having less control over the putters movement which, in theory, will allow for more accurate putting.
Chest, Belly, and Traditional Putters. Continue reading