Monday, November 28, 2011

This house would allow doping in sport - opening speeches

First proposing speech
Ladies and Gentlemen, the main values associated with sports in society used to be fairness and clear roles, as well as competition and progress. But when thinking of sporting events in recent times, we clearly have to admit that these values are no longer shared. The objectives of entertainment and business are suppressing them. In this context, the existing prohibition of performance enhancing substances in sports is no longer practical, neither fair, as we will see in the following sections. [...]

By YS

First opposing speech 
Dear sportsmen,

Have you always dreamed of unpredictable health issues, bad influence on your admirers and disrespect from your colleagues?

Then dope! [...]

By ML

First proposing speech
Ladies and Gentlemen, the main values associated with sports in society used to be fairness and clear roles, as well as competition and progress. But when thinking of sporting events in recent times, we clearly have to admit that these values are no longer shared. The objectives of entertainment and business are suppressing them. In this context, the existing prohibition of performance enhancing substances in sports is no longer practical, neither fair, as we will see in the following sections.

Society may be upset by doping scandals, but even more so by the injustice these upcoming practices imply. As Yannick Noah stated in his interview published by Le Monde Magazine in November 2011, sportsmen in different countries are treated in different ways. Whereas the legislation is enforced on French sportsmen, Spanish colleagues seem to escape more easily. The difference between succeeding and failing is to evade detection by the limited range of available testing methods.

In particular, the emerging technology of gene transfer poses a big problem to sports organizations, given that it would be impossible to detect this form of doping. The physical enhancement takes place on a genetical level as DNA is injected into cells in order to stimulate the growth of muscles or oxygen-carrying cells. Though in 2003 the World Anti-Doping Agency prohibited gene doping, it is, now and for the foreseeable future, undetectable. Any legislation is just valueless if its abidance is not controllable. The only possible answer to this is that we should allow performance enhancing substances in sports, in order to restore justice.

These substances would be legal for adult sportsmen under medical surveillance. In order to protect athletes, regulations are more efficient than prohibition.

Some people might hold the opinion that doping makes sport unnatural, but in fact it is simply an illusion to believe that professional sport is any longer natural. We just have to think of athletes taking protein drinks, doing electrical muscle stimulation or using high-tech materials for sports equipment. Natural professional sport does not exist any longer. The explanation is that, whereas some decades ago there was still evolution in athletes’ physical performance, we now seem to be in a period of stagnation in physical development. However society is keen on progress. The greatest evolution being in science and technology, sporting performance is pushed from these fields. Sport nowadays is more about entertainment and business, dependent on television audience and sponsorship. And spectators are keen on progress, on records, on extraordinary feats. They do not want to see stagnating, average performances, but superhuman spectacles. We can compare it with the success of action films and special effects in the movies. Everybody knows that it is unnatural, but it is successful. So, in order to keep business going, we should allow doping in sports.

In terms of ethics, one could ask about the legitimacy of any sports organization to restrict the choices of the athletes to enhance their performances. Sportsmen should have the same right to make this decision on their own as a model has the right to take slimming pills or anti-aging hormones for cosmetic reasons. It is their own responsibility, and professional sportsmen seem perfectly willing to risk their long-term health. For them, their job is about earning money and being successful.

As we have seen, the prohibition of performance enhancing substances is no longer up to date. Firstly, it is completely impossible to detect gene doping. Furthermore, values associated with sport are about to change; and society clamors for records and extraordinary spectacles.
Even more important is the fact that some sportsmen are held to account for doping substances, whereas others manage to escape, which is purely unjust. These athletes, for whom the rules are enforced, cannot compete any longer because the availability of performance enhancing substances gives too great an advantage. Therefore it is obvious that we need common agreements and universal rules. The existing legislation is not practical. In order to guarantee justice in competition, and at the same time, the continuation of sports business, we should allow performance enhancing substances in sports.

YS

First opposing speech

Dear sportsmen,

Have you always dreamed of unpredictable health issues, bad influence on your admirers and disrespect from your colleagues?

Then dope!
 
I’d like to start by some definitions: By sports we mean every athletic competition where you can directly or indirectly earn money. The first means prizes that can be won in the competition whereas the latter refers to the fact that many teams or sports associations pay prize money to their members. Doping means all measures banned by the WADA. The question is whether to legalize it, of course without encouragement and on one’s own risk. All governments worldwide should impose the WADA regulations. Therefore a UN resolution shall be adopted. We propose an independent control agency to ensure an adequate update process of the regulations.

The main problem of regulation is to keep up with new doping methods and performance enhancing drugs. The WADA is capable of overcoming this problem. As an example, they established a partnership with the pharmaceutical company Roche. This ensured that the WADA had a testing method to detect CERA, a kind of EPO drug that had been believed to be undetectable by many athletes. As a result, during the following Tour de France, doped athletes were identified and disqualified.

Firstly, doping comes with bad side effects on health. They are usually unexplored when a performance enhancing drug enters the market. The mere fact that many sportsmen want to be the first to profit of new performance enhancing drugs gives rise to the use of premature products. Clinical studies certainly give many insights, but in fact the bad effects that emerge on the long run can’t be fully assessed during the tests. In eastern Germany before 1990, doping was used on a very large scale. There are many reported cases where former athletes have handicapped children. Their number is by far higher than the average.

Secondly, the permission of doping techniques will cause great controversy among sportsmen. While some might accept all the drawbacks in exchange for superior performance, they will lose the respect of their colleagues and their fans. This is simply due to the fact that the main idea of competitive sport is to compare one’s skill with others’.

Undoubtedly, doping is an easier way to win than hard work. Although working hard for one’s success might of course be painful in the first place, it increases one’s self-respect and the respect of others in what one does. As Muhammad Ali put it: “I hated every minute of training, but I said, ‘Don't quit. Suffer now and live the rest of your life as a champion.’ “
Allowing for doping in sports would lead to the fact that races are no longer won on the race track, but in the research laboratories of pharmaceutical companies. This shift would lead to an increased impact of money. Sportsman would have to invest more and more of their hard-earned (?) money to afford state-of-the-art doping. Then, the prize money goes straight back to the pharmaceutical companies in exchange for their winning pills.

Finally, doping in professional sport would certainly encourage admirers to do like their heroes. This is dangerous because Average Joe and Jane can’t assess the influences performance enhancing drugs might have on them. One could certainly introduce compulsory checks by doctors, but then they take more than the same risk as professional sportsmen. Two problems emerge: One is that Average Jane and Joe won’t be monitored as well as professionals. The other one is that their doctors will have less expertise than Dr Fuentes and his colleagues.

ML

12 comments:

  1. This debate already is promising.
    I'd like to point out to the opposing team that doping is already widespreadly used, do not lose sight of that and fall into a utopic debate.
    Moreover, what do you think of the fact that spending less time trying to hide these drugs, pharmaceutical companies could focus on making them less health-damaging.

    looking foreward to seeing what you will write

    JM

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the first proposer was not very clear on wether or not you would allow (or even promote) gene doping. If so, you might be crossing quite a number of ethical red lines and open a door leading to potential eugenics : if famous athletes can change their genes, why not Mr Average ?

    On the other hand, when the opposer writes that if doping is allowed competitions will not be won on the field anymore but rather in the doping laboratories, I think you overlook the fact that if everyone gets the same products, then only physical abilities can make the difference (as everyone has seen their performance enhanced on the same proportion).

    GL

    ReplyDelete
  3. Opposers define doping as the use of a WADA forbidden substance. However, what does lead this agency's choices ? For example, coffee is allowed since 2004. Alcohol is allowed in some sports.

    Any ethical argument should back up on a more strong definition of doping. Truthfully, I do not know, on an ethical ground, whether taking coffee is worse of better than taking amphetamins...

    GM

    ReplyDelete
  4. @ First opp debater

    I don't see the force of your first argument: doping has bad health side effects. So do many activities that we don't ban (smoking, binge drinking, reading Le Figaro, etc.) Even the excessive practice of sport itself: how many ex-athletes, rugby players, sumo-wrestlers, boxers, motor cyclists, etc. live long healthy lives after hanging up their boots (or whatever it is sumo-wrestlers hang up)? Isn't the logic of your argument that we should therefore ban all professional sports which celebrate "going beyond one's limits", as such limits exist precisely to protect the healthy functioning of the mechanism?

    ReplyDelete
  5. @ First prop debater

    You say that sport today is about entertainment and business, and consumers demand spectacle and records, but it doesn't follow that we should therefore allow doping. Just because an activity is lucrative and even popular doesn't mean it shouldn't be regulated, or even prohibited if society judges it has negative social consequences or promotes bad values (as the expression "bread and circuses" cited by the moderator implies).

    ReplyDelete
  6. @First Proposer

    People still enjoy the sports because sports represent a Ideal of Justice and fairness, as you said. Despite the rumors, people still get attach to these ideals. It's an entertainment, like a movie, it doesn't have to be real. You have to believe in it.

    Now, How can these same supporters be attached to sports when you know that athletes' physical abilities rely on a doping? It will become the end of the entertainment: People won't trust anymore on these ideals because the lie has been revealed.

    HT

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ HT

    As you perfectly put it yourself, the values of justice and fairness in sports, some people still want to believe in, are purely based on a lie. So, confessing the fact that a prohibition of doping is impracticable because just not enforceable has to lead to the allowance of doping. This is the only possibility to give back the same right to every sportsman and at the same time to reestablish the values of fairness and honesty in sports.

    Besides, people who still believe in sports without doping just bury their head in the sand. And if spectators support sportsmen lying and doping illegally, they also will support them doping legally. Therefore, the fact of allowing doping would surely not be the end of sports business.

    So, where is the point in sticking to this lie any longer?

    YS

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ GL

    If the technology of gene transfer is available, why should it not be available for society? Yes also for Mr. Average!

    Gene therapy is already tested and very likely to be used in the future for medical treatment as for the treatment of inherited blindness to improve sight or by injecting tumor suppressing genes to treat cancer, just to give two possible applications. It will be the duty of science to give access to this new technology in order not to leave people suffering but to cure them.

    I don’t see why Mr. Average should want to dope if he is not a professional sportsman and has to earn his living by it, but in the end, everybody should be responsible for his own decisions!

    YS

    ReplyDelete
  9. @ YS

    The point I wanted to focus on is that sports, as entertainment, is a lure for spectators, as you said. But the most important point of this lure is that it has this capability of propagating ideals. For example, you can see lots of people playing football in the streets, the playground,... but World Cup has this very special of peace between nation.

    If this lure is revealed, or in other words if we legalize doping, nobody will trust to these ideals. Athletes maybe be fair with each other, but they wouldn't be honest with their fan, because they wouldn't show their own physical abilities.

    HT

    ReplyDelete
  10. @GL and Opposer

    " I think you overlook the fact that if everyone gets the same products, then only physical abilities can make the difference (as everyone has seen their performance enhanced on the same proportion). "

    How would the legalisation guarantee that everybody gets the same products?

    This assertion makes no sense as all sportsmen would not be using the exact same drug at the exact same scale ! As long as there will be competition between sportsmen, there will be competition among pharmaceutical companies as the laws of supply and demand imply.

    VB

    ReplyDelete
  11. @ First Opp

    The side-effects of doping don't restrict themselves to handicapped offspring but extend to premature death.
    Take Flow Jo. She's the athlete who has been holding the women's 100m record for over 30 years (whereas the men's record is beaten every 5 years or so). She passed away in her early thirties.
    Same goes for Marco Pantani, an Italian cyclist famous for his victories in montain races of the Tour de France. Died in his thirties.

    @ YS

    Doping in amateur sports does exist and Mr Average may be further inclined into taking performance enhancing drugs if legalised. Money is not the only motivation in excelling in sports, ego can take you a long way, and through the doping box.

    MD

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ VB and anyone else following the conversation

    "How would the legalisation guarantee that everybody gets the same products?"

    Everybody doesn't have the same coach, the same training program, the same foot diet... Each sportsman has to select all the elements that are best for him.
    If doping substances are legalised, these products could become just another key factor of success, alongside a good coach and good training methods, that you would have to select with care to enhance performance.

    However, if you were thinking about financial issues, i get your point: richer sportsmen get better products, and therefore even better results, and win more money and this goes on and on.

    PC

    ReplyDelete