The first part of this series can be found here.
The second part of this series can be found here.
We Should Change How We View Drugs and Sport
As I’ve mentioned before, the question of drugs legalization is rather superficial, and only the symptom of a much bigger problem: how our unhealthy obsession over sport is creating an “arms race” that is quickly devaluing any sort of good that sport could theoretically provide. With that in mind, let’s take another look into the question of performance enhancement.
We began by talking about roles models; Dope-free elite sport could provide a good service to society through the inspiring performances of its wholesome, hard working, courageous role models.
As such, doping, besides being a health hazard, sends the wrong messages to young people. Doping openly vandalizes the image of sport. It tells little Sally that if she wants to be just like the sports stars framed on her wall, that if she wants to play just like the man whose moves she imitates every day in the park, she’ll have to take drugs. The anti-dope activist sees athletes as individuals having climbed the echelons of sport from their youth to the world scene. It would seem unfair for them to get to freely transgress the ideals they relied upon during (or at least at the very beginning of) their ascension; ideals which, by throwing out the window, become ineffective in convincing future generations to embark in a similar process
Legalized doping presents a dilemma for athletes as well. As former cycling pro Jonathan Vaughters put it, such reform puts the athlete in an impossible position: dope, or abandon the sport.. Vaughters, in a Freakonomics blog, also notes that drugs would deepen the divide between haves and have-nots. For instance, pro cyclist Jorg Jaksche paid 37,000 Euros in one year for a medical program.
But I see a problem in that logic – the same problem I have with the doping question itself. In the way we treat steroids and other banned substances, it’s as if we were saying: “Hey, everything else about sport is in great shape, now if only we could rid ourselves or those pesky little doping cheaters who are screwing things up”.
Here’s what I mean: If not for those medical bills, would cycling be cheap and accessible? Surely a Trek Madone 6.9 (typical road bike), at a mere $9000, is accessible to just about everyone? Obviously not.
Let’s face it. Because of our increasing reliance on science and technology (among other things), the divide between haves and have-nots is already well established. Most sporting disciplines, which are supposed to be universal and celebrate fairness and yadayadayada, are already accessible only to the rich, which explains why watching Ghana beat the USA in football can be pretty refreshing, and why the Jamaican bobsleigh team was such a great story. The best athletes often come from the countries that invest the most in their infrastructures (see “incentive structure” in Part II, eg. Australia). In sport, money buys success, and then success buys more money. Would allowing for doping really disrupt that much a status quo that already advantages the richer athletes?
In reference to legalization, Jonathan Vaughters states, “Whenever you draw the line, something, some technique or substance, will always be off-limits. So you’ve merely moved the line, not erased it.” Damn you, arms race.
There will indeed always be a line to cross. But this new “line” can be drawn in many different configurations. Do we want a line that continues to say, “those who use drugs are screwing up sport and should be ostracized”, or a different kind of line that says, “hey young mother, father, teacher, coach, let’s look for role models that are making the world a better place instead of throwing cracker jacks at our television when we find out Barry Bond is juicing?” The problem of doping isn’t just about doping. It’s about what sport has become; what we have let it become, versus what we want it to be.
I haven’t really answered the question of whether doping should be legal or not. As H. L. Mencken once said, “for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong”. I can harp on for libertarian legalization (which I have been tempted to do) or aggressively defend the spirit of sport (which somehow stopped me from writing more about the former), and still be missing the point. Let’s ask instead a higher order question: whether it’s okay that we’ve propped sport to where it currently rests? Because here’s one pretty accurate prediction: if we are going to hold athletes in such regard and give them so much money, then it is inevitable that they will either cheat or try to find advantages.
Our ever-advancing technology has put us in a better position than ever before to do good in the world. It also means we’re in the best position to do most harm. What if we drew “lines” that really encouraged health and well-being, universal access, fair play and honesty, health, excellence in performance, fun and joy, dedication and commitment, respect for the laws, community and solidarity, courage, and respect for self and other participants…
Sounds impossible, I know. So here’s one step in the right direction. Since it’s little Sally we really have in mind when debating over drugs, how about we let her play sport. Let her surpass herself and reach her goals. Let her develop sound work ethic; support her ambitions. Also let her know that there is more to the world than sport. Develop her love for books; her care for the state of her planet. Nourish her curiosity. Introduce her to role models, whether athletes or neighbors, who are striving as mortals too: like Johann Olav Koss, the late John Wooden, William Kamkwamba, or that woman at the end of your street who fights cerebral palsy by biking to work every day. And tell little Sally how she shouldn’t be too surprised or disappointed when learning about Jason Giambi or Marion Jones. Keep sport within the realm of the healthy. Opt out when it no longer can be. Then maybe in the future, grown up Sally will be better equipped to deal with the dilemmas elite sport offers.
Here’s to hoping that sport, in the future, will reflect its own spirit. Here’s to hoping that the technology it uses (or refuses to resort to) – whether drugs or bicycles – will make sport better, not worse. Here’s to hoping that we take athletes’ performances for what they are – performances – and keep our admiration for people whose lives are examples we’d let our children follow, whether these are athletes, next door neighbors, or both.
Until then, you can find me at the university club, enjoying World Cup festivities. Or on my rusty bicycle, wishing I had $9,000 bucks to spare.
A special thanks to: Anna Ninny Boulos, Reed Doucette, a cross country skier who doesn’t even know I wrote this, and two drunken powerlifters I interrogated last weekend over one too many shots of gin. Their views are not necessarily reflected here, but they have helped me shape mine.
For more from Annick, click some of the fun buttons below…
Past work on FlipCollective.com.
To follow her on Twitter.
