spotted by Leslie...
The modern sports ethos that we've constructed is based upon increasing advantages. Because certainly, in so many sports, we have pushed past natural human function to facilitate a more exciting game—better times, better performance. But where does an advantage become unfair? The crux of that question lays under the umbrella of ethics, which should indeed govern our rule structure within the competitive arena, but there's something in this story which specifically points toward a deep-seated fear, one we don't want to talk about in polite conversation, one which parallels historical instances of racial integration of sport and gender integration of sport. If we allow a person, one who we view as our inferior (in whatever way), to play with us, and then that person beats us, what does that say about us?
In the 1930s, Jesse Owens and Joe Louis blew the lid off common thinking of how "capable" an athlete of African descent was compared to an athlete of European descent, although the beginning of league integration took a decade more to achieve, and in some sports another three decades. It was as recent as 2003 when some members of the PGA balked at Annika Sorenstam's quest to compare her talent to the best men in the world, admitting their fear of how it might feel to have a woman beat them, an embarrassing display of archaic thinking.
In 2001, golfer Casey Martin, who played with a degenerative circulatory leg condition that made it nearly impossible to walk an 18-hole course, successfully won a Supreme Court decision allowing him to use a cart as an acceptable assistive medical device. The PGA Tour fought Martin for years, saying all pro golfers must walk because uniform rules are essential for the integrity of the sport. "Accommodating Martin with a golf cart will not fundamentally change the game," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for a 7-2 majority.
What keeps percolating for me is this perceived discrepancy between advantage and "unfair" advantage. It's absurd to look at a star line-up of athletes and think that they all have an equal shot. We don't cry foul play when an athlete from the United States, with the best access to training facilities, coaching staffs, and nutritional science is up against someone from say…Uzkbekistan. It's tough luck that 5' 11" Tyson Gay has to line up against a 6'5" Usain Bolt.
It makes me twitch when we talk about "a level playing field." No two athletes are the same genetically and environmentally, and the mental and emotional factors they've endured in their life are relevant in their performance, too. The only reason athletes today are better than those of decades ago is because of science and technology: We know exactly what and when to feed our bodies for maximum energy, we have lighter shoes and better bikes and new rubberized track surfaces and (legal) supplements and altitude training. We are upping the ante each Olympic year with "smarter" design of an athlete's tools, both inside and outside the body.
A whopping 74 world records were broken last year between March and November with the Speedo Fastskin LZR Racer suit. 74! Do you wonder if Mark Spitz is annoyed that his times are compared to those of athletes using something he didn't have the opportunity to use or wear?
My interest was piqued in the latest version of the Fastskin LZR suit, an R&D collaboration with NASA. From the initial press releases to subsequent monthly articles, whatever I could find describing it was overwhelmingly celebratory: Writers cooed about the sharkskin-inspired biometric fiber panels for less drag in the water, and its corset-like torso construction, enabling a swimmer to compress their physique and keep better, more supported form during fatigue, making them markedly more efficient in the water.
Very, very few writers brought up any kind of ethical concern of such a tool like this suit until after the Beijing Olympics, choosing to focus on the race between swimwear companies to develop their own supersuit. Even then, the majority of articles on swimming were marveling at how Michael Phelps says he "literally felt like a rocket coming off the wall" using the device. Jason Rance, the lead designer on this Speedo suit, commented, "It's part of the evolution of the sport, and it's really exciting for swimmers. They say they feel like Superman."
After the ensuing arms-race to out-do the performance of the Speedo, the Americans and Australians led a protest to FINA, the governing body of swimming. In July of this year, FINA banned the full-length suit, having the suit stop at the knee instead, and mandated that all must be constructed of a "textile," which is in itself an incredibly ambiguous, vague rule. The ban will take effect in January 2010, and—most intriguing—FINA will allow all records set with the suits to stand.
Let's think about Tiger Woods having not one, but two LASIK surgeries to achieve 20/15 vision, when what we consider the best of natural vision to be is a mere 20/20. Before his first LASIK surgery, Woods had lost 16 straight tournaments. Immediately following the surgery, he won 7 of his next 10. Advantage through technology, or not?
On a company website he endorses, there's a quote from Tiger after his first LASIK surgery, and I found what he said remarkable on a few levels. He said:
For years I played golf with an invisible handicap, invisible to everyone but me. It was my contact lenses. My eyes would sting burn and water all the while I was trying to concentrate on championship golf. I had the Lasik procedure with a TLC laser eye center surgeon and the results were fabulous. I'm 20/20 with no contacts. My vision is so crisp I feel I can read all the subtleties of the green and look down the fairway hundreds of yards and focus perfectly on the fly. I'm very happy with the results, and grateful for my TLC center experience.
The first remarkable aspect of this is that for him, the "handicap" was the ineptitude of the contact lenses, and not the fact that he was visually impaired. (He suffered from -11 nearsightedness, considered the worst 1%, legally blind without corrective glasses or contacts.) The second is his own literal description of being able to now clearly see—without the impediment of burning, stinging eyes—hundreds of yards down the fairway thanks to his technological altering. He himself declares the advantage.
"Invisible to everyone but me." So is that why nobody's up in arms, the fact that you can't see his augmentation? Is that why nobody's challenging this medical method which assists him in achieving dominance in golf? Of course, in the same way that my running legs don't power themselves, Tiger's new eyes don't power and execute a beautiful swing. His athletic talent is further revealed and enabled than what it would have been under the limits of nature, thanks to technology.
Advantage is just something that is part of sports. No athletes are created equal. They simply aren't, due to a multitude of factors including geography, access to training, facilities, health care, injury prevention, and sure, technology.
I really don't know how we compare world records of today to those of 50 years ago. A modern climber's ascent to Everest has innumerable inherent differences than an ascent of a climber who didn't have access to lighter tanks, comfortable breathable fibers against the skin, medical support at base camp, etc. The competitive benchmarks in that sport have changed from simply being, "Can you climb the mountain?" to "Can you climb it with oxygen, or without?" A wooden tennis racket isn't the same thing as the graphite ones used now. We wholeheartedly accept titanium golf clubs, LASIK surgery, the invention of new pitches, better injury prevention and repair, titanium knee and hip replacements, Tommy John surgery (surprisingly even in Youth Leagues), and a notable shift in the size of the average NFL player.
Where do we draw this ethical line on performance enhancement? I'm not sure I can answer that right now. What I will say is that I don't think it's useful to have this discussion around the existing Cheetah Leg, confusing the current non-enhanced technology with future prosthetics that will indeed provide augmentation. As with all evolution in sport, let's decide the parameters of competition when the technology actually exists, when we have metrics that inform us as to what extent augmentation is a certainty. Conjecture has no place in this discussion.
Maybe our acceptance of Tiger's LASIK super vision is really answered in the question, "Can everyone have access to it?" In other words, perhaps because the average citizen out there on the street can get laser surgery, it's okay for Tiger to get it, too, whereas the nature of a bionic prosthetic is still viewed as exclusive, and having to wear one isn't exactly a position the average citizen covets.
What's going to happen in the future, especially with the rise of more capable prostheses? The human leg is actually a series of internal motors and springs, so the fact that external motors aren't allowed in track is kind of interesting. (Case in point: Dean Kamen placed 14 motors in his new design of the artificial arm to simulate human function.)
In the not-so-distant future, designers will be able to build a prosthetic leg with a chip in it that they can program to accurately simulate human performance thresholds. (Since we know that no two "able-bodied" athletes have the same bodies, and therefore what they can achieve with their bodies are different, will they average out individual "able-bodied" thresholds to get those metrics? Will they cap how fast they imagine the fastest man on earth to be at 9.58? That time was unimaginable even 18 months ago, when Bolt then set the new WR at 9.72.)
The chip used in a prosthetic that will dictate "acceptable human" metric-based output is what will be allowed in the Olympic standard; meanwhile, the Paralympics will be no holds barred. In an ironic, amazing cultural flip, you will see runners in the Paralympics going faster than those in the Olympics. Now won't that be an interesting comment on "dis"ability?
Aimee Mullins is an athlete, speaker, actress and model we met at TEDMED. She's also the guest editor for our theme week This Cyborg Life. Read her bio here.
This week, Gizmodo is exploring the enhanced human future in a segment we call This Cyborg Life. It's about what happens when we treat our body less as a sacred object and more as what it is: Nature's ultimate machine.
Is it right that disabled athletes are an "inspiration" when they are trailing behind, but the second a disabled athlete beats or competes on the same level as able bodied athletes they're called cheaters? As the author discusses, how is an amputee running with a prosthesis any different from Tiger Woods golfing after having LASIK surgery to correct his vision? Is it ethically appropriate to distinguish between athletes who have disadvantages such as poor eyesight or amputated limbs, and athletes who are "able bodied"? Where do we draw the line?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my opinion, part of the problem is that some athletes, not all, just can't accept the fact that they lost a game, match, competition. Like how they say that it's not the greatest who wins, but the winner who's the greatest, if you lose a competition, you lost! There's no need look over the game over and over to find something to pick on; unless there was clearly some form obvious sign of cheating, athletes should focus on their next game, how they can be better, what they need to work on. No one's perfect - whatever perfect may mean, so there are always going to be times when an ahtlete loses a competition. The question becomes what is a clear evidence of cheating, which get's further complicated because as science and technology improves, there may be a time in which a drug is invented that an ordinary drug tests may not be able to detect. I thin kthat there can never be a line drawn distinguishing disadvantaged or the advantaged, because at least one competitor will see himself or herself at a disadvtange at any point - eg. my opponent is taller than me. I'm 5'4ish, used to swim, the guys I swam against were over 6 foot. My younger brother played football, he's 5'4, he got thrown around like a ball 24/7. Just play the game.
ReplyDeleteI believe that there will be a certain point in time where most of the improvement in sports will being to depend on the technology that a person is using more than the abilities of the person themselves. In this case, I do not believe it is right for an individual to gain an advantage due to circumstances that are not given to the general population. In order to fulfill the idea of justice, people should not be given different social benefits based on something out of their control. In Principles of Biomedical Ethics, Distributive Justice is defined as “fair, equitable, and appropriate distribution determined by justified norms that structure the terms of social cooperation” and that “no persons should receive social benefits on the basis of undeserved advantageous properties.” In the case of using increased technology to beat times, many of these advantages are undeserved [such as living in a wealthier country with more technology or having technologies that your predecessors did not have]. In the end, many issues of Justice are violated due to these problems.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the issues raised in the article, it is not right that disabled athletes are an "inspiration" when they are trailing behind, but the second a disabled athlete beats or competes on the same level as able bodied athletes they're called cheaters. Although these individuals are disabled, they should be given the same chances as if they were able-bodies that other individuals are given. Especially with the example in the article about the golfer who argued in the supreme court to be allowed a golf cart for transportation, the effects of this change is minimal, and it is wrong to bar the individual simply because he is disabled. In this case, the person in not receiving social benefits due to disadvantages out of his control, and this is ethically wrong.
I believe that an amputee running with a prosthesis is no different from Tiger Woods golfing after having LASIK surgery given that the effects of the technology on the individual does not give the individual an unfair advantage. For example, if a person running a marathon had a piece of technology that clearly gives him/her an unfair advantage [let's say a car for example], then clearly, it should not be allowed.
Professional athletes and sports leagues want fair and equitable advantages in a competition, but human nature seems to hint that what they really want are advantages in performance to be distributed MORE fairly and equally to themselves. Modern sports ethos is plagued by the increasingly competitive desire for individual athletes to win. The above editorial demonstrated that this desire has manifested itself in the form of determining what unfair advantages exist for those who pose a threat to an others gold medal, or record time.
ReplyDeletePerhaps no one wants to accept losing and feeling inferior to one whom society commonly deems inferior. Perhaps demeaning the ability of those who are termed disabled is a massive misconception in our culture, and the world of professional sports. Maybe it's the idea of what "fair" and "unfair" is that needs to be reevaluated.
I agree a lot with what Tully said. Those who are physically limited should be given every opportunity and advantage they can get to match every other athlete equally. However, I feel that it is difficult to decide what is equal for mitigating disabilities when the main concern regarding performance enhancing technology is entirely self-served solely based on giving an advantage over everyone else. Everyone has their own motives.
Technologies and lifestyles evolve over time, so why shouldn’t athletics and competition as well? In January 2010, FINA, who decides the “rules” for competitive swimming, will ban all non-textile suits, and they can now only go down to the knee. In terms of justice, can it be considered fair to “go back in time” with suit technology? When e-mail became available, no one suggested we return to writing letters…why should we be required to digress in athletics? If you watched the Beijing Olympics, specifically swimming, you noticed everyone was wearing a “fast suit”. The Olympics are a competition for the best of the best…they are the best with or without the suits. Every swimmer competing at the games was wearing one, and those who complained about them later on were just bitter they lost and needed an easy blaming point. Many records were broken at the Beijing Olympics, and even more at the past summer’s World Championships for swimming in Rome. At this meet, Cavic, a cocky French guy, hounded Michael Phelps for not wearing the latest fast suit, and Phelps in response beat Cavic and broke a world record in the 100 fly, proving ultimately it’s not the suit, it’s the swimmer. FINA should not limit suit technology, the decision of what suit to wear should be made by the swimmers themselves. Going “back in technology” is not fair to the athletic community. With evolving lifestyles, why shouldn’t athletics evolve too?
ReplyDelete-Sarah Doersam
I would like to start off by saying that I agree with Sarah. As long as the same technology is available to all athletes, it really does depend on what the athlete does with it. In the case of the swim suit, its just a piece of clothing. What it comes down to is how the athlete uses that tool to excel in the sport. Now I understand that some poorer nations are not given the same access to technologies as other nations but once they get to the world stage, they are flooded with free equipment, and how do they get to the world stage, through their natural ability and talent. In the end they are just material things that enhance what is already obvious.
ReplyDeleteAnother point I wanted to raise is that we naturally have to progress when it comes to the technology in the equipment athletes use. In my case, I remember when my dad first saw the soccer cleats that I used. He couldn't believe how light and strong they were. Back in his day, they used leather boots with nails sticking out the bottom. Another case is with the jerseys, back when he played they would be made out of cotton so naturally they would absorb all the perspiration making the shirt weigh ten times more. Now, they are made with a special material that whisks all moisture away, keeping athletes light.
All I'm saying is that you cannot deny the advancement of technology in sports and try to label it as an unfair advantage. What it comes down to is the ability of the athlete and how well they use their talents along with technology.
I do not believe in or support the statement that "the second a disabled athlete beats or competes on the same level as able bodied athletes they're called cheaters." In the example given, the difference between an amputee running with a prosthesis and Tiger Woods golfing after a having LASIK surgery is that the prosthesis was an essential necessity in order for that person to perform the act of running, TIger could still golf without having the LASIK surgery. I believe that a line does need to be drawn in the sense of able bodied athletes seeking out what could be seen as "unfair advantages" to enhance performance such as non-natural supplements to the body. There is a point that athletes reach when they just cannot naturally or physically get any better or stronger and they turn to outside sources to reach the next level. This cycle has become one that seems to be endless; athletes keep looking for alternative methods to get that extra edge. I think that the disabled athletes have an actual reason to use certain types of enhancements due to the fact that they could not physically perform the task at all without it; conversely, able bodies athletes need to accept their level of performance as it naturally is. Endless enhancement will lead to a type of de-humanization of the body into a type of manufactured machine.
ReplyDelete-Andrea Doersam
In regards to the article itself and the issue of Tiger's LASIK, I don't think this is cheating at all. If the average person on the street can get LASIK, there is no stopping professional golf players from getting it and having the same "advantage" that Tiger has. The prosthetic leg in no way gives an unfair advantage to the athlete who has it. In fact, it might still be a disability. Unless I'm mistaken, you cannot train the prosthetic leg to get stronger, have larger muscles, etc. The person who is able-bodied is still at an advantage, so I don't see how cheating can even come into play. Unless the prosthetic borders on the capability of a bionic leg, in that it is made to have super-human capabilities, I agree with the other posters in saying that there is nothing ethically wrong with allowing this disabled person to compete.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I just want to point out that when it comes to sports, genetics can also predispose someone to have an advantage in a particular sport. Michael Phelps is built in such a unique way that enables him to be a faster swimmer. Many people of Asian descent are smaller and lighter, giving them an advantage in sports like diving or gymnastics. I think I have also heard somewhere that people of African descent sometimes have larger hearts and lungs, which could give them an advantage in sports that require a lot of endurance (I might be mistaken on this point). No one can deny how hard athletes train, but their genetics also have a say in their physical capabilities. As the above posters have stated, people want a fair and equal competition, but genetics oftentimes already dictate who has an advantage and who doesn't, but it's not like anyone is calling these people out for cheating. It's not a sound argument, just like arguing that someone with a normal prosthetic leg is cheating is not a sound argument.
-Crystal Yu
As we enter a more advanced and efficient age of technological supplementation there will continue to be concerns of what is justifiably fair or unfair in respect to enhanced athletic performances. But as Sarah has emphasized in her post, you cannot impede on the evolutionary progression that we have created together. Therefore, individuals that embrace and utilize these supplemental aids should not be looked down upon.
ReplyDeleteSurely there are ambiguous advantages in utilizing these technologically sound advancements. Some are more clear and distinct than others, such as the advanced swimwear and titanium golf clubs as opposed to wooden ones. But in regards to whether or not these supplemental aids should invalidate these athletes performances, there should be no bias held what so ever. Of course there are certain athletes that may have a greater chance of obtaining these instruments, but there are also individuals that are able to naturally train at a higher altitude on a daily basis. There are many genetically predisposed advantages and disadvantages as well as demographical differences that may alter an individual’s performance. There should not be discrimination against the advancement and world-renowned contributions of athletic prosthesis by many that have revolutionized the field of athletics and prolonged the years that individuals can participate in rigorous competition.
Just as the process of evolution has enabled each and every one of us to survive on earth due to continuous improvements in structure and function, the world of athletics and competition changes as well. Since there is no way to control genetic predisposition factors and environmental differences, it is tough to say what is just and unjust in regards to individuals competing with slight alterations to their bodies. Many of us are plagued with poor eyesight or a predisposed illness that impedes our progression and advancement in athletic endeavors, so to discriminate against these individuals that are already at a disadvantage is unethical.
The idea that a person with a prosthetic leg is not allowed to compete with "able bodied" athletes may seem hypocritical when compared with Tiger Woods's eye surgery, but there is a key differences. If an athlete uses performace enhancement that is legally available to all participants, they don't really have any special advantage. If every participant has access to the same enhancement, the playing field is equal. People who oppose this view would point out that any athlete can procure steroids, but the sale, usage, and purchase of steroids is illegal and therefore only available to those willing to break the law and cheat. The difference between an able bodied runner and one who uses a prosthetic leg is that an able bodied runner cannot realistically choose to use a prosthetic limb. The human body is well adapted to exercise, but it is by no means a perfect machine. A prosthetic limb is more efficient than a real leg, and therefore gives an unfair advantage to that runner. Because this technology is not available to every participant, the exclusion of these athletes is ethically defensible.
ReplyDeleteMatthew H
Sports enhancement technologies have certainly boosted performance of sportsman in recent years. With records being broken in high endurance competitions and athletes becoming bigger, stronger, and faster, an ethical argument for an unfair advantage may be made. Unfortunately, the ethical principle of distributive justice does not leave some people with an unfair advantage to others. For example, Michael Phelps may have used the so-called "superman" swimsuit that raised concerns about the ethics of fairness across the field. Having said that, companies who argued against the suit soon implemented those same technologies to create their own version of the suit, which, by principle of justice, allows all world-class swimmers the same access to the top swimsuits. In others words, when a technology or external resource is being used that specifically gives an athlete a fair advantage, and he/she is the only one with that resource, then it would be unethical for that person to compete. When professional baseball players use steroids as a way to gain large muscle fast, it is definitely a violation of the rights to the sport of other players and gives that specific person an unfair advantage over others.
ReplyDeleteThe autonomy of a person with a disability who wishes to compete in a sport that, by regulations and expressions of that sports, allows a person with certain alterations, such as a prosthetic leg or LASIK eye surgery, to play has a big impact on the delicacy of this matter. A runner who has competed all his life who happens to fall victim to an accident and loses his leg should be able to compete if he complete all necessary components of the sport. If he has endurance and exercises to the point where he can finish a race with a prosthetic leg, then there cannot be a case for unfair advantage.
It is true that the use of technology will continue to effect the records as well as the individual performances of each athlete; however, you can not say that as of right now the technology makes the person an athlete. If i were given lasik eye surgery to have perfect vision, which i do not have right now, i would not suddenly become a great golfer and win in 7 out of 10 competitions. What Tiger did was put him "equal" to his competitors rather than having something to put him behind the other players he is now on their level. If another golfer who he competes again feels as if his contact lenses and eye site effects his performance than he can go and get the surgery done as well.
ReplyDeleteTo say that these things give an athlete an advantage is wrong. Similarly, to compare athletes from all countries and throughout the years is not correct. If the athlete were given some sort of chip to change their endurance or their skill than that is one thing but changing the item of clothing they wear or their use of wearing glasses or not wearing glasses does not provide an athlete with more of a skill. It is unethical to compare athletes and their actions to make them successful in their skill and position but it is ethical to fix problems that need to be repaired.
There is a difference between technology for the handicapped and technology for the non-handicapped. There are separate competitions for the handicapped like the Special Olympics. There are rules and regulations that determine if technology is fair or not. There are clear guidelines in the rules as to what is considered cheating and what is considered acceptable. For instance steroids are illegal in regulated sports because this gives the athlete an unfair advantage. There is an aspect of deception because the athlete isn’t disclosing to anyone that he is taking steroids, knowing that it will give him an unfair advantage. If there wasn’t deception, then it wouldn’t be considered cheating because the other athletes could take the same steroids. Of course steroids are illegal because of the health concerns. But without deception and availability of the technology to all competitors, like the full body swim suit or even LASIK surgery, this could be considered an improvement of the sport. As previously mentioned by other posts, sports must evolve and grow in order to improve the game and perhaps remain interesting. Runners with prosthetic limbs must disclose that they first have a prosthetic and second the specifications of their prosthetic; one cannot have a bionic leg that gives them super human speed. Baseball players must not have lead core bats because it gives the batter a heavier swing without anyone knowing. Because LASIK is available to everyone and Tiger hasn’t hidden the fact that he had surgery, it fair that he can have it. The technology must keep the integrity of the sport and remain fair to all competitors; therefore, competitors must be transparent in all their technologies. If records are broken because of new technology, it is known that the technology contributed to the record. Because all the competitors have access to the same technology, it is fair.
ReplyDelete-Lawrence Yu
I think the problem here is that athletes are achieving things that they otherwise would not be able to. They use Tiger Wood's Lasik as an example and question whether it was unfair. But Tiger's Lasik didn't allow him to achieve what he hadn't been able to do before. I looked into it and Tiger Woods had his first Lasik eye surgery in October of 1999. Before that point he won the Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the year, Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year, Won the Masters, and was ranked the number 1 golfer in the world at age 21 (the youngest person ever ranked number 1, with the next youngest having been 29), and this is all before 1997. If you look at Tiger's bio, he was achieving all these amazing things way before Lasik. Yes, maybe Lasik improved his eyesight, but he had proven he could dominate without it. However, to give an amputee a prosthesis limb to allow them to run is giving them something they simply could not do without it. And I think that is where the line is drawn. And for that same reason I think it is an unfair advantage to allow Casey Martin to ride a golf cart when he plays professionally. He may be just as good in every aspect of swinging a golf club, but allowing him to ride in a golf cart allowed him to do something he otherwise would not be able to do: walk the course. And I do believe that is part of the game. A similar example would be a basketball player who can play offense and defense great, but can't run up and down the court. Should he be allowed to just run to the sideline and catch a ride up the court? When technology allows you to do something you could not do before, then it qualifies as an unfair advantage. -Joyce Ganas
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I think a distinction needs to be made between enhancements in the form of prosthetics and enhancements for able-bodied people. Regarding enhancements in the form of prosthetics, I believe that it is ethically reasonable, and maybe even necessary, to allow prosthetics to be used. In my mind the prosthetics are not enhancements. Instead, they are tools that can be used to allow the disabled to live on comfortably within a world designed for non-disabled people. Allowing them to be part of society creates a more just world.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, regarding enhancements used for able-bodied people, there are additional considerations that need to be looked at. I think that the article made a good point -- that I agree with -- regarding access of care. Tiger Woods received LASIK surgery in order to alleviate the need for contact lenses. Since this surgery is widely available, his intentions were ethically sound. In this case, Woods used his autonomy and made a decision that was right for him and his career. For procedures that are only available for certain people or groups of people, however, more ethical questions arise. When the principles of autonomy should still be in effect but only to a certain point. There has to be a level at which we say "no, this is not ok".
One final consideration that was briefly mentioned in the article was that of environmental considerations. When athletes grow up in different locations, they have access to different resources, facilities, etc. No two athletes will ever have the same experience, and thus never be on the same initial playing field. A goal, however, should be to make sure that there is equal access available for new technologies.
I agree that new technologies should be allowed in sports, and are used as a way to enhance sports to higher levels. However, one of the biggest parts of sports is human error. Not everything that an athlete does will be fair, not everything will be unfair - to decide what is unethical in sports, we can only eliminate the outliers, the obvious advantages and disadvantages. I think that most debate over what is fair or not stems from human fear, and that many humans have weak egos, and typically regard anything that makes them lose as unfair. It is important to keep an open mind about normal human achievement - someone will always be better, and someone will always be worse, it all depends on ability and talent. For example, the case of Casey Martin needing a golf cart - if the cart gives him an unfair advantage, doesn't his leg condition give him an unfair disadvantage? Usage of a golf cart does not impact his skills in golf, he may not get as tired as others, but he is at a realistically fair level with the other players. I liked the point in the article that what is ethically fair is what everyone has access to, like lasik. If it is expensive, it becomes an asset to rich people, and poorer people don't have the opportunity to use it as an asset. However, most sports technologies are expensive and hard for low income people to obtain, so I don't think that this is a realistic measure of what is ethical or not.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with Tully's argument that sports will become unethical when they become dependent on technology, this is an excellent point! Like I said previously, a huge part of sports is human error, and normal drive for competition - and above all, sports came to be as a form of entertainment, something for fun. When technology overtakes human ability and eliminates human error, sports will lose its human qualities and no longer will be something for fun, there will be no opportunity for people to succeed because of exceptional talent, it will become a competition of who has the best equipment. Sports will lose its fundamental aspects, and that is when it becomes unethical. When technology removes human individual talent, it is unfair.