In two posts last month around the time of the Olympic Games I wrote about the difficulties that are presented when it is necessary to impose some set of rules and regulations to prevent ‘cheating’ – specifically with regard to so-called “performance enhancement”.
These posts were, in turn, continuing on from where an older post left off (see here, here and here). That initial post – apart from the obvious finding that the idea that right and wrong are mutually exclusive is a difficult one to justify – came to the conclusion that – perhaps – the rules should be built around a central premise of avoiding harm to the athletes rather than simply to stop “artificial” stimulation of their performance.
The recent Paralympic Games (in my mind at least) gave even greater credence to this stance. Virtually every participant almost by definition receives some “performance enhancing” assistance. They benefit from technology, drugs and even the classification system. Without these the standards would – undoubtedly – be lower and the competition less enthralling.
Before the reader takes this as in any way critical of the achievement I should state that I am in awe of what many of these athletes have achieved. Their courage and determination in the face of adversity should be a lesson for us all. In no way would I suggest that their successes should be diminished. No – rather – my criticism, if that is what it is, is firmly aimed at those who would suggest that it is possible to achieve the goal of “clean” sport.
It is usually assumed that a sport that is not “clean” is tainted by drug abuse of some sort. However, that is only one way in which a dark cloud of “unfairness” can be gathered over competitions. Other recent high profile cases include technological (what about the use of electric motors inside the frame of bicycles), financial (bribery of certain athletes to assist betting syndicates for example), ‘ethical’ (a group of journalists ‘pretending’ to be mentally disabled in order to qualify for particular categories) and political abuses.
The UK has a ‘special’ role in the paralympics similar to that of Greece and the Olympic Games themselves given the roots at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. However, unlike Greece the UK have really maintained a ‘successful’ presence as well as holding the historic reins. Given the recent performances in the Olympics, it should be no surprise that the UK team did exceptionally well in Rio – however, alongside my admiration for those participating and my pleasure that they are doing so well there are one or two “thoughts” simmering away underneath.
There is no doubt that one of the reasons for recent successes for the UK team is the amount of money that has been directed towards “elite” athletes in the ‘chosen’ sports. This allows them to train properly, to rest properly and to reach their potential. All of which is great – for the chosen few – but I can’t help but think that below the level of those who “might win medals” there is a relative chasm.
When I was younger I used to joke to people that there ought to be medals for coming fourth because the UK athletes so often finished in that position. I think, perhaps, it was more fundamental than that – there was a culture that really did reward and cherish the “taking part” rather than “the winning” – a culture that has in great measure been lost. So much so that people are gutted to come second – not all are like that, but it is surprisingly common to have medal winners in tears because they weren’t one step higher on the podium.
It has sort of brought out a “win at all costs” culture. The UK have won more medals in Rio as they did in London – and the proportion of Golds has gone up. A good thing say the ‘commentators’ – aren’t we doing well!! But hold on, what about those who were left behind and didn’t get a chance to experience the games “because they are not good enough to medal”. I’m sure that it is never looked at in precisely those terms, but that is how it sometimes comes across.
Yet you see people taking seconds off their personal bests – just because of the “occasion” – who is really to tell how those “left behind” might have done – especially in the paralympics where health is a factor in the first place – so many of the athletes are, for one reason or another, living on a tightrope where a small nudge could send them spiralling away. The commentators were saying about one classification last night that it was really unpredictable – not because the competitors were evenly matched, but because their disabilities were cognitive and the physical part of competing was the least of their worries.
As a slight aside, those with cognitive difficulties also face another – more insidious – problem – the media!! Questions that are ‘reasonable’ to ask of an elite athlete after a hard race are not always appropriate for those who, perhaps, have more trouble understanding exactly what is going on. One of the studio experts talked about that last night – how in the post-race interviews it often sounds like they are merely repeating what they have been told to say! Problem is, the alternative often comes out only when someone is upset in one way or another – then the real emotions are there – but is it fair to them to show that.
So – is it “unfair” (on others) to splash the lottery cash on just the tip of the iceberg? How do you balance winning gold against having five, ten or twenty who are good enough to finish just outside the medals? Is the much talked about “legacy” – bringing many more into sports better served by the “high profile” multi-gold medal winner (bringing with it, as it does, much over the top media coverage) or by having many more athletes just “able to compete”? These are not easy questions to answer – I don’t pretend to know the answer. My concern is that no one is considering the questions and the issues that lie behind the headline stories.
The Trolley Problem addresses a similar issue – although in that case rather than the “help one a lot, or help many a little” scenario as described above the situation is pivoted to “kill one man or let five men be killed”. What the Trolley Problem does not address are the aspects of the problem that surround the ‘legacy’. No action can be taken in “the real world” without there being many ripples that extend out into the future.
The focus on medals may exclude the large number of “nearly good enough” athletes whilst promoting the elite – but does it also do more to maximise the “not very good at all” athletes participating in the sport. (thereby maximising the chances that the next generation of “elite” will not be bypassed) There is no clear answer to be had to this – I’ve said that a number of times.
Going back to where this post started – to what extent is the pushing of money at an “elite” class of athletes in order to maximise their chances of success simply an alternative form of cheating to injecting them with drugs? If you think that it is – how can this possibly be countered in an age where the “top” sportsmen and sportswomen earn huge amounts of money and the “rich” countries can (effectively) buy success by ensuring the best facilities, the best preparation and so on.
One soundbite coming out of the paralympic games was how some athletes from the “smaller” countries were taking full advantage of the facilities at the games for medical and technological help – the type of help they could not get (or could not afford) under normal circumstances.
The paralympics do, of course, face one huge problem that isn’t present in the Olympics – classification! It is essential to categorise people into groups of “similar” disability. Of course, whenever you attempt to pigeon hole people in this sort of way (for whatever reason) there are always the ‘exceptions’ and the difficult cases. Again – having set a huge ple of rules there is always an incentive to cheat (as I mentioned above about the case of those ‘pretending’ to be disabled). It also throws up bizarre situations like the wheelchair fencing where only one person in a category usually used a wheelchair – the rest had “comparable” disabilities but usually walked!
I think that the utopian dream of “clean” sport is well nigh impossible to police. As I said in a previous post, by all means put in rules that ‘protect’ the athletes from harm (or the potential for harm) but accept as “allowable” anything that cannot be properly monitored and controlled.
This recent revelations about the use of TUEs (Therapeutic Use Exemptions) sort of prove the point of how difficult all of this is. Yes, the TUEs are only allowed when “approved” – but such approval may well simply provide an “excuse”!! Its all very well saying that “I used the drug within the rules” – but it isn’t too far away from what Maria Sharapova said earlier this year regarding the reclassification of a particular drug.