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?