A Limited Defense of Doping

Housekeeping

• No class Friday. Have a nice day off!
• Changes on syllabus.  There is now an RR for Monday.

Recap: Murray's argument

1. What’s valuable in sport is natural talent, dedication, and courage.
2. As much as possible, what’s valuable in sport should determine who wins and loses.
3. When athletes dope, doping can determine who wins and loses instead of natural talent, dedication, and courage. THEREFORE,
4. Doping should be prohibited.

Bernard Foddy and Julian Savulescu

 “The Ethics of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sport” EIS 307-320 (or here)

Two ways of reducing cheating:

1. More surveillance and enforcement
2. Change the rules (F&S favor)

Is it absurd to think #2 is a cure for cheating?

Podcast covers many of the other arguments

ELUCIDATIONS PODCAST #65

Jot down points you want to make. There will be time to discuss after the podcast and also on Monday. We will also discuss the points in your RRs.

Podcast notes:

1. Q: Doping, yay or nay?
2. Is it unethical to allow performance enhancing drugs?
3. Should change rules and allow "physiological doping"
4. One, zero tolerance has failed --Lance Armstrong and other cases
5. Two, zero tolerance creates unsafe environment--no supervision
6. Three, zero tolerance gives advantage to rule-breakers
7. Four, zero tolerance bad for spectators--they don't know who's doping
8. Should be able to move within the normal range
9. Current rules stop people from moving within the normal range (or beyond it)
10. Red blood cells (hematocrit) -- moving within 40-52 is moving within the normal range
11. EPO is not unnatural, but caffeine (legal!) is unnatural.
12. WADA shouldn't care how someone got to 50 or 52.
13. Current view emphasizes natural ability, but shouldn't (see Murray)
14. Q: What should be banned? (6:40)
15. Physiological doping (moving within the normal human range) vs. super-physiological doping--they reject the latter but accept the former
16. Large doses leads to acromegaly
17. Sport itself is risky--much riskier than doping
18. So doping doesn't have to be perfectly safe
19. But very dangerous forms should be banned
20. Shouldn't entirely remove pain from sport, it's dangerous
21. But most soccer players are on pain killers
22. Q: Please clarify (11:50)
23. Not just acquiescing to evil. His view: "Nothing intrinsically wrong with doping." (12:25)
24. Sport doesn't have to be a biological test of genetics--that view has Nazi overtones. (compare Murray)
25. All kinds of interventions: coaches, strategies, radios...all overcome natural differences.
26. Doping is like taking glucose to maximize performance.
27. Testosterone enables people to train harder. (Steroids=testosterone)
28. Q: If there were more doping, would sport change?
29. Yes, but that's fine. (Compare Murray.)
30. Current values: sport is a test of pure genetic potential (he rejects)
31. Better values: safety, interest of the spectacle, fairness, should remain a "human activity"
32. Beta blockers are prohibited and should remain prohibited
33. Shouldn't remove fear and pain from boxing, because intrinsic to the sport
34. Sports would be better without zero-tolerance
35. Caffeine....
36. Q: If anything is banned, won't there still be rule breakers trying to get an advantage? (20:30)
37. Should put all resources into stopping "super-physiological doping" 
38. Q: Doesn't allowing doping restrict the freedom of athletes. Everyone will have to do it (27)
39. They already have to use hypoxic tents, high altitude training etc.
40. There's already coercion to engage in dangerous doping.
41. Q: Are you saying sport has to evolve? (30)
42. Yes. To be human is to try to be better, to use what you know to improve performance (rough quote)
43. Philosophical conservatives are attached to the natural or God-given (see Murray)
44. Philosophical liberals (like Savulescu) are not.  

Stop at 33.

Good Sport, Chap 1-3

Housekeeping

• we will catch up to syllabus soon
• I will make readings from Ethics in Sport available in case you didn't bring home (this afternoon)

Good Sport

Who is Thomas Murray?

• philosopher, bioethicist
• served on panels that govern elite sport like the Olympics
• has chaired Ethical Issues Review Panel at the World Anti-Doping Agency
• member of IAAF Disciplinary Tribunal

How elite sport should operate

• should doping be allowed?
• what kinds of new equipment should be permitted?
• when should someone compete in the Paralympics, not the Olympics?
• when should men and women compete separately?
• should intersex and trans women compete in the women's category?

Murray's views plus contrasting views in other articles

But wait...elite sport isn't operating at all

• Tokyo Olympics postponed, Wimbledon postponed
• Tour de France...discussing holding without spectators
• Topic: sports without live spectators
• Question: can sports have their full "meaning and value" if there are no live spectators?
• Is there a presentation group that would like to explore this topic?
• Let me know by email after class (by 5 pm)
• I will suggest some ways to pursue philosophically

Good Sport, Chap. 1: The Slippery Slope to Doping

Types of doping that are prohibited

World anti-doping agency (WADA)  list

• always prohibited
• prohibited during competition
• prohibited only by specific sports 

Lance Armstrong

• The Armstrong Lie is a good documentary that tells the whole story well.  Watch for free here (if you have time): The Armstrong Lie Watch online full movie 
• The Oprah Interview:

Lance's doping methods

1.  EPO (erythropoietin)

• goal: increase red blood cells that carry oxygen to muscles
• hematocrit=percentage of cell volume composed of red blood cells. Athlete wants 50% or better.
• method: take EPO pills.  Same drug used for people with many diseases (EPOGEN) 

2. Blood-transfusions 

• goal: increase number of red blood cells that carry oxygen to muscles 
• one method: A. remove blood during event, which stimulates natural hormone EPO (erythropoietin) to increase red blood cell production; B. transfuse blood back in 

***Natural alternatives to 1 and 2***

• genetic variation--you happen to have a super high hematocrit!
• training at high altitude--the oxygen deprivation causes the body to create more red blood cells
• hypoxic air machine and tent -- same effect without the trip to Colorado

3. Testosterone

• goal: bigger muscles, more strength
• method: synthetic androgens that increase muscle mass ("anabolic steroids") or natural testosterone

4. Other

• human growth hormone
• diuretics

Testing to prevent doping: how often, how intrusive?

• The Armstrong Lie: 59:40--1:05
• all the time, very intrusive

Good Sport Chap. 2: What Sport Values

What we value in sport: natural talent, dedication (in training), courage (during competition). 

p. 15

p. 21

p. 33

Foundation for all the arguments in the book

• Permitted = consistent with TDC associated with a sport
• Prohibited = inconsistent with TDC associated with a sport

Murray's approach is...

1. Internalist or Externalist?
2. If Externalist, which kind? (Virtue Ethics, Utilitarian, Kantian)
3. If Internalist, which kind? (Formalist, Conventionalist, Broad Internalist)

Murray's Argument Against Doping (reconstructed)

1. What’s valuable in sport is natural talent, dedication, and courage.
2. As much as possible, what’s valuable in sport should determine who wins and loses.
3. When athletes dope, doping can determine who wins and loses instead of natural talent, dedication, and courage. THEREFORE,
4. Doping should be prohibited.

Eero Mantyranta

• gold medalist with natural 68% hematocrit

Someone could argue:

1. Mantyranta's didn't earn the high hematocrit that helped him win gold medals in skiing.
2. If unearned advantages were unfair, Mantyranta wouldn't be entitled to his gold medals.
3. But he was entitled to his gold medals.
4. So unearned advantages are not unfair.
5. The only possible objection to Armstrong's doping is that it gave him unearned advantages.  THEREFORE
6. Armstrong was also entitled to his wins.

Murray's reply is....

• Which premise does he reject? (just one!)
• Why does he object?
• More on this next time, because next authors (Foddy and Savulescu) also discuss Mantyranta.

Good Sport Chap 3: Rules and Meanings

Murray: this is also the right framework for equipment and rules issues

p. 38

How to make arguments about equipment or rule changes

1. Sport X values this set of natural talents plus dedication and courage: _____. 
2. Equipment or rule change Y would/wouldn’t change the set of natural talents needed for sport X. THEREFORE, 
3. Equipment or rule Y should be prohibited/permitted.

Some equipment Murray discusses--

1. Klapskates, p. 40

What are they??? (follow link)

2. Pole vaulting technology, p. 40

• Does the new equipment draw on the same talents?

3. Swimsuits, p. 43

A new equipment issue--

Nike vaporfly shoes

No class April 3

See announcement at Canvas.

Team 2, Cheerleading

Slides

Reading

Team 1, MMA

Preview

Wednesday we will hear the presentation on cheerleading.  

Friday we will start reading Good Sport: How Our Games Matter and Why Doping Undermines Them by Thomas Murray.  The book is about doping, but also about many other issues--

• when does technical equipment confer an unfair advantage?
• who should participate in the Paralympics, not the Olympics?
• should men and women compete in different categories?
• what should be the rules that apply to trans and intersex women?
• should athletes be able to enhance themselves in every conceivable way?

The library has helped us out by providing access to the digital version.  Use this link to access it or access through the syllabus.

Friday we will be talking about the types of doping Lance Armstrong engaged in to win the Tour de France seven times.  If you have time and access, please watch the documentary The Armstrong Lie.


Mixed Martial Arts Presentation

Slides

Nicholas Dixon, "Internalism and External Moral Evaluation of Violent Sport"






Discussion topic (when we have time)

Are we exploiting delivery workers or other food workers when we order nonessential food during the pandemic?

Cases of exploitation we've already discussed (exploiter.....exploited)

1. Hand sanitizer gougers.....people who bought on Amazon
2. Prison.......prisoners who pay high prices to send email
3. SMU law school.......lawyers who teach for free (there was doubt about this)
4. Jeffrey Epstein ......  14 year old girls 
5. Colleges ......... athletes

Theories of exploitation we've discussed

5.  Failure to protect the vulnerable 

8.  Gaining by using and thereby harming 

7.  Taking unfair advantage, whether or not consensual and mutually beneficial 

12. One side has large gains, the other side has small gains plus significant risks

When we place these orders during the pandemic are we like the exploiters in list #1? Do we fit the theories of exploitation in list #2?

Exploitation, Continued

Recap of this week

1. Theories about what exploitation is and under what conditions it's occurring (Wertheimer article).  
2. Focused on 5 (gaining while not protecting the vulnerable), 8 (gaining as a result of using and harming), 7 (gaining by taking unfair advantage)
3. Application of theories to four non-sport cases: Hand Sanitizer, Prisoner Email, Free Law Professors, Jeffrey Epstein
4. Application of theories to cases of four athletes: are some/all exploited? Many thought these two were (especially):

• Silas Nacita (Baylor walk-on FB player who accepted housing from family friend and lost place on team)
• Nick Richards (high school student who has to wear Nike sneakers because coach has profitable sponsorship deal--all profits are his)

Today's Agenda

1. New NCAA rules about profiting from image and likeness--do they solve some of the exploitation problem?
2. Coach behavior--when is it exploitative?
3. A question about exploitation and the pandemic
4. Presentation break-out sessions

The Case for Exploitation, using definition 12

1. Athletes are rewarded far less than schools and coaches. [True? Is the picture fair?]
2. This results from social relations of unequal power.
3. People do become student athletes voluntarily and it can be advantageous to them.
4. But because of 1 and 2, it's still true that they are exploited.

Will the NCAA's new rules reduce the exploitation?

• How will the new rules work?
• Is there any downside?  Topics covered in RRs: revenue-negative college sports, team dynamics

Verbally abusive coaches  

1. Verbal abuse is a form of exploitation
2. Verbal abuse is wrong, but not a form of exploitation
3. Verbal abuse is just talk, and not wrong

A question about the pandemic and exploitation  

A lot of us are stuck in our homes, feeling bored.  One way to alleviate the boredom is to order things from restaurants, grocery stores, Amazon, etc. When we do this, we remain safe in our homes, while those doing the work and making the delivery take the risk of being infected.  Of course, they are paid, and they could quit.  What can I order without being guilty of exploitation?

1. Nothing--we should leave the house if we need something and assume the risks ourselves.
2. Just necessities--drugs, necessary food, and the like.
3. Anything--food from our favorite restaurants, clothes from Amazon, whatever.

Give it some thought over the weekend, as you find yourself (a) ordering things or perhaps (b) delivering things. 

Presentation break-out

1. Teams 1 and 2 need to get ready for presentations Monday and Wednesday.
2. Teams 3 and 4 should finalize readings and come up with a time to meet me early next week.  Do all of this in your google doc. I have added some comments in your doc. 
3. Teams 5 and 6 should be planning ahead!
4. If anybody needs to talk to me, I'll be here during the break-out sessions and can be added to the session. Use chat to ask me to join.
5. Links are below:

Are Student Athletes Exploited?

THEORIZING ABOUT EXPLOITATION

Exploitation: just one way that A can wrong B

Exploiting is just one way of wronging

How to characterize the exploitation subset of wronging? (last time + article)

5. The not-protecting-the-vulnerable view (Goodin)

 8. The using-and-harming view (Munzer)

7. The taking-unfair-advantage view (Feinberg, Wertheimer)

STUDENT ATHLETE (MOVIE)

HBO description--movie is making a case for exploitation

WHO IS EXPLOITED?

All are--10 votes
None are-1 vote
Silas Nacita especially exploited--3 votes
Nick Richards especially exploited--2 votes
Shamar Graves not exploited--2 votes
Are you exploited?--half yes, half no

Silas Nacita

Nick Richards

Shamar Graves

Mike Shaw

College Sports and Exploitation

Read: Nicas, “He Has 17,700 Bottles of Hand Sanitizer”  WEB (best) or PDF; and Alan Wertheimer, “Exploitation” (read sections 1 and 2) WEB  RR 

###

OUR QUESTION FOR THIS WEEK:  ARE STUDENT ATHLETES EXPLOITED?

First we need to think about exploitation more generally. For that purpose, we're using an entry by Alan Wertheimer in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a great resource).  

Next time: apply ideas to student athletes.  You need to watch Student Athlete (movie). Follow link in syllabus to library's free access.


Exploitation

Some useful distinctions made by Wertheimer

1. Truth Conditions vs. Moral Force
• Under what conditions is it true that A exploits B?  (i.e. what is the definition?)
• When you say A exploits B, what's the moral upshot? How strong is the condemnation? What should be done about it?
2. One-on-one vs. Class-on-class
• "person A exploited person B" (one-on-one)
• "the wealthy exploit the poor" (class-on-class)

Mostly we'll be discussing truth conditions and one-on-one exploitation today.

Theories vs. Cases

We need a theory to help us thinking about cases.
We need cases to help us generate a theory.

START WITH SOME POSSIBLE CASES

1. Hand Sanitizer Gouging. Colvin brothers collected hand sanitizer and tried to sell on Amazon at high price before they were stopped.

2. Prison Prices. A facebook friend of mine wrote:

3. Free Law Professors.  SMU law school pays Dallas lawyers nothing to teach a course.

4. Jeffrey Epstein.  He paid 14 year old girls for massages and sexual services. Also, Harvey Weinstein, who was recently convicted of raping two women.

NOW FOR SOME THEORIES

16 accounts are listed in "Exploitation", section 2. 

• The three most popular in the RRs: 5, 7, 8
• Other favorites: 1, 3, 4, 13, 15, 16

APPLYING TO HAND SANITIZER CASE

Were the Colvin brothers involved in exploiting people? 18 said YES, 2 said NO.

Yes, using definition 5. Exploiters violate "the moral norm of protecting the vulnerable."  

No, using definition 8. An exploiter uses B a tool or resource, causing B to be seriously harmed.  

Another No, using definition 8.

Yes, using definition 7.   A turns some property of B to A's advantage, but B doesn't have to be vulnerable or harmed.

WERTHEIMER'S VIEWS

He seems to subscribe to definition 7 as a starting point for his own theory, which he develops in his book Exploitation.

When A exploits B,

1. A unfairly takes advantage of B
2. Exploitation can be consensual or non-consensual (as in #7)

• consensual: the customers who buy hand sanitizer at high prices
• non-consensual: Jeffrey Epstein paying 14 year olds for sexual services

3. Exploitation can make B better off or worse off  (as in #7)

• better off--people who have hand sanitizer 
• worse off--Epstein's victims

4. Moral force of saying "that's exploitation!" will vary

On Wertheimer's view of exploitation, are the prisoners exploited?
On Wertheimer's view of exploitation, are the free law professors exploited?

Student Athletes
Use the concepts above to think about the four athletes in the movie.

1. If you draw on definition 5, a key issue is whether student athletes are vulnerable.
2. If you draw on definition 8, a key issue is whether student athletes are harmed.  Are they worse off for being student athletes?
3. If you draw on definition 7, it doesn't matter if they're better off and they consent. They could still be exploited.