David:
Next week, the Olympic Games will be in full swing, with roughly 200 countries participating. One nation, Russia, will be sending a much reduced squad , because of doping their athletes with performance enhancing drugs (PEDs).
The modern Olympic Games are based on the games that occurred in Olympia, Greece from the 8th through the 4th centuries. The modern Olympics were revived in 1894, making this the 119th Games. (The Games were not held during the war years of 1916, 1940, and 1944.) As the years have progressed, money, politics, and big corporate media have moved in on the nature of the original, amateur Games. The Olympics of 1980 and 1984 saw limited involvement due to cold-war political maneuvers, and the 1972 Games were marred by the tragic terrorist attack in which Jewish athletes were murdered by Palestinians in Munich, Germany.
Doug:
They weren't so much "Jewish athletes" as they were athletes representing Israel. Also, a German police officer was killed. The terrorists appear to mostly have come from Palestinians, but may also have come from other countries as well. But, yes this was a horrific event still remembered by many people alive at the time.
David:
All reports available on the web indicate all of the Israeli athletes were Jewish. All of the Terrorists were members of the PLO. I'm not sure why you have to make some special distinction that neither of these things are true. There was political motivation for this heinous crime, which used the Olympic venue to get the world's attention. My point is that the Olympics has become one of the largest world-wide media events.
Doug:
I'm just trying to be precise. Rather than "Jews versus Palestinians" it seems more correct as "Israeli athletes versus terrorists".
David:
Terrorists from Palestine.....
Doug:
Sure, as long as we are consistent.
David:
Anyway, as TV viewership has expanded, and more and more revenue has developed around the games, we have seen an increasing competition between countries for the prestige of hosting the games, and a push for athletes to win both their events, and the lucrative endorsement deals that go with victory.
Should athletes be able to use PEDs to make them stronger, faster, or have more endurance?
Doug:
This is perhaps surprisingly more complex to answer than one might think. What qualifies as a performance-enhancing drug? Also, some countries go to extremes to develop competitive people. How far can that go before it is abuse? And what about athletes with prosthetics?
David:
It is complex. Which is just why this topic warrants a discussion on Blank Versus Blank!
The libertarian in me would like to say athletes should be able to use whatever means are necessary to improve their ability to compete and win. But these athletes do not function within a vacuum.
Doug:
Unlike other things we discuss that do operate within a vacuum. Wait, nothing we ever discuss operates in a vacuum. But I'm glad you see the nuances in this! Please continue.
David:
Young athletes do emulate what they see their heroes doing. Setting up some rules for drug use becomes part of the rules of the game. But where does it stop? Some athletes have used oxygen tents to sleep in at night to simulate competing at high altitudes. This is now banned as a PED. But you can move to Colorado and train at high altitudes, and that's okay. Is there really a difference?
Doug:
There is a difference. But I don't think you could find a "principled difference" between them.
David:
Tennis player Maria Sharapova has been banned for 2 years for using a legal drug that she has been taking for years for medical conditions. The drug, Meldonium, was added to the list of banned substances in January. Should you be able to get a medical waiver?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/09/sports/tennis/maria-sharapova-doping-suspension.html?_r=0
A recent review of urine samples from prior Games, using better analyzing technology, estimates that as many as 40% of athletes were using some form of banned substances to enhance their performances. It appears that you would put yourself at a distinct disadvantage when so many are so easily cheating.
Doug:
I think the principled issue is that athletes participate on equal ground. But things are never equal. So, what is the answer? The libertarian "anything goes", or something with limitations? Note that prosthetics are about to get very different. Imagine enhanced brain circuitry. What about gene manipulation? Can you even have Olympics when some of the players are so different from the others? What is it that is actually competing? Science? Or the abilities of specific humans in the country. And what if they leave one country for another?
David:
Right. What is the definition of an "enhancement"?
http://www.livescience.com/5230-performance-enhancement-common-sports.html
Although I think the goal is to try to keep the playing field as equal as possible, we've seen that wealthy countries will continue to dominate the Games through better training and equipment, and, in the case of the Russians, better clandestine pharmacology. As tech moves into a brave, new world, things will likely only become grayer and cloudier.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/23/will-genetic-cyber-athletes-come-to-dominate-sports/
Can you imagine what the Jamaican bobsled team could have done with a training facility and the technology that's available to the US, Russia, or China?
Doug:
On a related topic, do you think that college athletes should be paid?
David:
Is a free education with free room and board not enough? The average cost of college these days is between $10-35,000.
Doug:
Whether it is enough or not may not be the question. When the school and television channels make millions of dollars, is it fair to not pay the athletes anything more than tuition?
David:
Not all schools make that kind of money, just a few elite ones with long traditions of sporting excellence. So far, they've been able to maintain their degree of high quality, because excellent athletes desire to play for these programs, with only a scholarship as payment. If you begin paying athletes, would you pay a Notre Dame or Michigan quarterback more than a lineman from Augustana (IL)? The "same-pay-for-the-same-job" mantra would seem to demand a small college pay players the same, which would likely bankrupt a non-televised school conference. "Fair" is a word without meaning.
Are the players going to be taxed? If so, then we'll need to start including the value of their scholarships as income. They could actually end up making less (after taxes) than they're receiving now.
http://time.com/money/4241077/why-we-shouldnt-pay-college-athletes/
Like PEDs, paying athletes is not a simple discussion.
Doug:
Nothing ever is. Welcome to the complex world in which we live!
Next week, the Olympic Games will be in full swing, with roughly 200 countries participating. One nation, Russia, will be sending a much reduced squad , because of doping their athletes with performance enhancing drugs (PEDs).
The modern Olympic Games are based on the games that occurred in Olympia, Greece from the 8th through the 4th centuries. The modern Olympics were revived in 1894, making this the 119th Games. (The Games were not held during the war years of 1916, 1940, and 1944.) As the years have progressed, money, politics, and big corporate media have moved in on the nature of the original, amateur Games. The Olympics of 1980 and 1984 saw limited involvement due to cold-war political maneuvers, and the 1972 Games were marred by the tragic terrorist attack in which Jewish athletes were murdered by Palestinians in Munich, Germany.
Doug:
They weren't so much "Jewish athletes" as they were athletes representing Israel. Also, a German police officer was killed. The terrorists appear to mostly have come from Palestinians, but may also have come from other countries as well. But, yes this was a horrific event still remembered by many people alive at the time.
David:
All reports available on the web indicate all of the Israeli athletes were Jewish. All of the Terrorists were members of the PLO. I'm not sure why you have to make some special distinction that neither of these things are true. There was political motivation for this heinous crime, which used the Olympic venue to get the world's attention. My point is that the Olympics has become one of the largest world-wide media events.
Doug:
I'm just trying to be precise. Rather than "Jews versus Palestinians" it seems more correct as "Israeli athletes versus terrorists".
David:
Terrorists from Palestine.....
Doug:
Sure, as long as we are consistent.
David:
Anyway, as TV viewership has expanded, and more and more revenue has developed around the games, we have seen an increasing competition between countries for the prestige of hosting the games, and a push for athletes to win both their events, and the lucrative endorsement deals that go with victory.
Should athletes be able to use PEDs to make them stronger, faster, or have more endurance?
Doug:
This is perhaps surprisingly more complex to answer than one might think. What qualifies as a performance-enhancing drug? Also, some countries go to extremes to develop competitive people. How far can that go before it is abuse? And what about athletes with prosthetics?
David:
It is complex. Which is just why this topic warrants a discussion on Blank Versus Blank!
The libertarian in me would like to say athletes should be able to use whatever means are necessary to improve their ability to compete and win. But these athletes do not function within a vacuum.
Doug:
Unlike other things we discuss that do operate within a vacuum. Wait, nothing we ever discuss operates in a vacuum. But I'm glad you see the nuances in this! Please continue.
David:
Young athletes do emulate what they see their heroes doing. Setting up some rules for drug use becomes part of the rules of the game. But where does it stop? Some athletes have used oxygen tents to sleep in at night to simulate competing at high altitudes. This is now banned as a PED. But you can move to Colorado and train at high altitudes, and that's okay. Is there really a difference?
Doug:
There is a difference. But I don't think you could find a "principled difference" between them.
David:
Tennis player Maria Sharapova has been banned for 2 years for using a legal drug that she has been taking for years for medical conditions. The drug, Meldonium, was added to the list of banned substances in January. Should you be able to get a medical waiver?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/09/sports/tennis/maria-sharapova-doping-suspension.html?_r=0
A recent review of urine samples from prior Games, using better analyzing technology, estimates that as many as 40% of athletes were using some form of banned substances to enhance their performances. It appears that you would put yourself at a distinct disadvantage when so many are so easily cheating.
Doug:
I think the principled issue is that athletes participate on equal ground. But things are never equal. So, what is the answer? The libertarian "anything goes", or something with limitations? Note that prosthetics are about to get very different. Imagine enhanced brain circuitry. What about gene manipulation? Can you even have Olympics when some of the players are so different from the others? What is it that is actually competing? Science? Or the abilities of specific humans in the country. And what if they leave one country for another?
David:
Right. What is the definition of an "enhancement"?
http://www.livescience.com/5230-performance-enhancement-common-sports.html
Although I think the goal is to try to keep the playing field as equal as possible, we've seen that wealthy countries will continue to dominate the Games through better training and equipment, and, in the case of the Russians, better clandestine pharmacology. As tech moves into a brave, new world, things will likely only become grayer and cloudier.
https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/06/23/will-genetic-cyber-athletes-come-to-dominate-sports/
Can you imagine what the Jamaican bobsled team could have done with a training facility and the technology that's available to the US, Russia, or China?
Doug:
On a related topic, do you think that college athletes should be paid?
David:
Is a free education with free room and board not enough? The average cost of college these days is between $10-35,000.
Doug:
Whether it is enough or not may not be the question. When the school and television channels make millions of dollars, is it fair to not pay the athletes anything more than tuition?
David:
Not all schools make that kind of money, just a few elite ones with long traditions of sporting excellence. So far, they've been able to maintain their degree of high quality, because excellent athletes desire to play for these programs, with only a scholarship as payment. If you begin paying athletes, would you pay a Notre Dame or Michigan quarterback more than a lineman from Augustana (IL)? The "same-pay-for-the-same-job" mantra would seem to demand a small college pay players the same, which would likely bankrupt a non-televised school conference. "Fair" is a word without meaning.
Are the players going to be taxed? If so, then we'll need to start including the value of their scholarships as income. They could actually end up making less (after taxes) than they're receiving now.
http://time.com/money/4241077/why-we-shouldnt-pay-college-athletes/
Like PEDs, paying athletes is not a simple discussion.
Doug:
Nothing ever is. Welcome to the complex world in which we live!
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!