There’s been a lot of talk about how fair the Olympics were.
While you’ve probably heard of the new high-tech swimsuits, you may not have heard of some athletes’ use of another performance aid: beta-blockers. Beta blockers are a legal drug that mutes some of the sympathetic nervous system—such as adrenaline—and are widely used to treat high blood pressure and heart aryhythmia. They are generally safe and effective, and are widely and legally used by classical musicians to ensure quality performances. Basically, they temporarily block the things that make you so nervous that your hands shake. Preventing this is very important in some sports, such as archery and pistol shooting, where slight shaking can ruin your performance. At the recent Olympics, two North Korean pistol shooters tested positive for beta blockers, which are banned from this competition. Shooters are allowed to use, however, specialized clothing such as blinders and stiff shooting jackets to minimize movement.
What is the effect of all these technologies on our sense of fairness, and the spirit of competition? In a recent article in The Atlantic, Carl Elliot, argues that the use of beta blockers in Olympic sports would actually make them more fair because “there is another way to see beta blockers—not as improving someone’s skills, but as preventing the effects of anxiety from interfering with their skills.” What ther areas could these drugs be used for positive effect? What about politicians preparing to give speeches? What about a neurosurgeon preparing to operate? If we accept them in these situations, why not in olympic competition? What types of performance enahncers are acceptable in human activities, either in competitive sports or elsewhere? When does unequal access to technology become unacceptable?
Posts
2 comments:
I'm thinking that those who go without the technology will find it most unacceptable, as it is not merely a question of whether the technology is fair or acceptable, but who has access. Obviously, well-funded countries and athletes will surpass those from teams who don't have access to such technologies. but taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean that training facilities and other things that athletes from wealthy countries enjoy are already amking the olympics unfair. I've heard that one of the swimmmers competing in theolympics di not even have a pool to practice in, but instead swam in natural bodies of water. But I don't see . Perhaps if these technologies are going to be accpetable parts of olympic competition, they should be available to all, or be used only when a handicap is applied to those who use them.
So this is my second freewrite on this in the news segment, and one thing that struck me about the first class' responses was that Bhurdy has an interesting startegy for writing about the topic. He said he tried to write about how the athletes would feel about this topic. So, instead of focusing on what he thought (which, in the case of a topic you don't know much about, is unlikely to be clear), he focused on exploring what other people who were already in this situation would feel. this type of guessing about what other people think on a topic is exactly the type of thinking that writers engage in--trying to imagine how an audience will respond to something.
Knowing one's audience (or in an argument, one's opponents) is key to effective writing. how can one write refutation of another's argument if you don't know what tehy're going to say. If you can anticipate the counter-arguments of someone else, you can be prepared to disarm them. so, Bhurdy's strategy is a good one, and shows that writing need not always be about expressing oneself, but about understanding the social discussion about a topic. Your own position on the topic can develop better, perhaps, once one has identified where others stand.
Post a Comment