A tendency to see everything in terms of right/wrong – or black/white – or any similar binary distinction is a blight on many people’s view of the world. In some very rare cases it is true that you can make such clear cut distinctions, but mostly you come up with either a “shades of grey” type of situation or a boundary that has been set pretty much arbitrarily somewhere between the two options.
There are plenty of examples that could be shown where something is deemed “right” in one culture, but “wrong” in another. This sort of moveable boundary can be very difficult to deal with once you accept that any single view of the rightness or wrongness of an action is a subjective one biased by the perceptions of the “observer”. It becomes much more difficult to judge other people for “wrong” behaviour if you are aware that it is – perhaps – not wrong in the eyes of the majority.
It is not that different when we look at shades of grey. For me, one of the highest profile areas where this raises its head is “performance enhancement” in the sports arena. I have – you will note – widened this to avoid looking specifically at any one sport and also to avoid this being ONLY about drug taking.
This is, of course, a particularly “newsworthy” subject at this time with the announcement that was made by Maria Sharapova the other day. I am not going to pronounce a “verdict” on what “punishment” she should receive – however the particular ‘misdemeanour’ that she is accused of brings into high relief the difficulties facing anyone who attempts to “police” the misuse of performance enhancement.
There is a fundamental paradox that needs to be addressed first of all. Any athlete will – quite naturally – be trying hard to enhance their performance – and so we do most certainly not have a black/white situation where we can categorically say “performance enhancement is a bad thing”. In fact EVERYTHING we do I suspect that we try to do as well as we can – and will accept any aid that is available to ensure that we do so. So – if performance enhancement is “good” by definition – where should we draw the line at which it becomes “bad”?
The reader should note that I am – to a certain extent – playing devil’s advocate here – but this is to illustrate the fact that there is not a simple answer and – too often – we can get lured into false assumptions and misled by weak arguments.
I am also rather uninformed about the effects of the (so-called) illegal ways in which performance can be enhanced – however I am aware that there are plenty of options. The difficulties are that it is very unclear how we can settle on a coherent set of criteria for what is “allowed” and what is “not allowed”. Wherever the line is drawn there are easy pickings on either side that would allow us to argue that it is in the wrong place.
Note, also, that I would never advocate anything other than “playing by the rules” – everything we do is governed by rules and regulations – especially so in competitive sport – and lots of time is spent tinkering with those rules (Formula 1 is a great example here). So there is a need to come up with a set of rules that people must adhere to – however fair or unfair or even absurd these might seem. The more complicated these rules become, the more likely that most of those involved will fail to understand (or even be aware of) all of them.
Looking at the specific case of Ms Sharapova – I can only assume that the mistake she has made was a genuine one – although I also have some sympathy with those who point out that “someone” should have been aware of the issue. Where I do disagree with some of the commentators is that – to my mind – there is no question at all about anything she has done prior to the start of 2016 when the drug was added to the prohibited list.
Rules are rules – and conversely “not rules” are “not rules” – so the fact that this particular drug was “allowed” (or at least not banned) prior to the start of this year means that it was perfectly OK (within the rules of the sport) for someone to be taking the drug.
Again – arguing Ms Sharapova’s guilt or innocence is not the main purpose of this blog – rather it is the whole idea that “performance enhancement” is automatically a “bad thing”!!
First off – ALL training – at whatever we do sports or elsewhere – is an exercise in performance enhancement. Eating the right foods is performance enhancing. A boxer goes for long runs because they are performance enhancing. An ice bath after strenuous exertion aids recovery (or so they say – its not ny idea of a “good thing”) and is thus performance enhancing. Marathon runners turn up at a “pasta party” the evening before the race because it is performance enhancing.
I don’t think that anyone would suggest that the things listed in the previous paragraph should ever be put on the “banned list” – but – what if (and I realise this is perhaps just my subconscious yearning for justification of my dislike of them) ice baths were found to have a downside related to long term health?
There are also a set of “questionable” performance enhancements that are allowed – despite opposition from some. For instance, the use of “blades” to enable runners who have lost one or both legs to compete in running races. Just about every design feature of a F1 car would come into this category as well. How about the use of a pace maker to set a world record – and is that even worse if the pace maker is being “paid” (one way or another) to provide that assistance.
It is clear – to me at least – that “the rules” are an arbitrary (at least relatively arbitrary) set that enable a “level-ish” playing field for all concerned. Breaking the rules is a “bad thing”. However, outside the domain in which the rules apply, the same action may well not be a “bad thing” – actually I can imagine plenty of reasons why it could be a “good thing”.
So – the stigma should be solely focussed at breaking the rules – not at whatever was actually done. If the rules say “you shall not eat chocolate” then eating chocolate is a “bad thing” within the domain that the rule applies to. However, it is important to make the distinction that the “bad thing” is the breaking of the rule – not the actual act of eating the chocolate (which may still be rather good….)
With regard to “performance enhancement” the rule makers have a real problem – a paradox – they want people to improve their performance – BUT – they want to limit the ways in which they can do that!!
In our running club we used to tease one guy by suggesting that his times were “drug enhanced”. There was more than a grain of truth in this. He had significant heart problems and took a number of drugs to combat that – his running got better – his health improved – should this cause an issue? Was he “cheating”? Of course not – not, at least, within the rules of our competitions. I have no idea whether any of his drugs are on the “banned list” – but that doesn’t really matter.
Misuse of drugs is – without question – a “bad thing” in my eyes. The difficulty is defining at what point it becomes misuse. Some are “dangerous” – well most are dangerous unless used properly – and those dangers MUST be understood. Lots of people are treated by various forms of chemotherapy – I don’t expect any of them are doing so under the illusion that the drugs are ‘innocent’ – however the danger must be balanced with the “performance enhancement” of the cancer killing properties of the drugs.
Anyone using these drugs for other purposes is taking a risk – in some cases a BIG risk. Is it ever justified?
Taking part in any physically tough sport (boxing, rugby) is also risky – then again – every activity involves risk.
Some rules are there for “safety” reasons – although it can easily become overdone – there is a fine line between protecting the competitors and protecting the ‘administrators’ from disgruntled – and broken – competitors after the event. It is important to provide sufficient protection – but important that doing so does not erase the essence of the competition.
So – I think the rule makers should be clear (and honest) about the purpose of rules. Prohibiting a drug because it enhances performance does not – on its own – seem like a reasonable thing to do – any more than (for instance) not allowing a javelin thrower access to a javelin outside of competition because it could be used as an weapon. A drug should be banned based on its “negative” effects.
As I said earlier – there is no easy answer – and it is far from black/white or right/wrong – performance enhancement is always going to be a prime reason to “practice” and therefore anything that might improve performance will be used – the “prohibited list” must be constituted of things which are harmful – not just things that “might” enhance performance.