Sports and Drugs

Peter Singer, and probably some others, have argued that drugs should be introduced into competitive sports. His point of view is simple and striking. In sports we want a level playing field as far as possible. We cannot choose what genes we are born with. Athletes are not on a level playing field when one is competing against another who was born with greater genes. Drugs are useful because they help level the playing field in this regard.

I think it's quite an innovative way of looking of things, but I'm still not buying into this argument entirely. Competitive sports appeal to us because they reveal the most athletic bodies around us, and those bodies fascinate us probably because of an ancient admiration of the best hunters/survivors in our group. Physicality was important back then, as well as perserverance and teamwork, and all these aspects are brought out in some way or the other in competitive sports. So, now, the problem with levelling the playing field with drugs is that it takes away the physical part of the picture. Competitive sports will essentially be reduced to a competition of mental strengths, and that's not good.

The problem with that response is that we see nothing wrong with energy-boosting drinks and the like. If our problem with drugs comes because drugs distort one's natural capabilities, then we really should be frowning on energy drinks as well. Furthermore, many areas of an athlete's training for his or her sport are now scientifically engineered. They go through well-calibrated diets, they utilise modern machinery to perfect their bodies and every single stroke. Our conventional stance against using drugs in sports is further undermined when we accept one form of scientific engineering yet reject another on the basis that it replaces the natural with the artificial. If sports really is the celebration of the natural human physique then we wouldn't see swimmers and runners in their technologically advanced gear; if sports is the celebration of the human physique with human technology then drugs should be accepted along with that super-streamlined swimming costume or that ultra-durable, ultra-light racket.

Perhaps our issue with drugs lies in the fact that drugs pose certain health risks to the consumer. Suppose, then, we invent a drug that has negligent side effects. Would we welcome the introduction of such a drug to competitive sports? I'm not so sure. It seems like there is a certain attraction in knowing that the athletes playing our favourite sport are drug-free; and a certain repulsiveness in knowing that everyone on the field is steroid-laden. But such a line of thought still doesn't reconcile with our easy acceptance of energy-boosting drinks. We can only conclude that we don't like the idea of drugs, not drugs themselves. There seems to be a social stigma on the issue of drug consumption, be it for personal leisure or for competitve sports. I would presume that with the advent of harmless drugs and more liberal education the stigma will dissipate and we'll view the next generation of steriods no differently from an energy drink, the next generation of heroin no differently from a chocolate bar.

The arguments against drug consumption in competitive sports seem quite inadequate. Is there any argument for it then? It's hard to escape that sphere of thought that says: it's simply unfair that an athlete is competing with another athlete who is blessed with superior genes. No athlete got to choose or worked hard in any way for superior genes, so why should the well-endowed athlete always stand on a pedestal higher than the next best? At this point we may want to note that qualities such as the willpower and discipline to tap on superior genes could themselves be functions of biology that inhabit different bodies based on luck. In other words, an athlete who is gifted with an amazing physical body and with amazing mental qualities to preserve and utilise that physical body in full, is simply more lucky than a person who was born with, say, very high perserverance but very low physical attributes, or vice versa.

The question is: is this really an issue for the less well-endowed athlete. If we say yes, then we should endorse drugs as a form of playing-field leveller. If we say no, then it is likely we believe that the essence of sports is, as outlined above, to reveal the naturally gifted amongst us, in which case we go down the same train of thought from paragraph 2 to 4. In either case, we end up accepting drugs. It is, however, unlikely that drugs can level the playing field entirely. It seems more reasonable to think that drugs can, at best, only boost one's performance by a certain percentage, say, 25%. So if all athletes consume standardised drugs the only difference we will have is an improvement of the game they are in; there won't be any shuffling of the players' rankings, and the top player/team will still be in the top spot. Now, if the drugs these athletes consume are risk-free, then these drugs will essentially be no different from advanced sporting gear and energy drinks, legitimate tools that improve one's performance. So if such measures do not level the playing field completely because they cancel each other out, it's interesting to think why have them in the first place. Well surely stiff competition is a factor; but it could have been that tournament organisers standardise as many aspects of the competition as possible, or that the athletes themselves agree not to engage in a perpetual arms race. By and large, we don't see that, which lends further credence to the thought that sports (most sports, at least) really is a competition of the human physique, human mental strengths, and human technology. If that is the case, then it wouldn't be inconceivable that risk-free drugs, being part of human technology, be legitimised in competitive sports in the future.

1 2 3 4 5

1. I just realised I sent a competition piece to the wrong email. Not much damage done though, it's a minor competition and I can always submit the same piece next year. Usually I'm quite paranoid about things like this happening, and I guess this shows there is always room for mistakes.

2. Reading pace has slowed tremendously over the past few weeks, in large part because Kafka's short stories aren't particularly great. I don't like giving up a book after having read more than 20% of it, and I'm taking my time finishing what's left. I don't know why I am not starting on other books though.

3. My appetite's gotten smaller. I wonder if a generally inactive lifestyle is the sympton of an underlying disorder or the cause.

4. Not only can we not move back in time, we can't move forward in time. I'm not sure how this matters to me.

5. Poems don't rhyme these days. They just don't.

...?

Flying solo, people I don't recognise recognise me, feels weird, know more faces, still flying solo.

Contradictions

Like most other lives, I live mine in contradiction. I try to save paper by writing on both sides and by squeezing scribblings on the margins when both sides have been used; but I waste paper needlessly when I refuse to type out drafts on the computer, preferring instead to hand-write then type, I waste paper needlessly when I use a pen to write the simplest of notes, I waste paper needlessly when I insist on printing out stuff that I would want to read.

Is there a way to reconcile these divergent practices? Perhaps. Perhaps I can say that I work better when writing in pen, and writing drafts out on paper. But I'm not sure if that's really true, because I don't write non-fiction out on paper before I type them, and I'm not particularly uncomfortable with that arrangement. Perhaps, then, I can say I work better when writing fiction in pen and paper before typing it out. But I don't think I can say that for sure; it seems more like a matter of adaptation or the lack thereof that is stopping me from writing fiction pieces on the computer without writing them on pen and paper first. Same goes for reading heavy stuff on the computer. If I would just make the step of changing my habits perhaps I would be advocating reading stuffs on screen instead of printing them next time.

The other problem with such a defense is that it also justifies a lot of environmentally-destructive practices. If I can defend my practice of writing with pen and paper because I feel I can do work better this way, then so can the compulsive shoe-hoarder say that he owns 50 pairs of shoes because he feels he works better that way. We don't usually buy such a reason, so I don't think I can defend my practice of writing with pen and paper that way. Ultimately this means I can't reconcile my divergent practices.

Here's another example. Earlier on I was having dinner at Subway. A person was doing some homework there, occupying 1 seat when she hadn't ordered anything, and the eatery was crowded. I mentally chided her for being so inconsiderate. When I finished my meal, I didn't clear my tray even though this was explicitly requested on a sign. I didn't mentally chide myself for being inconsiderate. In fact, I felt quite happy about it.

Now, my defense for this would be to say that this is a contradiction only if one is under the assumption that we must adhere to the moral standards we peg others to. In other words, that we must always practice what we preach. What we have to ask ourselves is: is there really a problem when someone does not practice what he preaches? To me, there is no problem if one adopts a deflationary account of morality. That is, if one believes that all there is to morality is a web of sentiments, then there is no problem with telling others to do one thing and you doing another.

And that's how I would deal with the 2nd contradiction: by rejecting that it is a contradiction in the first place. It is not a contradiction, nor even an irony, to scold someone (mentally or otherwise) for being inconsiderate, while committing an inconsiderate act at the same time. That I want to scold that person for occupying a seat which others have more of a right to, is simply an expression of my socialised feeling of repulsiveness when someone does not act in a considerate manner; when it comes to clearing my tray, the feeling of inconvenience outweighs any feeling for civility, and so I do not clear my tray. This act is consistent with chiding someone else for acting in an inconsiderate manner.

I have a friend who likes to sit cross-legged in cinemas and lectures. I sometimes tell her this practice is not very appropriate. She pointed out that I sometimes tie my shoes while planting my soles on places meant for sitting. Now, I am able to get out of this apparent contradiction by using the same reasoning as above. But the downside with that is I now lack the moral persuasion to convince her not to sit cross-legged in cinemas and lectures, for what she can tell me is: your moral sentiment does not concern me at all, I have no reason to change my habit. Of course, the upside is she has no argumentative power to stop me from planting my shoes on seats while tying my shoes. A fair trade? Perhaps. But that's not my point.

My point is that under a paradigm where morality is deflated to a Humean size, most if not all moral inconsistencies can be resolved. Let's look at the first case again. On the one hand, I want to save trees, and I do that by keeping pieces of paper that have been used on both sides as rough paper. On the other, I have habits that dispense paper quite unnecessarily. Perhaps my want to save trees is merely a rough sentiment, a sentiment that gets outweighed by sentiments of comfort and tradition at times. I will save trees where I can; but the moment feelings of inconvenience or discomfort outweigh this desire, I will act in a manner that is most comfortable to me. Is this a betrayal of morality? No. I would think this is morality.

The last season of Prison Break is going from mediocre to terrible. The injection of the brothers' mum, the many twists and turns being introduced to keep the excitement going, urgh. I think they should have ended things in season 3, and I think the idea of The Company is the main flaw in the series. The 9pm channel 8 drama showing now is quite enjoyable, the interaction between the characters seem quite fluid. It's hyperbolic, yes, but somehow I still find the characters very realistic.

Tribute

Michael Jackson hype getting annoying. Hope it'll be over before I say something disrespectful.