Sports Technology Ethics

UCI says it is cracking down on track cycling technology

noreply@blogger.com (Rosemary Barnes) — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 08:20:00 +0000

Here is a link to the article from CyclingNews.com...

The UCI say that they are cracking down on track cycling technology, in particular the top 3 track cycling nations Australia, Great Britain and Germany. According to UCI president Pat McQuaid, technology in track cycling "has got a little bit out of control." He asserts that nations such as the UK are not playing in the spirit of the rules, and cites the high cost that are willing to spend on prototype bikes ($100 000s).

I think that the motivation behind what he is saying is fair enough - the idea that athletes have the potential to compete on an equal basis is an important aspect of all sport. But I think that the UCI, like many other sports governing bodies, is ineffective in their management of such issues.

The UCI has plenty of rules governing allowable cycling technology. They regulate the position that the cyclist is allowed to ride in (the "superman" position was banned for being too aerodynamic). They regulate the shape of the bike, the weight of the bike, what clothing the cyclist is allowed to wear. But they don't have a very clear definition about what constitutes the "spirit of fair play," which I believe is a crucial step if they wish to require athletes and athletic programmes to adhere to it.

Athletes are always going to push the boundaries of their sport to gain the maximum possible advantage over their competitiors. There is nothing wrong with that, it is in fact the entire point of sport. If no one was able to gain an advantage over their opponents then everyone would finish together. Of course, on the other hand there need to be restrictions on athletes. With no boundaries most sports would quickly become technology wars rather than skilled competition. So the trick is to create a set of rules that reach the right balance. As I have mentioned before, many sports governing bodies (e.g. swimming and cycling) struggle to get this balance right.

In the case of track cycling, the problem is not that athletes and countries are breaking the rules. If they are, then it is a simple operation to catch and disqualify cheaters. If some of the regulations are difficult to enforce, then they need to be reformulated so that they can be. The UCI's problems are, in general, not due to a lack of reguilations either. I believe that over regulation, as well as imprecise regulations are the real problem.

By "imprecise regulations," I mean that the wording of some regulations doesn't categorically rule out the practice that they are trying to eliminate. For example, the "superman" position, invented by Graeme Obree, was banned by the UCI because it is "too aerodynamic." But the wording of the rule eliminating this position is in terms of the distance that the handlebar extensions can reach past the front axle. This has the unintended consequence of allowing very short riders to ride the "banned" position whilst still technically staying within the regulations. Now obviously this could be interpreted to be against the spirit of the rules, and most short riders do not take advantage of the loophole. But wouldn't it be better to formulate the regulation unambiguously, e.g. in terms of the relative position of the cyclist's body (e.g. regulate a maximum angle that the fore and upper arm can make, and thereby eliminate the straight arm "flying" posture that is charcteristic of the position)? Or simpler yet, ban time trial bars altogether. The aerodynamic gains made by the addition of time trial bars was greater than the extra gain made by flattening out to the superman position, so why draw the arbitrary line there? In my opinion, it seems like the banning of the superman position was more to do with a personal grudge against Obree than a legitimate regulation to curb the role that technology plays in cycling. In fact, in some ways, banning the superman position has increased the technological impact. Flattening out to the superman position was a very low-tech, low-cost way to make significant aerodynamic gains. These days most serious time trialists will spend time in wind tunnels, trialling different positions to find the most aerodynamic. This is extremely expensive, and the advantages gained from this are almost certainly larger than they would be if the more efficient superman position was allowed. In my opinion, the UCI has made a bad call on the issue of allowable riding positions. They should either ban time trial bars altogether, and have all track events subject to the same equipment rules (which would also decrease the cost of the sport at the lower levels) or allow the supeman positions, and any variation that may arise in the future.

Another rule that is problematic for the UCI is limiting bicycle weight. This rule exists austensibly to ensure rider safety and to reduce bicycle costs. But the weight is the same for all bicycles, regardless of size. In this case, shorter cyclists are at a relative disadvantage, as a 50kg cyclist's bike must weigh the same as a 100kg cyclist. obviously the smaller bikes are going to be relatively over-built, and will contribute a proportionally larger amount to the total rider+bike weight. I have heard of cases where smaller cyclists have resorted to filling their frames with balast to bring them up to weight, even though the larger sizes of the same bike, (and actually less strong because of the longer tubes, not to mention the higher forces that the larger riders exert on them) are considered acceptable. Adding cutlery to weigh down a bike hardly increases safety or decreases costs.

The UCI, like many other sports governing bodies, struggles to keep up with emerging technologies, and often reacts too late to ban equipment and practices that they believe to be detrimental to their sport. Most of these governing bodies, as well as the IOC, require that new technologies are submitted for approval before they may be used in competition, but they seem to have difficulty in regulating this requirement. The Cycling News article mentions "developments in nanotechnology" that they are worried will soon be applied to cycling clothing as an example of this. Surely dealing with this is a simple matter of maintaining a list of fabrics that are allowable for use in competitive cycling? New nanotech fabrics would have to be submitted to the UCI to request inclusion on the list before any were allowed in competition. The same strategy could work for most new technologies, which rarely arrive without any forwarning.

So in conclusion, I believe that the UCI is going the wrong way about decreasing the role of technology in cycling. It is not really possible to curb countries' enthusiasm to win these events, and the reality is that even in very low-tech sports, results are strongly dictated by the resources available to athletes. The cost of the bicycle itself is a small part of the total cost to support a potential medal winner in terms of providing them with sufficient means to devote enough time to training and recovering. The best athletes are certainly not working 40 hour weeks to support their cycling careers, and this is always going to give cyclists from countries with strong cycling programmes an advantage. So the UCI should work on forming a consistent and fair set of rules, rather than trying to get countries to try less hard.

The Great Swimsuit Debate

noreply@blogger.com (Rosemary Barnes) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 01:03:00 +0000

Image from Speedo

I have written before about the role that technology plays in different sports. Some sports, such as running, have a low potential for technological performance increases, and on the other end of the spectrum sports like Formula 1 have a high potential for technological performance increases. Until a few years ago, the sport of swimming was probably in the former category. Given that flippers were banned, there was only so much improvement that could be gained through goggle selection, etc... or so it seemed to me. But it turns out I was wrong, as controversy has surrounded every recent major swimming event due to the use of high tech swim suits.

The journey towards the high-tech swimsuits that we see today began in the 1990s, when Speedo released the S2000 (claiming 15% less drag than conventional fabrics) and the Aquablade (claiming 8% lower surface resistance than the S2000). Several iterations followed, and the designs moved away from "traditional" style swimwear to suits covering as much of the body as possible, taking inspiration from nature (e.g. skark skin) to increase swimmers' hydrodynamic efficiency.

The real controversy began shortly before the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, when Speedo released a new swimsuit, designed in collaboration with NASA and the AIS (Australian Institute of Sport). The new fabric mimicked shark skin to reduce drag, and the suit also acted to squash the swimmer's body into a more hydrodynamic shape, and possibly also increasing boyancy by trapping air. The compression of the suit also allowed similar efects to compression garments, apparently allowing greater oxygen flow to muscles and decreasing fatigue.

Since the introduction of the first "high-tech" swimsuit, the Speedo LZR, 19 out of the 20 men's world records and 19 out of the 20 women's world records have been broken. Obviously not all of these records can simply be attirubuted to the new suits, world records do eventually get broken even without major new technologies, and there are other relevant technological factors such as improved swimming pool technology and improved training, recovery and nutrition practices.

But the rate at which records have fallen recently is unusual (e.g. 5 times more records fell during the 2008 Beijing Olympics year compared to the 2004 Athens Olympics year), and potentially undesirable. Scientific studies have indicated that the best swimsuits can yield a X% drag reduction, corresponding to a X% performance increase compared to "traditional" swimwear.

The international governing body for swimming, FINA, approved the Speedo suits for use at the 2008 Olympics. The Olympics requires that all new technology be available ahead of the games for any athlete to use. In practice the high-tech swimsuits are not available to just anyone; manufacturing runs are limited to quantities sufficient only for a handful of the world's elite.

So what should the rules regarding swimsuit technology be? Should FINA have acted differently ahead of the 2008 Games?

The way I see it, this topic can be argued from two directions: first, that the sport of swimming be regulated so that the role that technology plays is kept to an absolute minimum, and second that any technology is acceptable, provided that it doesn't create an advantage for one athlete over another (i.e. it is truly available to all competitors).

Arguments in defence of the first approach tend to relate to the desire to be able to compare athletes and records throughout history in a meaningful way. You might also say that it is a question of whether it is swimmers competing or swimsuit manufacturers. There is a valid point to all this, of course, and it is certainly desirable to maintain swimming's focus on human physical performance. But an extreme version of this stance that advocates banning all technology from swimming is naive. One reason for this is that the public seems to demand that records be broken. If sport technology remained exactly the same, then the rate at which records were broken would decrease over time. If this were to occur, then there is a risk that swimming would become less popular with the public, and everyone knows that popularity equals money. Another reason for rejecting an extreme anti-technology stance is the fact that it would be impossible to achieve this. Even if swimmers wore cotton bloomers instead of polyurethane streamlined suits, even if you went even further and banned any sort of swimming pool technological advances, there are always going to be improvements in training methods, in nutrition and recovery, and any number of other effects of a technologically advancing world. I believe that swimming, as with every other sport, needs to focus not on eliminating technology, but rather on sensible regulation.

So onto the second take on the argument, that so long as everyone has access to the new technology, there is nothing wrong with it. There is a certain truth in this argument as well. If everyone truly did have access to the technology, there wouldn't be anything inherently uncompetitive about the new suits. As swimmer Jessicah Schipper stated: "we were all there, doing the same job in the same suit" (from ABC) about the 2009 world championships in Rome. In fact many of the swimmers who disapprove of the use of the high-tech suits state the lengthy struggle to get into them as a main factor for their opposition. Some others seem more concerned about their sponsorship contracts with non-cutting-edge swimsuit manufacturers than about the effect of the suits on their sport's integrity. An example of this is Phelps. While some swimmers in recent competitions wore suits from rival companies to their sponsors with the logos covered (e.g. Mary De Scenza), an exception to this was Micahel Phelps, who continued to wear the supposedly sub-standard Speedo suit. He had what could be described as a little bit of a public hissy fit, however, following his defeat in the 200m Freestyle by German Paul Biederman who was wearing one of the cutting edge Arena X-Glide suits. His coach threatened that Phelps would boycott international competition until the offending swimsuits were banned. I doubt if I am the only one that this outburst seemed a little hypocritical to, given that Phelps was happy enough when his sponsor's (Speedo) swimsuit was state-of-the-art a year earlier. It seems to me that his problem is not an ideological one so much as a financial one... maybe he should have thought twice before signing up with a swimsuit manufacturer who couldn't guarantee him use of the best equipment.

Jaked Swimsuit

So, if we consider that technological advances are ok as long as they're available to everyone, does that mean that anything goes? As in other sports, the technology debate is a bit of a slippery slope. Ok, so shark-skin suits might be acceptable, but probably not flippers. Dietry supplements but not drugs. Etc, etc.

To me, the surprising thing about the swimsuit controversy is that swimming has typically been a relatively strictly-regulated and low-tech sport. FINA have been pretty quick to regulate innovation in swimming style (e.g. limits to how long you can stay underwater, and butterfly was orginally invented as a faster alternative to breastroke, but then differentiated into a separate discipline). Currently, FINA regulates swimsuits according to "rules regarding shape, use of only one swimsuit and no taping" (FINA.) But the rules are set to change in early 2010 to ban air-tight fabrics that trap air (and increase boyancy), and also suits that don't "follow the body shape" (which I interpret to mean no compression garments). These advances seem to be pretty universally approved of by the swimming community. More controversial is the new regulation that men's suits can't go past the knee or navel, and women's past the knee or onto the neck or shoulders.

I think that these new regulations are sensible, but I also wonder why they didn't exist before the sudden technological leaps of 21st century swimming. For example, wetsuits weren't ever allowed, because they increase boyancy, but suits that trap air to increase boyancy were? I haven't been able to locate the exact regulation that bans wetsuits (ok, I didn't try all that hard...), but it must have been badly worded if a different mecahnism that achieves the same outcome (increased boyancy) is allowed. This is an issue that I have with sports tech regulations across many sports: they are too often reactive in nature, to a very specific technology that is decided after implementation to be undesirable. As I've said before (and will definitely say again), what is needed by each sport is a type of "mission statement" of the sport's nature and pupose. From this could follow blanket statements regulating technology, including ones that haven't been invented yet. For example, swimming could have made a rule that no external device may increase the mechanical efficiency of the human body. This would mean no flippers, boyancy aids, inserts in suits that enhance streamlining, etc. Obviously at times there will be technological advances whose effects may not have been easily foreseeable, and regulations may have to be modified or added. But my point is, that this should not be a matter of banning a particular product, but of categorising which modes of technological advancement are desirable according to the "mission statement" and which are not.

Skinsuits in Downhill Mountain Biking

noreply@blogger.com (Rosemary Barnes) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:45:00 +0000

This topic is about a year old now, but I wanted to write about it anyway, because it is the best example I can think of where a governing body has inconsistent rulings on various technologies... in my opinion because they don't have a proper definition of the purpose of their sport.
In this case, the sport is downhill mountain biking and the governing body is the UCI (International Cycling Union). A little bit of background on the issue of skinsuits in DH is probably appropriate.
For years downhillers have been wearing skinsuits at world champs (where they were often required to by their national teams), but usually not at other races. See below if you don't know what a skinsuit is; the first rider is wearing "normal" (moto-style) clothing, the second a skinsuit. Indidentally they are both Tracey Moseley. Images from www.kona.com and BritishCycling.org.uk.

To explain their decision not to wear skinsuits at non-championship events, riders tended to say things like that they knew skinsuits provided an aerodynamic advantage, but were not prepared to risk their personal image or pissing off their sponsors. At the 2008 world cup finale in Canberra, there was a bit of controversy when Tracey Moseley wore a skinsuit in her final run, and won by 4 seconds over second place getter (and baggy clothing wearer) Rachel Atherton. Rachel responded by writing the words "skinsuits suck" on her forearms on the podium:

(photo and captions from Rotorburn forum)

Rachel was widely quoted (e.g.) saying: "Fair enough to Tracy if she wants to do that to win, but for the sport and the longevity of the sport, to wear cool race kit and to make an image for yourself is more important than the odd win here and there"

A few weeks after this, the UCI released a rule change, stating that "All lycra-elastaine based tight-fitting clothing is not permitted" in downhill mountain biking. [UCI Regulation 4.3.013]

The change in rules was not necessarily the result of Rachel Atherton's whinge alone, but the timing of the rule change certainly ensured that many people linked the two occurences.

I was unable to find any official document stating the UCI's reasoning behind the decision, which would be interesting to know, since in my mind it is completely illogical.

There are really two separate issues that I can see:

If image (whether of the individual athlete or the sport as a whole) is more important than performance.
If performance enhancing technologies are unfair.

The first point is clearly a matter of opinion, and although one that I personally disagree with, I won't get into that here.

The second point has some legitimacy to it, and people might draw parallels to the current swimsuit saga, but with reference to the sport of downhill mountain biking it is incredibly inconsistent and illogical. There are many other performance enhancing technologies that are exploited in DH, without regulations blocking them. There are very few UCI rules regarding the bikes themselves for example (despite strict UCI rules for road and track bikes). Different tyres, suspension systems, etc all play a significant role. If the UCI's intention is to reduce/ eliminate technological differences between athletes, then they should make that known, and form a consistent set of rules that cover every technological aspect of the sport.

As is the case with many of the UCI's rules (examples of which I am sure I will return to in future posts), the intention of the rule is unclear, and the wording vague, making its enforcement problematic.

Tracey Moseley points out: "I think that it (the rule) is even more unfair than someone being able to wear a skinsuit. Before it was a case of wearing one or not. If you were stupid enough to not wear one that was your own choice. Now we are in the dangerous position of having to ask how tight is too tight?" [from an interview on the British Cycling website]

Finally, I want to point out that the contribution skinsuits make to time savings is probably not as great as many people believe to be the case. In the afformentioned Moseley v. Atherton competition, Moseley won by 4 seconds on a 3:10 course (~2%). She also had the fastest qualifying time which she achieved without "tight-fitting clothing." It is important to remember that DH is not all about aerodynamics, to the extent that a sport like skeleton or even skiing is. There is a lot of braking done in DH mountain bike, and so simple calculations involving average speeds and drag coefficients significantly overestimate the effect of drag reductions. One day in the near future I am planning on doing some detailed comparisons that include braking, so watch this space!

Sport-as-Performance Website

noreply@blogger.com (Rosemary Barnes) — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 03:37:00 +0000

As I have mentioned a couple of times, I feel that there is a lack of academic writing on sports topics that is actually written by people who participate in sports themselves. I am pleased to see another addition to the small community!

A friend of mine, Kath Bicknell, is currently writing a PhD on the performative aspects of sport, and she is also a high-level cyclist. She has a website at http://kathbicknell.wordpress.com/ which she describes as " an online record of action and reflection, held together with a mountain biking theme." She includes published writing, notes on racing, a record of academic work and news on related topics. Although Kath's website doesn't contain much of her academic work (possibly due to the small potential audience), she does tend to consider everything from a "performance" aspect, even when her intended audience is the general sports/ sports spectator community.

Personally, I feel like Kath's work adds a great deal to the general discussion about the purpose of sport, which I consider to be an important philosophical topic.

If anyone knows of any other athlete-academics or academic-athletes who write stuff, then please let me know, because I'm interested!

Sports Ethics Section of an Engineering Design Thesis

noreply@blogger.com (Rosemary Barnes) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:18:00 +0000

I have dug up my honours thesis (from 2005), and uploaded the chapter on the ethics of technology in sport to the Opinion section of my website - www.rosemarybarnes.com.au
When reading, remember that it was written as part of a bicycle design thesis (so is a bit centred around cycling technology and the UCI's rules), and that it was written 4 years ago, so of course the latest work in the field is not considered.

Women's Boxing Added to 2012 Olympic Programme

noreply@blogger.com (Rosemary Barnes) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:47:00 +0000

The International Olympic Committee has announced the addition of women's boxing to the roster for London 2012. Boxing was the final Olympic sport that was not open to female athletes.
I am a little bit torn regarding how I feel about the news. On the one hand, I believe in equality between the sexes, so if men's boxing is included then I believe that women's should be too. This is presumably the reason that led to the IOC's decision; once they were satisfied that women's boxing had reached a reasonable standard of professionalism they no longer had any reason to exclude it.
On the other hand, I am not completey comfortable with the presence of boxing of either gender in any sporting competition, due to the inherent violence of boxing. There are, of course, other violent sports. The various martial arts are obvious examples, and rugby and other contact sports too. But boxing stands alone (I believe, please correct me if I am wrong) in actually rewarding physical damage to one's opponent. The aim of the sport is to knock your opponent unconscious, which in a non-sporting context would be considered serious assault. According to Dr Bill Glasson, president of the Australian Medical Association: "Boxing is not a sport; it is organised violence [...] "The object of boxing is to cause maximum physical harm to your opponent." In my opinion, the inclusion of boxing in the Olympics at all should be questioned, given the stated goal of the Olympic Movement: "to contribute to building a peaceful and better world."

But does boxing really have to be so violent? As I mentioned earlier, boxing is not the only intrinsically violent sport. But other fighting sports have adapted rules for competitive purposes (as opposed to violent purposes). Fencing is a pretty good example of a sport that originated as a means to harm one's opponent, and has evolved into a very non-violent activity. The martial arts, also, are less about causing injury and more about scoring points than their street versions. Boxing already has a points component to it, if a knockout doesn't occur then the winner is decided by points. Could boxing be modified and modernised in a similar way to other fighting sports, without ruining the sport in the process? I imagine that boxing purists would argue that the violence is an intrinsic aspect of the sport (any boxing fans out there please comment!). But I think that a more points-based system could work for boxing. I propose a system along the following lines:

Get rid of knockouts. Obviously a knockout would still end the match, but it should not be an automatic win for the boxer left standing.
Give competitors good head protection so that knockouts are less likely to occur.
Change the scoring system so that hits to the body are weighted higher than hits to the head.

Technology could assist in the transition. Instrumented clothing could provide an unbiased score count that could help to avoid some of the problems with the existing system, and reduce the occurence of controversial outcomes such as Pacquiao v. Marquezin last year, for example. This fight led one sports writer to comment: "The ultimate irony of boxing, the manliest* and most decisive of sports, is that when no knockout is recorded it ends with the subjective assessment of three arbitrarily chosen delegates. But that’s the concession we make with civilization, because the only other alternative is a fight to the death." Instrumented clothing would be nicer way around the "arbitrarily" chosen judges than a fight to the death, in my opinion! Perhaps it could even lead to a faster, more skillful version of the sport, as boxers would not be limited to a maximum of one hit per second (the maximum rate at which judges can attribute points).

As I mentioned, I doubt that the proposal would be popular amongst boxing enthusiasts, but in my opinion changes along these lines are necessary if the sport is to continue into the future.

*This is a bit of an unfortunate choice of word, given the topic of today's post!

Man vs. Machine: the role of technology in sport

noreply@blogger.com (Rosemary Barnes) — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:13:00 +0000

Technology has always been present in sport to a certain extent, but over the past few decades, its role has changed. It is interesting to consider the various ways in which technology applies to sport, and the effects this has. Several ethical issues arise, including what is the difference between legitimate use of technology and cheating.

In a paper published in the European Journal of Sport Science, Andy Miah separates technology into categories, according to the effect it has on sport:

1 – The first category is those technologies that make sport possible.
Examples of this are ice skates, swimming pools and other equipment without which the sport would not be possible

2 – The second type is those that improve safety.
Examples of this are helmets, and other protective clothing.

Both of these types of technology are fairly uncontroversial, with limited performance enhancing capabilities.

3 – The third type of technologies are those that de-skill or re-skill sport.

A good example of this is when thick mats replaced sandpits/ sawdust in high jump, and suddenly the scissor/ straddle technique was completely replaced by the flop (which would have resulted in a broken neck on the old landing surfaces). Technologies of this type tend to be quite controversial, as they can shake up the world rankings and/or cause a step-change in world records.

Scissors technique:
image from: http://reference.findtarget.com/search/high%20jump/

Flop technique:image from: news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/6974694.stm

4 – The fourth type that Miah designates are technologies that dehumanise performance.

Car racing is probably the best example here, where the technology is (arguably) more important to the competition outcome than the diver’s skill.

The most important role that sports technology regulations must perform is to ensure the safety of those involved in sport. Just like medical technology, sports technology ought not to increase risks to athletes’ or spectators’ health or safety. Many forms of doping should be banned according to this criteria, and some types of equipment should also be affected.

Apart from ensuring safety, the second aim of most sports is to reduce or eliminate the effect of technology of the fourth type (those that dehumanise performance). The idea is that sporting competition should be between 'men' rather than 'machines.' Even in the extreme example of Formula 1, attempts are made to reduce the technological aspect of the competition in order to allow the drivers' skills to have a greater effect on the outcome.

On the low end of the technological spectrum are sports such as running, where equipment is minimal and cheap. Of course even running has had technology controversies, notably Cathy Freeman's aerodynamic suit at the Sydney Olympics.

Image from www.catherinefreemanfoundation.com

On the other end of the technlogical spectrum are sports like cycling, or even Formula 1 (whether or not motor sports count as a sport is a question for another post).

Image from www.bikesportmichigan.com

It is clear that technology plays a role in all sports. Where then should the line be drawn to determine which technologies are allowed, and which are not? Technologies that deskill or dehumanise the sport are typically seen as undesirable. Recent controversies include the 'swimsuit debacle' in swimming (e.g.), and the use of radios in the Tour de France, or my recent favourite skinsuit ban in downhill mountain biking. All of these topics deserve a post of their own, and I will link to them when they are added. In my opinion, most of these type of comtroversies overestimate the effect that the relevant technology will have on the sport. In these technologically advanced times, efficiency gains of more than a couple of percent are few and far between. This is the difference between an extremely good athlete and a ridiculously good athlete (to put it technically!), not the difference between a weekend athlete and a world champion, which is how it is often portrayed.

In my opinon, most technilogical advancements that do not compromise health and safety could play a positive role in sport, provided that they are potentially available to anyone, in order not to exaggerate “artificial” advantages that one athlete might have over the competition. The Olympic Games, for example, has regulations of this nature. The controversy surrounding the recent swimming world championships could presumably have been mitigated by a similar regulation.

In conclusion, provided that sports technology is regulated to ensure that:

Health and safety for athletes, spectators, etc is protected
Technology that deskills and/or dehumanises sport is regulated or banned
Technology and equipment is available to everyone,

there does not seem to me to be any ethical reason why properly regulated technological advances should not be able to play a legitimate role in sport.

Innocent Until Proven Guilty - unless you're an athlete

noreply@blogger.com (Rosemary Barnes) — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:49:00 +0000

The Tour de France is on at the moment, and as far as many people are concerned, that means one thing: doping scandals. For the last few years there have been riders kicked out of the Tour for doping violations, and this year is looking like it is going to end the run. No riders have tested positive to a banned substance so far, and there are only a few days to go.

Unfortunately, the lack of any actual violations has not prevented the scandals from emerging. Antoine Vayer, an ex-TDF team trainer, has "calculated" tour leader Alberto Contador's power output on a certain climb, and inferred from his result that an impossibly high VO2 max result would be required to achieve the feat. He published his story in Liberation.fr.

One account of the situation can be found on cyclingnews.com.

In response to Vayer's analysis, Contador is being called upon (by ex-TDF winner Greg Lemond amongst others) to prove that he is physiologically capable of that VO2 result without doping.

There are a few things wrong with this scenario:

1 - Contador already proved that he is capable of the requisite power. In the race. And he was drug tested not only on that stage, but also several other times during and before the Tour, as well as throughout his career. His samples will also be held to be tested again in the future if/when more accurate tests become available. What could be gained from testing him in a lab? Since when do you need to be able to break a record twice in order for it to count? If Lemond is so keen on validating results in a lab, then let's get him in to validate his Tour wins.

2 - Vayer is guessing virtually every parameter in his "calculations." In order to arrive at a value, Vayer would have had to measure or estimate: distance travelled and gradient, Contador's weight and drag coefficient, his bike's weight and tyre pressure, wind speed/ direction, air density, road surface friction, etc. How can he make so many estimates, and be certain of the accuracy to the extent that he publishes his results?

3 - Whatever happened to the presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Obviously this is not the first time that an athlete has been denied this "right," but I still don't understand why athletes continue to be denied this.

Another interesting point is that Vayer used to be the trainer for the Festina team, which broke up after systematic doping was uncovered... if you live in a glass house, Vayer...

What is the Purpose of Sport?

noreply@blogger.com (Rosemary Barnes) — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:42:00 +0000

As I mentioned in my first post, I believe that determining the purpose of elite sport is the critical task that will frame every other debate regarding the ethics of sport. Why do athletes become involved in sport? Why do people watch sport? Why do companies sponsor sport? And why do governments sponsor sport?

Most sporting organisations and governing bodies have mission statements which generally say something vague about their purpose with respect to their sport(s). Rarely, if ever, do they mention what the actual purpose of sport is. An example is the UCI (International Cycling Union), which states a goal of "promoting sporting ethics and fair play" in its mission statement, as well as promoting the sport, etc. This is typical of most international sporting bodies. The IOC's (International Olympic Committee) Olympic Charter goes into a bit more detail:

"Olympism seeks to create a way of life based on the joy found in effort, the educational value of good example and respect for universal fundamental ethical principles."

It goes on to say its intention is:

"to encourage and support the promotion of ethics in sport as well as education of youth
through sport and to dedicate its efforts to ensuring that, in sport, the spirit of fair play
prevails and violence is banned."

Based on this, you would think the Olympics was more about morality than competition, which is not even mentioned. Again we have the term "fair play" being used, without any reference to a specific definition.

It seems to me that it is impossible to operate in a sport's best interests, without actually defining what those interests are, yet that is what many important sporting bodies are trying to do.

I think there is a stark separation between what the general public believe is the purpose of elite sport, and what athletes themselves believe to be the case. In a lot of media coverage, there seems to be an underlying idea that the point of elite athletes is to provide a moral role model for their fans. This can be seen in situations where an athlete is caught using recreational drugs, or getting into a pub brawl, or any other such thing that is completely unremarkable and inconsequential for most people, but can cost an elite athlete their reputation and their job. This emphasis on morality was also seen in the Olympic Charter. But in reality, does elite sport exist to serve a moral purpose? Is this why athletes compete, why spectators watch?

I think it is fair to say that most athletes do not become involved in sport as a means to become a public moral example. As an athlete myself, I became involved in competitive sport primarily because I like playing sport, and in particular, I like cycling. I like the feeling of going fast, of going as hard as I can. I also love competition (this is not the same thing as loving to win). I want to see how good I am compared to other people, and I want to see how much better I can get.

The competitive aspect is, I believe, probably the most significant thing driving athletes into elite competition. Possibly this is mainly true for individual athletes, but I suspect it is true for most team sport athletes too. Most elite athletes I know have either played several different sports at a high level, or are planning to do so after they retire from their initial sport.

Spectators do not watch sport for the moral example set by athletes either. If moral guidance is what people wanted, church attendance would be increasing and sports popularity declining, instead of the other way around. I am not suggesting that morality is not important to sports spectators (or athletes), but rather that it is not the guiding purpose of sport.

There is also an intellectual aspect to most sports that attracts many athletes. There are tactics and strategy. Using the example of mountain biking again, a friend told me that he likes to see how fast he can get, not just as a way to win, but he likes to examine each element of each race, and see where he could make up some time to be faster next time. He likes to be technical about how to get better. What type/ how much training? Where can he reduce weight on his bike? Optimising recovery and nutrition, which races to target, etc. These aspects are all interesting themselves, within the goal of simply getting faster.

The term "competitive" should not be confused with a simple desire to win. It has more to do with wanting to be the best that it is possible for that person to be, and competing with others for some has a lot to do with providing a gauge to measure personal improvement. There are plenty of athletes who know that they are not talented enough to ever be world champion, but they compete nonetheless. Many athletes (myself included) will move up to international competition before being a national champion, simply to see how one really measures up.

I like the performance aspect of sport; the more people are watching the better the feeling. And the performance appeal has a big appeal for spectators and fans. This obviously has an effect on sponsorship too, since a larger audience yields a bigger return.

One more final factor that contributes to the purpose of sport is financial. I am a female cross country mountain biker, which is not exactly a lucrative sport. So for me, financial gain is not a factor (in fact I spend my entire disposable income on my sport). But I know other athletes (in more popular spectator sports such as football) for whom money is the primary reason for practicing sport at an elite level. For some talented individuals, professional sport is simply an easy way to make money.

I would welcome any comments from other athletes, spectators, sponsors, etc if you agree, disagree or have anything to add to my analysis of the purpose of sport. That is if people start reading my blog!

Why Make a Sports Techonolgy Ethics Blog?

noreply@blogger.com (Rosemary Barnes) — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:41:00 +0000

This is a blog I've been meaning to start for a while. I first became interested in this topic when I was writing my final year engineering thesis (2005), in which I designed a bike for the pursuit cycling event. To me, the obvious start of the project was to determine if the project should be done, and then why. There are many controversial aspects of the use of technology in sport. Some are very high profile, such as the Speedo "shark skin" swimsuits. And some are less obvious, like what is the definition of doping, and where do you draw the line.

So with this in mind, I researched the topic of Sports Technology Ethics/ Philosophy; and I found myself quite disappointed with the quality of information out there. So many sporting governing bodies (e.g. in the case of cycling, the International Union of Cyclists, UCI) produce rules to govern their sports without first developing a strong basis for what the rules are supposed to achieve.

In my opinion, before coming up with any rules or regulations, you need to figure out what the actual purpose of the sport is, i.e. come up with a philosophical background. Or to put it in a more catchy way: develop a mission statement for the sport as a whole (not just for the governing body).

When I was researching philosophical texts on the topic, I found there was some, but not a great deal, of material regarding why elite sport exists. And the material that did exist was pretty much exclusively written from the point of view of a non-athlete. The writers mainly did not even come across as sports enthusiasts. As an athlete myself, I found myself strongly disagreeing with most of the starting assumptions in the papers that I read. I'll go into the details of this in another post, but my point is that I felt that an athlete's voice (preferably many athletes' voices) should be added to the dialogue. I also think that the elite sports watching public point of view should be considered, but I will leave that up to someone else.

I didn't mean this initial entry to be so long (but that fact helps to reassure my fears that I wouldn't be able to think of enough things to say in order to justify a blog!). So I'll sum up:

Why did I start this blog? To introduce another voice into the topic of Sports Technology Ethics. As an athlete, an engineer and a philosopher, I am in a rather unique position to add to what I believe is a very important subject.

Thanks for reading!

P.s. In case you were wondering how the ethics chapter in my engineering honours thesis went:

It went down like a lead balloon.

Actually, to be fair, one of my markers liked it and said he wished there was more consideration of ethics in engineering. The other marker called it "a waste of 10 pages" and marked it accordingly!

Huh. This is the kind of attitude that prevails in many traditional engineering circles, and it worries me.
Don't think about "should we do it?" just concentrate on "can we do it?".