Doping/The Olympics and the Paralympics/Fairness

Doping debate

1. Thomas Murray Position: Doping should remain prohibited. Argument: Because outcomes should be determined by natural talent, dedication,  and courage.
2. Foddy & Savulescu Position: physiological doping (moving within the normal human range) should sometimes be allowed, depending on the drug and the sport.  (e.g. EPO is ok in endurance sports, but beta blockers are not ok in boxing.) Arguments: 

• natural talents aren't sacred
• sport has to evolve
• athletes already take PEDS like caffeine and pain-killers
• sport is already risky
• open doping is safer than sneaky doping
• taking EPO is equivalent to accepted strategies like high-altitude training and training in a hypoxic tent
• doping is sometimes cheaper
• etc.

Other arguments against doping besides Murray's

1. Tom Hurka--value of sport lies in achievement.  Ebert & Robertson: a self-sufficient achievement is a better achievement.  Do drugs decrease self-sufficiency?

Next issue: "the category problem"

Ancient Olympics: all competitors in one category.  Winners are the best of the best.

Modern view: there ought to be lots of competitive categories

1. Olympics vs. paralympics; subdivisions within paralympics
2. Men vs women (we will discuss Friday)
3. Weight classes in boxing

Why is the multiple categories view the right one?

Murray's talent-courage-dedication perspective has trouble explaining

• "natural talents, dedication and courage should be the chief difference-makers in sport" (p. 72)
• Low hematocrit endurance athletes have to compete against high hematocrit.  It's legitimate that high hematocrit helps because it's a talent.  

High hemaocrit Finnish skier Eero Mantyranta

• Analogously????: disabled athletes have to compete against able-bodied athletes. It's legitimate that abilities help, because they're talents.
• How does he avoid saying this?  How does he support multiple categories?

Murray adds some elements to his view in chapter four

1. "natural talents, dedication and courage should be the chief difference-makers in sport" (p. 72)
2. Adds: competitions should be "interesting, fair, and meaningful" (p. 59)
3. Some differences are interesting to see play out, but others are too extreme
4. Fairness
• two sides must play by the same rules and with the same equipment
• like cases should be treated alike (Aristotle, but Aristotle did not apply this to sports)
• So disabled athletes should compete against others with the same disabilities
• Is this inconsistent with his emphasis on natural talents?

Other reasons why the multiple categories view is the right one

1. Sport as a human right
2. Access to high level competition as a human right
3. The chance to win as a human right

Disabled athletes and assistive technologies

Oscar Pistorius

Watch to 4:40


  


  Another video