Slightly OT: Ethics of Sports Doping
I am in an Ethics class this semester, and I have a project next Thursday on the Ethics of Sports Doping. I must present both sides of the argument. Therefore, I open a discussion for the Pros & Cons on Sports Doping. Also, I understand what went on with the Mitchell Report, but I don't feel like I have an apt way of describing how badly the players got raked over the coals, or why they were treated so roughly (if they were) with the witch hunt. Scanning for stories on the net, I don't think I can find one that sums up what happened in its entirety. Anyone want to try to give a summation on the ins and outs of how the Mitchell Report went down?
4 months ago
PhattStairs
41 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
In an ethics class, I'm not sure if you can use shame, or if you need some philosophical justification
But in the real world, I think that’s what works best. In sports, if you’re trying to keep a secret what you’re doing to gain an edge, you’re probably cheating.
We are required to submit the background first...and I believe the Mitchell Report...
is the foreground on why this is such an ethical issue…because the players were treated unethically (even if they were cheaters)
I am the one who knocks.
Why were the players treated unethically?
because the list leaked out?
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
yes...
they were granted “amnesty” and anonymity and then ousted
I am the one who knocks.
by PhattStairs on Jan 26, 2012 10:19 AM EST up reply actions
now that I just wikipediad the Mitchell report instead of looking at individual articles...
I see a nice summation on why it was so wrong
I am the one who knocks.
by PhattStairs on Jan 26, 2012 10:20 AM EST up reply actions
Were any punishments made because of the Mitchell report or were they just outed publicly?
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Who was promised anonymity that didn't receive it?
Are you saying that Mitchell (or his investigators) lied to the players or MLBPA?
No...
I am saying the tests pre Mitchell were promised in anonymity and the ceased and revealed.
I am the one who knocks.
So there's no problem with the Mitchell report, right?
My understanding is that the allegation that the players were wronged basically boils down to whether MLB should have destroyed the test results after the 2003 season, right? MLB said that they’d keep the test results confidential, but MLB didn’t have any legal right to refuse to produce the results in response to the subpoena from the feds unless the test results had already been destroyed.
I’m plenty willing to believe that Selig is not a man of his word, but I’d like to hear how else the players were wronged.
so far I got:
PROS
• May be healthy for user
• Can make user’s family millions of dollars
• Makes user better at job
• Testing is an invasion of privacy
• Testing – false positives
• If something makes the user bigger/stronger/faster, or even leaner or less overweight, it should be considered a supplement and not a drug
• Side effects hugely overblown
• Unfairness of the doping policies- player can dope in a legal country and then play in a country where it is illegal
• Should adults be governed by what they can or can not ingest?
• Making legal would create huge amounts of business
• Can make user physically attractive
• Witch hunts of users costs taxpayer money
CONS
• May be unhealthy long-term
• Athletes can be role models and influence youths decisions to dope at a young age
• Swimsuit models may be "artificially" improving their image, thus making their body unattainable for average people or people who refuse to sports dope which can create image and psychological problems
• Fair play – all athletes should have a level playing field
• Safety – bigger stronger players create safety hazards
• May cause psychological issues (roid rage)
• Can deform user
I am the one who knocks.
I don't really get the context here
These are just games played for people’s amusement. The overwhelming perception among people who run sports organizations is that a sense of fair play is important to sustain the public’s interest in the sports.
It would be one thing if we were talking about drug testing in high school sports or rec leagues. In those cases, the players’ rights would be the principle concern. But in big-dollar professional sports, the interests of the fans – the people who pay everyone’s salaries – have to be weighed extremely heavily. If a professional sports organization thinks that “cleaning up” it’s game (whether that means cracking down on drugs or participants gambling or questionable tactics) will bring in more fans or is necessary to prevent a loss of fans, I can’t really see the grounds on which the players could object.
If the fans want to see players hurt
Posted too soon
I was going to say that the fans interests arn’t always paramount (if they want to see players hurt, players have grounds to object) but if they want to see drug-free players, I don’t really see the grounds on which the players could object.
Now, that doesn’t mean the Mitchell Report (which was retrospective) was fair, but to the extent the debate is about drug testing going forward, I don’t see how the players can have a principled objection. The same is true if the leagues wanted to ban supplements or eyeglasses or any other thing that we don’t generally have an objection to now. If public opinion shifts on supplements, the players will just have to figure out how to do without.
the counter would be that there are paying fans...
that just want to see insane athletes and therefore that would be pro doping
I am the one who knocks.
But there are enough paying fans that don't want to see that.
The game is entertaining enough without video game numbers, isn’t it?
But the league perceives that fans want the game "clean"
Baseball in particular seems to be very sensitive to its perception of what fans want.
Given the anti trust exemption baseball has, we can’t really let the market decide, but I don’t think there’s any question that the owners felt pressure to get tough on drugs.
Good list
I’d also add the Chewbacca defense. Chewbacca was a wookie on the Moon of Endor. Why would an eight foot wookie want to live with a bunch of two foot Ewoks? That does not make sense. But more importantly, what does that have to do with sports doping? Nothing. It does not make sense. None of this makes any sense. Doping in sports does not make sense. So you must ask yourself, if Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must find doping in sports illegal.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
I can see Ethics isn't a fan favorite...
I might have a rough go when I start using scientific evidence that people should be allowed to donate a kidney
I am the one who knocks.
I'm curious on the invasion of privacy when the player signs a contract.
Especially when all players in MiLB have been getting tested before MLB tested. If privacy is that big of a concern, the player has the option of not signing the contract.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
this is just a general human code thing for me...
not pertaining necessarily to baseball…
for example…testing high school students
I am the one who knocks.
by PhattStairs on Jan 26, 2012 10:21 AM EST up reply actions
So you'd also be against testing HS athletes?
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
I don't think so
That’s like saying “well, employees should be allowed to work in super hazardous conditions because well, if they don’t like it, they don’t have to work here.” Its especially worse when its a monopolistic industry like baseball. Its not like Mike Aviles’ skill set really lends him to work for the competitor because he doesn’t like MLB’s privacy practices.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 26, 2012 11:09 AM EST up reply actions
Testing guys for PEDS =/= forced to work in super hazardous conditions.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Okay
If you work here, we have the right to go through your private cell phone.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
by RoyalsRetro on Jan 26, 2012 11:38 AM EST up reply actions
Does my private cell phone have a direct influence on my performance?
And does my the use of my private cell phone violate the law of the US? Or does the use of my private cell phone give me a possible advantage over the other employees for our company and the other companies underneath our corporate umbrella? If my private cell phone usage does all of those things, then an employer probably should go through my phone.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Your health affects your job performance
Number of sick days = lost productivity. Should your employer have access to your medical records?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Society has every right to create protections for employees
We have obvious interest in ensuring that employers can not discriminate on the basis of:
- gender
- race
- ethnicity
Only somewhat more controversially, we often prohibit or limit employers from discriminating on the basis of: - age
- health status
- sexual orientation
- whistle-blowing
A big part of enforcing these protections is making sure that employers can’t access the information.
However, outside of certain carve outs, we generally give employers relatively wide latitude in what information they can obtain and use in employment decisions. Employers can and do get people’s credit scores as a part of hiring decisions. I think that there’s a fair debate over what your credit has to do with your work product and whether they should be allowed to get your credit report.
But the idea that there’s an inherent right against your employer checking you for drugs that directly affect your work performance? I’m not seeing it.
I think the actual effect of such access is precisely the opposite of what you imply it would be: it will enable all kinds of ethical and legal abuses. Beware of the remedy you espouse.
Yes. Ethical issues have lots of unintended consequences. I am merely role playing.
I am the one who knocks.
What are the ethics...
Concerning asking a random group of royals fans/strangers to do your research for you?
I kid I kid.
I myself have no problem with pre-testing doping because I’ve never come across a good prescriptive definition of PEDs. Post-testing the issue is much clearer. X drug is against the rules of baseball and thus unethical.
by billexgordler on Jan 25, 2012 7:36 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I figure everyone has an opinion on the matter...
and would like to share it…
I scoured a couple of other fanposts on here and didn’t really find what I needed
I am the one who knocks.
I would start first with drawing up the ethics of the argument with a "gray Line"
or a “line in the sand” idea. This would be what you feel is over the line. If you start off with HGH is bad, but Platlet Rich Plasma (PRP) is fine for healing a sports injury, it should be easy to argue. Now I’m not saying either is right or wrong, but…
-Is it really bad to be injected with something that is from your own body like PRP to speed up the healing process?
-If not, then why should it is worse if it’s someone else’s PRP?
-Everybody has a little HGH in their system, what if we just used a little to repair an injury?
-What if that “injury” is just a little soreness from lifting weights?
-Also throw in a little about erythropoietin in there to for the cycling enthusiasts just to make it interesting
I know for sure that there are a ton of articles about blood doping, and there is also a ton of NFL (HInes Ward), NBA, MLB (Cliff Lee) and others that have used PRP. HGH will be the easiest I’m sure. Good luck, it’s really an interesting topic. Is this a Med-Ethics course or just an interesting topic for you?
by A Study in Blue on Jan 25, 2012 10:38 PM EST reply actions
Focus on technology and modern medicine.
The teacher has like 4 degrees and is posh. I am just looking to fill a requirement. I thought it would be good to get a pulse on modern ethics, but it’s more of a discussion…of which I had enough of in my previous stint at college (drunken philosophical arguments).
I am the one who knocks.
by PhattStairs on Jan 26, 2012 12:23 AM EST up reply actions
Along with the line in the sand, how about cortisone?
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
The problem is that this tactic is pretty equally effective against any prohibition
Life is lived in grays but rules have to be black and white. Pointing out that there’s no point along the grayscale spectrum where the color changes from white to black doesn’t change the fact that one end is white and one end is black and if we have to draw the line somewhere, there’s going to be gray on either side.
Who are the players responsible to?
Their teams? the sport? the fans? society as a whole? themselves? their religion/faith?
All these different influences were demanding a lot of things from these players, and somethings those demands were mutually exclusive.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
