1
Introduction
The birth of philosophy of sport as its own distinct discipline traces back to 1972 when the
Philosophical Society for the Study of Sport (PSSS) first came into being. In 1999, the
metamorphosis of PSSS into the International Association for Philosophy of Sport (IAPS)
established an advancement landmark in sport philosophy scholarship. Visionaries like
Warren Fraleigh and Paul Weiss played key roles in the PSSS’s founding, with Weiss serving
as its first president. The publication of ‘Sport: A Philosophic Inquiry’ by Weiss in 1969 was
a pioneering step that propelled this discipline into an intellectually rich area recognized
globally. The early days of the philosophy of sport tended to focus more on analyzing
fundamental concepts like ‘play’, ‘game’, or ‘sport’ itself, as philosopher Mike McNamee
(2007) notes. There were some exceptions though, like Kretchmar's (1975) examination into
test-contest relationships, which gained well-deserved attention. Another big debate back
then centered on the nature of games, with Bernard Suits (1967, 1978) challenging
Wittgenstein's claim that games only share family resemblances.
As the scholarship in the field grew more complex, applied ethics started taking the center
stage. Fraleigh's 1984 publication ‘Right Actions in Sport’ describing duties for athletic
competitors and coaches was hugely influential, reflecting a deontological focus of the times.
After the popularity of MacIntyre's (1981) work ‘After Virtue’, scholars including Schneider
and Butcher (1993) and Loland (2002a) among others increasingly viewed sport as social
practices, transitioning away from deontological approaches towards more virtue-based ones.
The use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs) in competitions has been one of the main
2
ethical issues raised in sports philosophy chats. Brown's 1984 article, the works by Simon
(1984) and Lavin (1987), documented some early PED debates. Brown (1984) argued
restricting informed athlete decisions based on factors like harm wasn’t morally justifiable,
concluding there's no good reason to limit athletes' drug use. Simon (1984) disagreed,
arguing that doping undermines the integrity of sports contests. Lavin (1987) argued that
doping is coercive and should be prohibited. We can oppose both Brown's libertarian stance
and Simon's idealism yet still find drug use in sports objectionable. Conversations have
evolved significantly over time amid new research, ethical debates and technological
advances. The evolution of biomedical and pharmaceutical technologies and the increased
emphasis on sports science, spotlight ethical considerations of doping within sports ethics
discourses. Performance enhancement has been central to rich interdisciplinary exchanges,
sparking debates on ethics, ontology, paternalism, coercion, fairness, autonomy and authority
structures in competitive sports. Seminal works by leading scholars like Brown (1984),
Simon (1984), Lavin (1987), Fraleigh (1984), Kretchmar (1975), Weiss (1969) and Suits
(1967, 1978) offer valuable insights here. These pioneering sports philosophers inspire
today's scholars wrestling with persistent ethical issues in sports.
In the scholarship on technology in sport, its roles and ethics, specifically beyond doping
(Biomedical and pharmaceutical enhancement) issues, several scholars have attempted to
critically examine issues and controversies that occurred overtime. Loland (2002b; 2009),
Miah (2005 & 2007) among others attempted to conceptualize the relationship between
technology and sport. Most scholarship on the issues of technology in sport seem to have
behaved in a reactive manner to contemporary issues that rose over the past decades. The
introduction of controversial technologies in sport like depth finder in fishing, spaghetti
3
sprung rackets in tennis, the U-groove golf club in golf, the full body polyurethane swimsuits
in swimming, and the Nike-Vapor Fly shoes in running, have all generated critical
scholarship on the effects of technologies in sport (Hummel & Foster 1986; Gardner, 1989;
Sheridan, 2006; Savulescu, 2006; Foster et al., 2012; Dyer, 2020). Yet, to this day there are
limited scholarship-based frameworks that study the relationship, ethical permissibility and
integration of emerging technologies in sport. With the rapid rate at which technology is
being developed and implemented in sport over the past decade, the existence of a
framework to evaluate the permissibility of technologies before their adoption into sport has
never been more valuable.
Table 1.1: Examples of emerging technologies over the past decade in sport (beyond
doping)
Type of Technology
Brief Description
Potential Ethical
Concerns
Citations
Artificial
Intelligence,
Machine Learning &
Deep Learning
Utilized in sport for
automated detection of sport
movements, calculating
goal-scoring probabilities and
detecting match phenomena.
Privacy concerns, bias
in AI training data,
over-reliance on
technology, unfair
competitive advantage,
accessibility
Cust et al., 2019; Pavitt
et al., 2021; Loquercio et
al., 2020; Ramkumar et
al., 2022; Aroganam et
al., 2019; Anzer & Bauer,
2021; Schlembach et al.,
2022
Biometric
Technologies,
Nanobiosensors,
Wearable
Technologies &
Sensors
Used for assessing athlete’s
performance, preventing
injuries, biomechanics
research, and monitoring
fatigue levels.
Privacy and data
security, informed
consent, unequal access,
fairness in competition
Adesida et al., 2019;
Aroganam et al., 2019;
2020; Owen, King &
Lamb, 2015; Taborri et
al., 2020; Karkazis,
Fishman, 2017; Evans,
McNamee, Guy, 2017
Global Positioning
Systems (GPS)
For tracking and monitoring
of team sports performance
and strategy.
Privacy concerns,
unauthorized
surveillance, fairness in
use, accessibility
Cummins et al., 2013
Virtual Reality (VR),
Virtual
Environments (VEs)
Used to enhance spectator
experience and for team
sports training, and to
improve sensorimotor skills
in ball sports.
Potential misuse, cyber
sickness, digital divide,
fairness, accessibility
Kim & Ko, 2019; Faure
et al., 2020; Nor et al.,
2020; Miles et al., 2012
4
Video Assistant
Referee (VAR)
technology
Used in soccer for making
more accurate rule-based
decisions.
Impact on referee
decision-making,
over-reliance on
technology, fairness in
use, accessibility
Tamir & Bar-Eli, 2021;
Oliveira et al., 2023;
Zglinski, 2022;
Errekagorri et al., 2020;
Spitz et al., 2021;
Petersen-Wagner &
Ludvigsen ,2022; Samuel
et al., 2020
Motion-Based Video
Games
Helps in improving motor
skills.
Gaming addiction,
physical health risks,
fairness, accessibility
Jenny et al., 2017
Streaming Services
Have transformed sports
broadcasting in a process
termed as “Netflix-ication".
Inequality in access,
online piracy, fairness in
access, accessibility
Lindholm, 2019
Social Media
Platforms
Major tools for professional
sports leagues to
communicate and engage
with their fans.
Privacy,
misinformation,
cyberbullying, fairness,
accessibility
Trivedi, Soni & Kishore,
2020
Heart Rate
Variability
Biofeedback
Training
Employed to enhance sports
performance in athletes.
Privacy, data security,
fairness in use,
accessibility
Jiménez Morgan, Mora,
Molina Mora, 2017
Assistive Technology
Devices
Particularly crucial for
disabled individuals.
Accessibility,
affordability, fairness in
access
Cooper and Cooper,
2019;
Protective
Equipment, e.g.,
Headgear
For ensuring safety of
athletes.
Unintended
consequences
Tjønndal, Haudenhuyse,
de Geus & Buyse, 2021
Nike's Vaporfly and
Alphafly Running
Shoes
Controversial technology that
may significantly influence
long-distance running
performance.
Performance
enhancement, unfair
advantage, accessibility
Dyer, 2020;
Rodrigo-Carranza et al.,
2021
Objectives and methodology
This research aimed to create an ethical framework for evaluating the integration of emerging
technologies in Olympic sports. Accomplishing this challenge was done through engagement
with comprehensive works in philosophy of sport, applied ethics and philosophy of
technology in order to develop an accessible, principled, and orderly approach for
technological incorporation in Olympic sports. In Chapter 1, a philosophical literature review
was conducted, critically examining conceptual frameworks regulating performance
5
enhancement technologies in Olympic sport. Anti-doping policy in its current form under the
World Anti-doping Agency (WADA) or before 1999 under the IOC’s umbrellas, has long
been the only universal technological regulatory policy in the Olympic arena. Instead of
starting from rudimentary analysis of the value and permissibility of technology (will be
covered in chapter 3), analyzing anti-doping policy as a starting point gave a head start in the
journey to achieve the main goal of this dissertation. The overarching goal of Chapter 1, is
learning lessons from this enduring policy. The main guiding questions in Chapter 1 are: 1)
What is the moral foundation of the anti-doping Policy? And 2) What do the critics say? A
conceptual analysis methodology was adopted using close reading of scholarly perspectives
to reveal limitations in predominant regulatory models like anti-doping policies.
Chapter 2 sets out to establish the philosophical foundations for envisioning an ideal
Olympic contest, building on the limitations identified in Chapter 1, and utilizing conceptual
analysis by engaging with perspectives on concepts such as sportsmanship, fair play, and
Olympism. A philosophical lens elucidated nuances and integrated insights. Drawing a
distinction between sportsmanship and fair play helped clear the conceptual terrain.
Exploring literature on sport as MacIntyrean (1981) practices and The Fundamental
Principles of Olympism provided further grounding. Evaluating varied conceptualizations of
fair play highlighted contextual needs for a situated perspective within the Olympic context.
Adopting Loland's (2002) normative system with interpretive insights from Butcher’s and
Schneider’s (1998) work, enabled a contextual value framework. Comparative analysis of
conditions from different theories brought nuanced coherence to light. The goal in Chapter
3, was to develop an ethical assessment framework for the integration of sports technology.
Using an integrated approach: 1) I delved into the literature on the philosophy of technology;
6
2) I will argued on why Feenberg’s (1991) critical theory offers a good lens for my analysis;
3) I categorized technologies by primary aims; 4) Then applied the Doctrine of Double Effect
to weigh intended benefits against unintended ethical risks. This fused intention-focused and
consequentialist ethics for multifaceted analysis. Abbreviated examples of cases like Video
Assistant Referee (VAR) and testosterone replacement therapy, provided a demonstration of
the evaluatory framework.
In Chapter 4, analyzed a hypothetical AI assistant coach technology called HOTA using the
ethical framework from Chapter 3. I categorized HOTA as a technology intended to improve
performance, then applied the Doctrine of Double Effect to assess intended goods against
unintended harms across the conditions for an ideal Olympic contest developed in Chapter 2.
The demonstration applied the conceptual toolkit to a hypothetical case, demonstrating the
framework efficiency. Chapter 5 presented a second case study to further demonstrate the
efficiency of the framework. I analyzed mRNA protein therapy as a technology with
potential use as a performance improving method. I will categorize mRNA protein therapy as
a technology intended to improve performance, then conducted an intention-focused and
consequentialist evaluation against ideal contest conditions using the Doctrine of Double
Effect.
7
Importance and the contribution of the work
Several key contributions to both the fields of philosophy of sport and sport governance were
made in this thesis. A major gap addressed is the lack of a principled framework guiding
proactive governance beyond reactive bans or vague appeals to "spirit of sport." The analysis
unpacks conceptual limitations in regulatory approaches like anti-doping policies, which rely
more on rhetorical ambiguity versus substantive ethical reasoning (Chapter 1). To construct a
robust foundation, the thesis elucidates nuances between "sportsmanship" and "fair play,"
with the latter encompassing systemic responsibilities among diverse stakeholders, not just
individual conduct (Chapter 2). Synthesizing scholarship on fair play and Olympism grounds
coherent conditions for the ideal Olympic contest, spanning dimensions like safety, equal
opportunity, and justice.
Chapter 3 proposed a novel integrated approach across philosophical fields; a conceptual
analysis of technology from philosophy of technology traditions; an adaptation of these
traditions to sporting context, and the use of applied ethics tools. Feenberg's (1991) critical
theory illuminates how technologies propagate biases, requiring democratizing reforms. A
novel taxonomy categorizes technologies by primary aims. The Doctrine of Double Effect
supplies a practical protocol weighing intended benefits against potential harms when
evaluating technologies (Chapter 3). Fusing intention-focused and consequentialist ethics
enables multifaceted analysis. The framework's efficacy is demonstrated through the analysis
of two case studies. Chapter 4 scrutinizes a hypothetical AI assistant technology called
HOTA under the taxonomy. Despite potential strategic optimization, uncontrolled HOTA
risks profound privacy, fairness and humanistic harms. In Chapter 5, the ethical ambiguities
surrounding mRNA enhancement are analyzed using the proposed framework. These
8
examples further advocate proactive moral vision as opposed to reactionary policy
adjustments.
In essence, this thesis presents a comprehensive strategy for implementable governance of
technology in sports, while upholding fair play. It represents an attempt to provide an avenue
that can help regulators steer away from emotional appeals and reactive judgment, towards
contemplation, empirical verification and participatory inclusion, by creating a transparent
tool - thus protecting fair play principles governing Olympic contests. Drawing from diverse
theoretical disciplines it aims to transcend mere technocratic deliberations or rhetorical
appeals; rather exercising prudence in immersing with the evolving technological landscape,
assuring innovation propels human potential without erasing entrenched sporting values.
Achieving this necessitates fortifying our moral toolkit coupled with a standardized fair and
just mechanism of decision-making; thereby equipping us towards fulfilling the ethical
potential inherent within sports technology judiciously.
9
Chapter 1
The Legacy of Antidoping: The only Universal Olympic Policy
on Technology Regulation1
The historical development of policy frameworks regarding Biomedical and Pharmaceutical
enhancements (a practice commonly referred to as doping) in sports represents a dynamic,
multifaceted, and complex process. Rooted in a philosophical examination of the literature
and policies, this section demonstrates how doping technologies have emerged in response to
shifting ethical viewpoints, scientific advancements, and socioeconomic forces that have
transformed the sports landscape over time. The first attempt to seriously address the doping
phenomenon in sport can be traced back to 1963 when the Council of Europe raised
concerns about its growing prevalence (Kremenik et.al, 2006). The International Olympic
Committee (IOC) responded by voting to ban doping at the Olympic Games a year later,
eventually leading to the publication of the first version of the Prohibited List of Drugs in
1967 (IOC, 2023). This action was largely prompted by tragic incidents like British cyclist
Tommy Simpson's death during the Tour de France in 1967 - an event which attracted
widespread public attention due to its live television broadcast. After discovering
amphetamines as a contributor to his death, more substances were added to the list in
subsequent years, including stimulants, tranquilizers and narcotics (Kremenik et.al, 2006).
The IOC first adopted a philosophically 'wide' definition of doping that could easily cover
not just biomedical and pharmaceutical enhancement, but all forms of technological
enhancements as well. Doping was defined by the IOC's Medical Commission in 1967 as:
1Universal here refers to the policy being applied across all Olympic sports.
10
“The use of substance or techniques in any form or quality alien or unnatural to the
body with an exclusive aim to obtaining an artificial or unfair increase of
performance in competition”
(Kremenik et.al, 2006, p.25).
With time, however, Biomedical and Pharmaceutical advancements demanded updates:
Anabolic Androgenic Steroids (AASs) joined the list in 1974 before the Montreal Olympics.
Subsequent years witnessed even more additions including Human Growth Hormone,
Erythropoietin (EPO), diuretics, blood doping techniques - each reflecting broader
developments of the technology. Dimeo (2016) portrayed early selection criteria for the
Prohibited List (PL) as ambiguous at best, influenced by a “core group of western male
elites” seeking to preserve power through abstract ideas about the essence and ethics of sport.
The subsequent proliferation of doping scandals, from Ben Johnson's case in 1988, East
Germany's state-sponsored program in the 1970s/1980s that was exposed after the fall of the
wall of Berlin involving minors, to the 1998 Festina Scandal has resulted in a public uproar.
In response to growing political pressure, the IOC and world governments collaborated to
form the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) in 1999.
WADA’s Code provided an updated definition of doping to a more ‘legal’ definition, based
on specific rule violations (11-possible violations according to the 2023 version of the Code -
up from 8 in the original Code) as alternative to the older version that carried moral
intonations.
“Doping is defined as the occurrence of one or more of the anti-doping rule
violations set forth in Article 2.1 through Article 2.8 of the Code.”
(WADA, 2003)
11
These included presence or use of a prohibited substance, refusing compliance with testing,
whereabouts discrepancies, tampering with samples, possession, trafficking, and involvement
in prohibited activities among athlete support personnel (WADA, 2003). Drawing from the
UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport (2004), these guidelines have
been widely adopted by more than 183 countries (UNESCO, 2017).
While WADA's formation generated high expectations, rampant doping scandals
demonstrated that significant challenges persisted - from Lance Armstrong publicly
admitting long-term use of banned substances during his Tour de France victories, to
allegations implicating Russia in a state-sponsored doping scheme affecting numerous
Olympic sports (BBC, 2014). Such incidents have spurred calls for rigorous policy
evaluation and alternative approaches within the anti-doping community (Waddington &
Møller, 2019; Kayser, 2018). These insights are essential context for understanding
anti-doping policies' evolution over time as pretext to my philosophical examination of this
type of technology in sport. This subsection will explore factors such as ethical dimensions
rooted in normative internalist perspectives on sport, and shed light on the complex ethical
arguments surrounding Biomedical and Pharmaceutical technologies in sport. This area
merits comprehensive academic inquiry given long history, and being by far, the most
debated and studied type of technology in sport.
What is the Moral foundation of the anti doping Policy?
The philosophical concept of Olympism serves as the foundational principle behind the
current anti-doping policies. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) Code declares that
the fundamental rationale for anti-doping programs is to safeguard the "intrinsic value" of
12
sports, which WADA has characterized as the " Spirit of Sport" (WADA Code, 2021). The
Code delineates this spirit as follows:
“Anti-doping programs are founded on the intrinsic value of sport. This intrinsic
value is often referred to as “the spirit of sport”: the ethical pursuit of human
excellence through the dedicated perfection of each Athlete’s natural talents.
Anti-doping programs seek to protect the health of Athletes and to provide the
opportunity for Athletes to pursue human excellence without the Use of Prohibited
Substances and Prohibited Methods. Anti-doping programs seek to maintain the
integrity of sport in terms of respect for rules, other competitors, fair competition, a
level playing field, and the value of clean sport to the world. The spirit of sport is the
celebration of the human spirit, body and mind. It is the essence of Olympism and is
reflected in the values we find in and through sport, including: • Health • Ethics, fair
play and honesty • Athletes’ rights as set forth in the Code • Excellence in
performance • Character and Education • Fun and joy • Teamwork • Dedication and
commitment • Respect for rules and laws • Respect for self and other Participants •
Courage • Community and solidarity….The spirit of sport is expressed in how we play
true. Doping is fundamentally contrary to the spirit of sport.”
(WADA Code, 2021)
WADA’s restrictive stance on doping aligns with this internalist theory of sport; Sports as
practices that have internal goods of its own that are worth valuing. Adopting this
interpretation leads to prioritizing fundamental virtues within sport alongside human
excellences (Simon, 2000; Russell 2007). This approach recognizes that principles inherent
in sport provide a basis for restricting performance-enhancing substances that conflict with
internal goods. WADA’s conceptualization of the Spirit of Sport is what Butcher and
Schneider (1998) might be called a ‘bag of virtues’ conceptualization of the internal goods of
sport - a method that is often criticized for being inconsistent, as different ethical theories
generate different and often competing sets of virtues. For instance, the WADA Code
emphasizes virtues such as "Ethics, Fair Play, and Honesty," "Excellence in Performance,"
and "Respect for Self and Other Participants." While these are commendable virtues,
different ethical theories could prioritize or interpret these virtues differently. For instance, an
emphasis on "Teamwork" might sometimes conflict with "Excellence in Performance" if
13
individual achievement takes precedence over team goals. Such a broad spectrum of virtues,
while comprehensive, can lead to ambiguities in application and interpretation.
WADA holds broad power to prohibit substances and methods in sports. As outlined in
section 4.3 of the World Anti-Doping Code, WADA may ban any substance or method it
believes could enhance performance, pose a health risk, or violate the ‘spirit of sport’. A
substance need only meet two of these vague, subjective criteria to make the Prohibited List.
WADA has full discretion to classify substances and methods as it sees fit, and its decisions
cannot be challenged, even if experts disagree. Additionally a substance that masks use of
other prohibited substances, also prohibited even if it doesn’t fulfill the criteria mentioned.
WADA is not transparent on how each substance qualified for the prohibited list, i.e., which
criteria (out of the three) each substance fulfilled to be prohibited. This unfettered authority
raises ethical concerns about transparency, accountability, and athletes' rights. WADA's
opaque Prohibited List process conflicts with basic principles of good governance. Greater
scrutiny is needed to ensure WADA's bans are evidence-based and protective of athletes, not
arbitrary dictates by unaccountable regulators.
"4.3 Criteria for Including Substances and Methods on the Prohibited List
WADA shall consider ...criteria in deciding whether to include a substance or method
on the Prohibited List: 4.3.1 A substance or method shall be considered for inclusion
if WADA ...determines that the substance or method meets any two of the following
three criteria: 4.3.1.1 ...evidence...that the substance or method...has the potential to
enhance or enhances sport performance; 4.3.1.2 ...evidence...that the Use...represents
an actual or potential health risk to the Athlete; 4.3.1.3 WADA's determination that
the Use...violates the spirit of sport... 4.3.2 A substance or method shall also be
included on the Prohibited List if WADA determines there is...evidence...that the
substance or method has the potential to mask the Use of other Prohibited Substances
or Prohibited Methods."
(WADA Code, 2021)
14
The Internalist Rationale Behind the ban of performance enhancing
substances and methods
Within sports philosophy, internalist theories focus on the values and principles intrinsic to
sport itself (Schneider & Butcher, 1993;Simon, 2000; Dixon, 2003; Russell 2007). These
notions underline that maintaining these core virtues - such as excellence and dedication,
following rules, and adhering practices are paramount for preserving a just and even
competitive field. This theory is particularly relevant when considering anti-doping measures
within sporting settings (Loland 2009; Devine, 2011; 2022). The primary objective of this
segment is to critically evaluate the ethical foundation stemming from an internalist
standpoint.
Drawing upon the concept of "internal goods" as proposed by MacIntyre (1981) - effectively
defined as virtues inherently attained via suitable engagement in a particular practice -
Schneider and Butcher's work from 1993 contends that doping behaviors compromise the
innate value system intrinsic to the Olympic Games. The core of their argument against
performance-enhancement practices such as doping is grounded in preserving these inherent
values, which can be achieved through abiding by apt norms established by key regulatory
authorities like the International Olympic Committee. Schneider and Butcher (1993) argue
that athletes' personal motivations often drive them to avoid doping practices, as they view it
as detrimental to the intrinsic value of sports. Indeed, by participating in the Olympic Games,
these athletes inherently pledge themselves towards complying with ethos and rules
governing those practices. Moreover, Devine's (2011 & 2022) analytical research on pursuing
excellence in sport underscores various facets integral to developing excellence in
performance within this context. Elements like: 1) cluster, which involve different types of
15
skills; 2) quantum, defining degree or level excellence; 3) clarity, relating visibility factor
across skill sets involved particularly concerning excellence executed during gameplay; 4)
and ‘balance’ element denoting equilibrium adjustments among varying competencies have
been highlighted substantially throughout his work. At a more nuanced ethical dimension lies
an intricate relationship binding together elements influencing sporting excellence with
athlete preparation methods (Loland & McNamee, 2016). Loland's (2018) delineation of the
"gratuitous" logic embedded in Morgan’s (1994) sports conceptualization as self-imposed
constraints. He presents sport as a cultural practice that showcases human capabilities against
defined benchmarks in order to achieve mastery. The usage and incorporation of
performance-enhancing drugs, however, distort this measurement process and hinders the
achievement of mastery. This interpretation aligns with Suits' (1978) portrayal where
engaging in gameplay equates to voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles; it is
this acceptance towards inefficient methods which fuels excellence within sporting practices.
Doping disrupts the inefficiency of the accepted methods limitation, directly interfering with
athletes' display of excellence - thereby contravening Suit’s notion and terminology for
‘lusory attitude’.
Expanding upon the earlier discussions, Devine (2022) adds another dimension of internalist
reasoning for anti-doping measures. To Devine, doping stands as an "eroder of excellence".
Performance-enhancing substances blur achievement recognition by artificially inflating
abilities beyond natural constraints (Devine, 2022). These attributes also misalign with
sporting values and skew ranking criteria by unfairly prioritizing some qualities over others
within competitive environments (Devine, 2022). Within this framework then lies a clear
justification for imposing restrictions on performance enhancement use given that they
16
undermine sports' central mission: the pursuit and display of human excellence. Importantly,
Devine's antidoping stance does not reject concerns about athletes' welfare; as he
acknowledges that other values or requirements may override the Excellence Principle
(Devine, 2022). Herein lies an essential nuance to the internalist position: grappling with
additional values such as health and safety is another thing to consider when dealing with
technologies that might be considered ‘eroders of excellences’. For example, the
International Skating Union (ISU) banned backflips in ice skating competitions back in 1976
(now banned under ISU ‘Special Regulations and Technical Rules’ Section II, Part A, Rule
610). Even though backflips are highly technical and are an impressive demonstration of
‘human excellences’, some may claim that the ban prioritizes health and safety above
excellences. By asserting that excellence is constitutive within sport and foregrounding its
aspects as part of antidoping justifications provided by governing bodies, Devine (2022)
offers valuable input to the broader debate surrounding sports ethics.
Performance enhancement, fairness, moral norms and practices.
Sigmund Loland, one of the most distinguished scholars in the field of sports ethics and
previous president of the International Association of the Philosophy of Sport, as well as a
member of WADA’s Ethics Panel since 2004, proposes in his 2002 book ‘Fair Play: a moral
norm system’ a mixed ethical theory for sport grounded in fair play, justice, and equal
opportunity. He advocates for adherence to a moral norm system for ‘fairness’ and ‘play’
consistent with both consequentialist and non-consequentialist reasoning. While this
perspective doesn't directly address the topic of performance enhancement itself, Loland's
framework offers a perspective to understand the implications of such practices, in sports
competitions. In another work, Loland (2009) presents three viewpoints of technology that
17
enhance performance in sports; the relativist theory, the narrow theory and the wide theory.
The relativist theory argues that sport values are only significant when they serve external
goals such as political prestige or commercial profit (Loland, 2009). The narrow theory may
endorse contentious practices like doping due to its focus on efficiency over intrinsic factors.
Although relativism highlights certain sports realities, it fails in guiding the distinction of
permissible and impermissible technologies based on principled ethical consideration. The
narrow theory proposes that sports' primary value lies in enhancing human performance
(Loland, 2009). Often labeled the ‘liberal view of enhancement,’ this perspective draws from
technological optimism and focuses on developing individual talent within a meritocratic
framework-it promotes unrestricted usage of performance enhancers in competitions. Despite
the view's alignment with elite sports' relentless pursuit of improvement, critics argue this
view is socially naive (Loland & McNamee, 2016). The liberal view assumes that athletes
can make informed decisions within power dynamics, which leaves them more susceptible to
exploitation. Sport, according to the wide theory, is seen as a practice that promotes
integration and the cultivation of moral excellence. This is achieved by developing abilities
or learned skills through effort (Loland, 2009). The rationale behind doping programs aligns
with this perspective as it is grounded in Aristotelian virtue ethics and the idea of fairness in
sport.
Carr (2008) also explores fairness concerns regarding performance enhancement in sport. He
critiques arguments based on fairness while advocating for a conceptualization centered
around 'fidelity' to the social practices that define specific sports. Carr's analysis is essential
for understanding how fairness arguments apply to performance enhancement. It resonates
with Schneider and Butchers (1993) emphasis on adhering to rules and internal values
18
associated with each sport. Moreover it emphasizes how elite athletes commit themselves to
upholding the core values of their chosen sports. Both Loland (2002) and Carr (2008) shed
light on aspects of fairness in sports, whether through adherence to norms or dedication to
contextual social practices. These perspectives provide a basis for evaluating the
acceptability of performance enhancing practices. Loland and Hoppeler (2012) derive a
method, from Lolands (2002) research, which is known as the principle of Fair Equality of
Opportunity (FEOP). In relation to FEOP, Loland and Hoppeler (2012) reference the famous
work of Beauchamp and Childress (2001):
“Persons should not be treated unequally based on inequalities that they cannot
influence or control in any significant way and for which they therefore cannot be
claimed responsible.”
(p.349)
They use the FEOP to examine WADA's notion of 'the spirit of sport'. Their perspective
emphasizes the fair equality of opportunity principle as central to antidoping efforts, offering
a comprehensive argument against doping practices rooted both in ethics and biological
considerations.
“To a certain extent, it makes sense to say that substances and methods on WADA’s
prohibited list enhance performance independent of talent. Training, on the other
hand, invokes the phenotypic plasticity of the human organism, a consequence of the
specifics of the evolution of the human species. Accepting bodily reaction patterns
and using the innate adaptability of humans to physical challenges cohere with the
idea of developing natural talent.”
(Loland and Hoppeler, 2012, p.352)
Navigating the Natural
The idea of what's considered ‘natural’ has played a role in philosophical debates about
performance enhancement and doping in sports. Those who support the bans on doping argue
19
that there is something superior about athletes relying solely on their innate talent and
abilities (Loland and Hoppeler, 2012; Loland, 2018; Lopez Frias, 2019; WADA, 2021).
However this notion of the ‘natural’ has faced criticism. Scholars have questioned the
coherence and meaningfulness of distinguishing between what's ‘natural’ versus ‘unnatural’
or ‘artificial’ when it comes to performance. There are also concerns about whether appeals
to nature can justify policies that prohibit forms of human enhancement (Butcher and
Schneider, 1993). Upon examination understanding what constitutes athletic performance
proves to be a complex and elusive task.
In his 2018 work, Sigmund Loland puts forward the argument that the notion of what's
considered "natural" holds importance when discussing the prohibition of performance
enhancement. Supporters of this perspective claim that utilizing 'un-natural' methods to
improve performance would diminish the significance attributed to athletes' innate abilities.
This aligns with Loland’s concept of "equality of opportunity " which asserts that individuals
should be rewarded in sports based on their abilities and effort. Loland (2018) suggests that
the idea of what qualifies as unacceptable in competition can be derived from a 'normative
rule of thumb' from the conceptions of ‘the natural’ performance. However some scholars
such as Lenk (2013) and Bonte (2013) express concerns about categorizing talent and
performance as superior arguing that this viewpoint is susceptible to the naturalistic fallacy.
This fallacy occurs when we assume that inherent abilities automatically hold value solely
because they represent a state believed to be ideal (Lenk, 2013; Bonte, 2013). Nevertheless
there are challenges associated with this concept of naturalism. The connection between the
concept of 'natural' and what is deemed "good" or morally ideal can pose some challenges.
According to Lenk (2013) we cannot derive claims from biological conditions. Therefore
20
although natural athletic ability may currently hold prominence in sports, its 'naturalness'
shouldn’t be grounds for moral judgment.
The perspective of naturalists in sports has also been influenced by the Protestant work ethic
as suggested by Lopez Frias (2019). This work ethic emphasizes the value of effort and
natural talent rather than achieving success through artificial means. Natural talent is
regarded as a God-given gift. The concern that performance enhancement undermines talent
and compromises the essence of sport can be traced according to Lopez Frias (2019) at least
in part to these origins. However, relying on religious tradition as the basis for policy
decisions may be questionable. In response to criticisms from naturalists, some scholars have
taken a more open approach to enhancement (Bonte, 2013). Of viewing 'natural' abilities as
superior, this perspective critically examines society's culturally constructed emphasis on
innate talent in sports. Bonte (2013) argues for a concept of "dignified doping" - the right of
adult athletes to make informed decisions about performance enhancement, challenging the
belief in natural talent's necessary superiority. From this perspective, policies banning doping
technologies require extensive ethical justification, rather than simply appealing to
preserving nature in sport.
Given these difficulties, some philosophers suggest focusing on "nature" as a social construct
with problematic ideological dimensions (Kaebnick, 2014). Cahn (2015) argues the idea of
nature has historically been used to establish social hierarchies based on perceived biological
differences, as in racism and sexism. Even if nature is conceived more positively as denoting
ecological balance, Kaebnick (2014) suggests that 'nature' carries connotations of moral
value that require interrogation. The language of ‘natural’ exerts rhetorical force in
21
enhancement debates, glossing over the ‘vague and multifarious’ (Kaebnick, 2014) properties
underlying the concept. While strong naturalist claims face extensive criticism, this does not
wholly discard ‘the natural’ as a worthwhile concept. As Kaebnick (2014) argues, naturalness
may still be an ethically relevant consideration, if not necessarily a decisive one. A moderate
naturalist position can argue that while nature's value is socially constructed, rather than
intrinsic, the idea of 'natural' performance retains heuristic value in enhancement debates.
The natural can act as a “rule of thumb” pointing to morally salient qualities, provided its
conceptual limitations are recognized (Loland, 2018. p.13). This view acknowledges nature's
constructed dimension while retaining some role for naturalness in ethical reasoning. To
move forward, some scholars advocate for a ‘realist’ understanding of natural athletic
performance based in biology rather than ideology (Loland, 2018). From this perspective,
natural performance refers to capabilities arising from gene-environment interactions that
have been subject to evolutionary selection pressures (Loland, 2018; Loland & Hoppeler,
2012). Athletic talent emerges through the systemic manifestation of genetic potentials
within certain environmental conditions (Loland & Hoppeler, 2012). The realist view
suggests valid concerns may remain about forms of enhancement enabling abilities that
bypass these 'natural' biological processes. As Loland (2018) notes, some ways of improving
performance through technology may undermine values of human integration and embodied
selfhood in ways natural training does not. Loland (2018) also notes, the realist perspective
must be paired with a philosophical examination of principles like fairness and human
dignity to yield justified policy. A nuanced naturalism may be compatible with ethically
regulated access to enhancement technologies that augment natural capacities, rather than
overriding them entirely (Loland, 2018).
22
The exception to the rule: Therapeutic Use Exemptions
The process of Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUE) aims to strike a balance between two
principles: 1) promoting athletes' well being; 2) ensuring fairness. This comprehensive
framework allows athletes with medical conditions to receive treatments involving
substances or methods that are otherwise prohibited without unfairly excluding them from
competitive events. The TUE system attempts to maintain fairness and health in sports while
also allowing athletes with conditions to participate (Gerrard & Pipe 2017). A significant
debate surrounding TUEs revolves around distinguishing between restoring and enhancing
performance. Challenges arise when it becomes difficult to differentiate between using
substances or methods for purposes that restore an athlete's health status versus those that
might give them an advantage beyond that level. In one perspective, on TUEs, Pike (2018)
and Scheider (2018) introduce the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) which highlights the
importance of considering intentionality when evaluating exceptions. This approach helps
differentiate between the use of medication, for healing purposes and potential enhancements
associated with doping. According to this philosophy, if a player seeks treatment for
managing a condition rather than gaining an unfair competitive advantage, they may deserve
an exemption.
However, relying on the intentions of the athletes alone might ignore impact. For example
since it is assumed that banned substances do enhance performance (assuming otherwise they
wouldn't be on WADAs list - which is not necessarily true) the challenge arises when
necessary medical interventions inadvertently enhance abilities beyond natural levels in
certain situations or specific sports contexts (Pike, 2018). Let's consider a scenario involving
endurance events in which athletes with asthma use banned beta-2 agonists as part of their
23
Therapeutic Use Exemptions (TUEs) to provide relief for respiratory issues. However these
substances also have enhancing effects due to their properties, giving an advantage to athletes
with asthma over competitors who are not legally allowed to use them. Consequently, relying
on intentions, as the basis for justifications, has its limitations. This is mainly because
objectively evaluating these aspects becomes complex in competitive contexts. Therefore
some critics argue that adopting different approaches could be more effective than the current
systems, which rely on exemptions (Dimeo & Møller 2018).
Moreover, despite the complexities surrounding intentional influences, in these applications
additional complications arise from issues of transparency and accuracy within the process
itself. Many cases involve judgments made by authorities who carefully examine clinical
data for each relevant request (Gerrard et al., 2017; Di Luigi et al., 2020). The ongoing
debate revolves around whether we should address the dilemmas related to restoration and
potential enhancements, solely based on credibility and intentions, or if it would be more
effective to make systemic changes that reflect the widespread public sentiment advocating
for increased transparency and incorporating the expanded roles of competing athletes
themselves (Pike, 2018). However, as Gleaves (2021) pointed out, there is a need to bridge
the gaps in inconsistencies observed in governing criteria particularly regarding the
distinction between treatment and enhancement. Exclusive accreditations allowing therapy
exemptions should prioritize patients who have been confirmed to have disorders with no
alternative remedies available. This approach helps prevent misuse situations that seem to be
increasingly common in sports with liberal extensions becoming more normalized. As
Fiorentini et al. (2022) strongly emphasize through allegorizing Icarus's fate, our ultimate
goal should always be prioritizing health concerns while striking a harmony, between
24
therapeutic necessities and maintaining fair competition that strictly adheres to universal anti
doping regulations.
What do the critics say?
The Spirit of Sport
The ‘spirit of sport’ clause is often accused of being introduced by the WADA Code in 2003
to justify bans on substances and techniques without sufficient evidence of performance
enhancement (Kornbeck, 2013). As Ritchie (2013) explicates, the drafting of this clause was
influenced by key events between 1988 and 2003, especially the Dubin Inquiry in Canada
which revealed the widespread use of banned substances in sports. However, the vagueness
in defining ‘spirit of sport’ has attracted criticism over interpretational inconsistencies and
lack of legitimacy in enforcing bans (Ritchie, 2013). Kornbeck (2013) argues that the
ambiguity facilitates questionable bans without credible evidence. Loland and Hoppeler
(2012) also highlight the complex moral dilemma concerning WADA’s unclear threshold and
criteria in deeming substances as contrary to the ‘spirit of sport’. Hence, the origin of this
clause points towards reactionary policy-making while its abstract definition harbors risks of
misuse through inconsistent interpretations. Some scholars have adopted a historical lens to
locate ‘spirit of sport’ within the evolving Olympic principles. Beamish and Ritchie (2006)
challenge the orthodox prohibition on performance enhancers as incongruent with the
political and economic transformation towards high-performance Olympic frameworks.
Ritchie (2014) extends this critique by illuminating how the prohibition policies and myths
were part of a broader agenda to portray the modern Olympics as ‘pure’ sport divergent from
its traditional philosophical relief. Savulescu et al. (2004) construe ‘spirit of sport’ as the use
of performance enhancers in pursuing superhuman athletic feats. These contrasting ethical
25
interpretations highlight the difficulty in clearly defining moral values embodied within the
‘spirit of sport’. These perspectives compel a re-examination of the ‘spirit of sport’
philosophy codified in the WADA code against the founding ideals of Olympism that carried
a more humanistic ethos.2
Some scholars have scrutinized anti-doping policies for prioritizing performance
enhancement over health risks and standards. Henne et al. (2013) highlight inconsistencies in
WADA’s criteria, including the ban on illicit non-performance substances, proposing a
health-centric approach to reconcile this discrepancy. Loland and Hoppeler (2012) indicate
ambiguities in determining substances as contrary to the ‘spirit of sport’ based on medical
and health standards. According to Malloy et al. (2007), WADA’s blurry philosophy
underpinning bans on technologies needs to be situated within discourses of authentic
physiology versus performance enhancement. Waddington et al. (2013) argue that WADA
has misinterpreted ‘spirit of sport’ to justify controlling non-performance recreational drugs
in sports. These critiques illuminate the tensions between health and performance approaches
underlying ‘spirit of sport’. Some studies emphasize fairness, transparency and consistency
as essential virtues aligning with the ‘spirit of sport’. McNamee (2012) calls for upholding
the ‘spirit of sport’ in the decision process by encouraging the consultation of ethics experts
in anti-doping policy making to engender transparency. As highlighted by Obasa and Borry
(2019) empirical research, transparency, consistency and active engagement of stakeholders
are essential when reformulating policies to align with the principles that embody the
universal spirit of competitive sports.
2It's worth noting that Butcher and Schneider's seminal 1993 report is central to 'internalist' conceptions of the
'spirit of sport.' Their philosophically rich framework was subsequently simplified, regrettably, for legal and
political expediency.
26
Pro-doping and Anti-anti-doping
Murray (2016) provides a comprehensive analysis of the major positions surrounding anti
doping policy, as well as the ethical considerations that underpin anti-doping policies and
their implementation. This part of the literature review aims to elucidate the complex
landscape of scholarship on doping in sport by critically engaging with key authors and ideas
presented within Murray's work. Murray (2016) divides the arguments into three main
categories: Antidoping (discussed earlier), pro-doping (Pro-enhancement) and
anti-anti-doping (against the anti-doping policy). Anti-doping stances highlight the need for
fairness, health protection, and preserving sports' meaning (Murray, 2016). Pro-doping
arguments assert that using PEDs is morally permissible or even admirable, often
emphasizing individual autonomy, personal choice, and the human spirit (Savulescu, 2004;
Brown, 1984). On the other hand, anti-anti-doping arguments focus on the perceived flaws of
current anti-doping policies and practices (Brownsword, 2013; Kornbeck, 2013), such as
conceptual ambiguities, potential injustices, cost-effectiveness concerns, privacy issues, and
proposals for harm reduction approaches. These critiques call into question the ethical
foundations upon which current anti-doping policies are based.
Pro-doping:
One of the key arguments for allowing doping in sports is predicated on upholding individual
autonomy (Brown, 1984). According to this perspective, athletes should be granted the
liberty to make informed and voluntary decisions about how they improve their performance.
Brown (1984) posits that there are no ethically convincing reasons to ban drug use by
athletes as these choices are made consciously and willingly - align with the principles
endorsed in a free society, and constraining such freedom may imply imposing alternate
27
values onto them. Another important aspect discussed by Brown (1984) is
paternalism-referring more specifically John Stuart Mill's view-that constraints on liberty
could not be justified when it comes to adults although they might apply in case of minors.
Thereby he addresses Feinberg’s and Dworkin's differentiation between soft and hard
paternalism. The concerns surrounding safety risks associated with doping indeed fall under
these categories of paternalistic debates; however once again Brown does not see any
compelling moral grounds for banning athlete drug usage based solely upon these
contentions. Savulescu et al. (2004, p.670) further support this argument by stating that
"performance enhancement is not against the spirit of sport; it is the spirit of sport." They
believe that athletes should be given this choice and that their welfare should be paramount.
However, he also adds that taking drugs is not necessarily cheating and that the legalization
of drugs in sport may be fairer and safer. This position has been criticized for being socially
naive (Loland, 2009), as it disregards that vulnerable position of the athletes.
Brown (1984), in his seminal work explores arguments against doping, specifically
concerning whether or not it aligns with the nature of sport. He ultimately finds no morally
compelling arguments against drug use in sports based on sport’s nature, stating that
restricting choice denies athletes the values of self-reliance, personal achievement, and
autonomy. Similarly, Kious (2008) argues for a distinct lack of moral differentiation between
doping and other morally acceptable performance-enhancing techniques. In his view, until
there is definitive evidence proving an action to be ethically incorrect or distinguishable from
already permitted practices, it should not face prohibition.
"when we cannot give good arguments for an action's being wrong (or why we ought
to forbid it), and when the wrongness of an action is not obvious in the absence of any
such arguments, then it should (other things equal) be permitted"
(Kious, 2008, p. 214).
28
Anti-anti-doping
Among the first arguments against doping is the belief that using performance-enhancing
drugs (PEDs) violates the principles of fairness in sports by giving users an unfair advantage
over their competitors - the cheating argument (Luschen, 1976). Kirkwood (2009), however,
debunks this claim by highlighting its inherent circularity: the unfairness argument only
stands because of the rules prohibiting drug use themselves. Kirkwood thus challenges those
justifications for drug bans that rely solely on notions of cheating or unfair advantage.
Another perspective centers around the "internal goods" of sport. According to Schneider and
Butcher (1993) who have adopted MacIntyre's (1981) notion of practices, some goods are
intrinsic to sports practices and can only be experienced by those who partake in them
properly, without resorting to PEDs. Kirkwood (2009) refutes this idea by arguing that many
PEDs could plausibly enable athletes to access these internal goods more effectively than
their drug-free counterparts, thereby undermining arguments that hinge on preserving the
supposed purity or essence of sport. Kirkwood (2009) proposes a harm-reduction model that
seeks to minimize the negative consequences of drug use without necessarily attempting to
eradicate doping entirely.
Kayser and De Block (2021) delve into the impact of performance enhancing substances on
athlete health by exploring a criticism of the harm reduction approach to doping in sports; a
coercion based version akin to an arms race. They argue that if doping regulations were more
relaxed, situations where all competitors feel pressured to use performance enhancing drugs
to maintain their competitiveness - resulting in the development of even more powerful and
riskier drugs, might not be as significant practically. This suggests that adopting a medically
supervised approach could potentially lead to better safety outcomes by allowing athletes
29
access to less harmful substances under enhanced medical supervision. However Holm
(2007) challenges the idea that medically supervised doping would unequivocally improve
safety and transparency. Drawing on game methods he demonstrates how widespread safety
improvements are unlikely due to athletes' motivations and sport doctors interests.
This analysis sheds light on the challenges faced by those who support the legalization of
doping and their efforts to justify its use under supervision. In terms of combating doping,
Kayser and Broers (2015) propose a health oriented approach that focuses on reducing harm
caused by drug use without trying to control consumption rates (i.e. monitoring athletes
bio-markers for any redflags). This perspective falls between prohibiting doping measures
and fully liberalizing them. Similarly, Savulescu (2014) introduces the concept of
“physiological doping" which involves legalizing performance enhancing drugs within limits
while still upholding the essence of each sport. This approach challenges the World Anti
Doping Agencies criterion of banning substances solely based on their potential to enhance
performance. Instead Savulescu advocates for allowing doping as long as it adheres to
predetermined safety standards, thus preserving the integrity of the sport. Piispa and Salasuo
(2012) draw comparisons between approaches to the war on drugs and anti doping policies
suggesting that unintended consequences of banning doping are mainly driven by inspection
and repression strategies. Along the lines, acknowledging the inevitability of doping,
Christiansen and Møller (2016) argue that athletic excellence can still be maintained in a
more lenient approach towards doping. They suggest that the allure of sports lies in the
narratives, drama and beauty of competitions rather than solely relying on physiological
disparities. Examining inconsistencies and ethical dilemmas within WADAs doping policies
Kayser et al. (2007) advocate for harm-reduction over prohibition. According to them this
30
approach allows for risk management associated with performance enhancing drug (PED)
usage while prioritizing athletes' well being.
Anti-doping Policy and Athlete's rights.
WADAs strict approach to doping has faced criticism on legal and practical grounds. One
primary objection is that anti doping regulations excessively limit athlete autonomy while
representing an overreach of power (Waddington, 2010; Kious, 2008; Tamburrini, 2013). By
determining which enhancements are allowed or prohibited WADA brings athletes individual
choices under its purview, in upholding the "spirit of sport." However scholars argue that this
concept lacks definition and justification (Obasa & Borry 2019). The principle of Strict
liability also creates a problem of accountability as they unfairly place the burden on athletes
to prove their innocence (Kornbeck, 2013). Privacy is another aspect that has drawn
criticism. WADAs extensive biological monitoring and constant disclosure of whereabouts
have been argued to violate athletes dignity and confidentiality (Tamburrini, 2013). While the
goal of ensuring drug sports is apparent, some scholars argue that these practices erode
privacy and treat athletes as objects of suspicion rather than full human beings (Waddington,
2010). The lack of athlete participation in policy development further highlights transparency
and governance issues (Kornbeck, 2013).
Holm (2007) contends that WADA overstates the health risks of doping while ignoring
social and commercial factors pressuring athletes. Zero-tolerance prohibition does little to
mitigate the incentives for athletes to cheat or engage in harmful practices to succeed.
Allowing medically supervised doping under strict parameters could alleviate some health
31
risks associated with unregulated use (Kayser et al., 2007). While not without risks, this harm
reduction approach recognizes the status quo also endangers athletes.
Evidence based arguments represent another area requiring improvement according to critics.
Several scholars highlight inconsistencies in prohibited substances lacking clear performance
benefits or health risks (Heuberger & Cohen, 2019). Heuberger & Cohen (2019) evaluated
evidence of enhancement for substances on the WADA’s prohibited list:
“Only 5 of 23 substance classes show evidence of having the ability to enhance actual
sports performance, i.e. anabolic agents, β2-agonists, stimulants, glucocorticoids and
β-blockers. One additional class, growth hormone, has similar evidence but only in
untrained subjects. The observed effects all relate to strength or sprint performance
(and accuracy for β-blockers); there are no studies showing positive effects on
reliable markers of endurance performance. For 11 classes, no well-designed studies
are available, and, for the remaining six classes, there is evidence of an absence of a
positive effect. In conclusion, for the majority of substance classes, no convincing
evidence for performance enhancement is available, while, for the remaining classes,
the evidence is based on a total of only 266 subjects from 11 studies.”
(Heuberger & Cohen, 2019, p.525)
The inclusion of substances like cannabis exemplifies morality-driven decisions versus
empirically grounded policy. Greater use of data could enhance proportionality and fairness
in anti-doping measures. In effect, prevailing anti-doping approaches may distract from
protecting athletes’ overall wellbeing. Kirkwood (2004) provocatively argues that branding
and public relations motives better explain WADA’s activities than athlete-centered aims.
Critics suggest redirecting resources to understand cultural values underpinning doping could
better serve sports’ integrity (Obasa & Borry, 2019).
Discussion
This chapter critically reviewed philosophical literature and policy frameworks concerning
performance enhancement technology in sport. The analysis aimed to identify conceptual
32
limitations in current models regulating doping and biomedical enhancement. These gaps
highlighted the need for innovative ethical frameworks grounded in sport philosophy ideals.
A historical analysis revealed the reactive evolution of anti-doping policies in response to
high-profile incidents, lacking proactive foresight. Definitions shifted from moralized
concepts like ‘artificial advantage’ toward legalistic criteria circumscribing specific
violations (IOC, 1967; WADA, 2021). This reactionary approach risks misaligning
regulations with ethical underpinnings as biotechnology rapidly advances. The philosophical
basis rests on contested internalist notions of "spirit of sport" and upholding "natural talent"
(Loland & Hoppeler, 2012; Schneider & Butcher, 1993), relying more on rhetorical appeals
versus substantive justification. Naturalistic fallacies conflate nature with inherent value
absent supporting arguments (Kaebnick, 2014; Lenk, 2013). Meanwhile, exemptions for
therapeutic use require clearer standards that balance treatment and enhancement in ways
respecting athletes’ rights and dignity (Gleaves, 2021).
The concept of “spirit of sport” lacks coherence, transparency and democratic input (Obasa
& Borry, 2019; Waddington et al., 2013). Its justification for banning enhancement
technologies remains ambiguous, enabling questionable decisions by regulators (Kornbeck,
2013). Natural talent appeals insufficiently address technology’s role in redefining
excellences as cultural constructs, not just preserving nature (Bonte, 2013). Rights-based
objections contend that strict prohibition disregards athlete health (Kayser & Broers, 2015)
and autonomy (Tamburrini, 2013; Waddington, 2010). While risks of technology misuse are
real, critiques argue blanket bans ignore social complexities and deter open dialogue on
ethical integration. This conceptual instability leaves Olympic regulators vulnerable when
navigating emerging technologies. Lacking clear principles, adhoc decisions prevail.
33
Technologies propagate cultural values in complex ways that mere prohibition overlooks
(Winner, 1980). What endures is the pertinence of fair play, excellence and the cooperative
Olympic spirit. But substantiating these in relation to evolving technologies requires updating
ethical foundations. Simply relying on “spirit of sport” no longer suffices absent transparency
and coherent moral reasoning accessible to diverse stakeholders. Key limitations of WADA
anti-doping policies identified in this chapter that can help inform reasoning in the later
chapters are:
●Definition of doping has shifted from broad moral concepts like ‘artificial advantage’
to legalistic rules violating specific provisions (IOC, 1967;Ritchie, 2013; WADA,
2021). This reactionary approach risks misalignment with ethical foundations as
technology advances.
●Justification grounded in contested internalist notions of "spirit of sport" lacks solid
substantive reasoning and relies more on rhetorical appeals (Obasa & Borry, 2019;
Waddington et al., 2013).
●Naturalistic fallacies conflate nature with inherent value absent supporting arguments.
Appeals to nature require critical examination and should be the primary driver of
permissibility evaluation (Lenk, 2013; Bonte, 2013; Kaebnick, 2014; Loland, 2018).
●Concept of “spirit of sport” lacks coherence, transparency and input from diverse
stakeholders (i.e. consistency and transparency in its interpretation). Its use as a
justification for banning enhancements remains ambiguous (Obasa & Borry, 2019;
Waddington et al., 2013).
●Rights-based critiques contend prohibition disregards athlete health, autonomy and
proportionality (Kayser & Broers, 2015; Tamburrini, 2013).
34
●Evidence basis for banned substances warrants re-examination. Many lack proven
performance benefits or health risks to athletes (Heuberger & Cohen, 2019).
●Overall, existing frameworks lack proactive foresight and principled justification
needed to address complex, context-dependent cases as technology advances.
Reliance on rhetorical appeals is insufficient.
Conclusion
This review elucidates conceptual limitations within prevalent regulatory approaches to
performance enhancement technology in sports. Probing notions like "spirit of sport" reveals
reactionary origins and rhetorical ambiguity in justifying prohibitionist policies (Kornbeck,
2013; Obasa & Borry, 2019). Rights-based critiques underscore how blanket bans infringe
upon athlete autonomy and health (Tamburrini, 2013; Waddington, 2010). Re-examining
banned substances exposes evidential inconsistencies lacking clear performance or health
risk bases (Heuberger & Cohen, 2019). These insights reveal gaps between abstract
principles, empirical foundations, and evolving technological realities. From a philosophical
perspective, addressing these limitations requires transcending reactionary models reliant on
appeals to contested concepts lacking coherent reasoning, that is inaccessible to diverse
stakeholders. Beyond rhetorical mystification, substantive dialogue is needed on
reconstituting the essence of "fair play" amidst shifting technical capacities. But what exactly
constitutes substantive reasoning? I will be reviewing this question in the next chapters.
Reference List
Adesida, Y., Papi, E., & McGregor, A. H. (2019). Exploring the Role of Wearable
Technology in Sport Kinematics and Kinetics: A Systematic Review. Sensors,
19(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19071597
35
Anzer, G., & Bauer, P. (2021). A Goal Scoring Probability Model for Shots Based on
Synchronized Positional and Event Data in Football (Soccer). Frontiers in Sports
and Active Living,3.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2021.624475
Aroganam, G., Manivannan, N., & Harrison, D. (2019). Review on Wearable
Technology Sensors Used in Consumer Sport Applications. Sensors,19(9), Article
9. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19091983
BBC Sport. (2014). “Majority of Russian athletes dope.” BBC Sport.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/30324812
Beamish, R., & Ritchie, I. (2006). Fastest, highest, strongest: A critique of
high-performance sport. Routledge.
Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2001). Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford
University Press, USA.
Bonte, P. (2013). dignified doping: Truly unthinkable? An existentialist critique of
‘talentocracy’in sports. Athletic Enhancement, Human Nature and Ethics: Threats
and Opportunities of Doping Technologies, 59-86.
Brown, W. M. (1984). Paternalism, drugs, and the nature of sports. Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport,11(1), 14-22.
Brownsword, R. (2013). A Simple Regulatory Principle for Performance-Enhancing
Technologies: Too Good to be True? In J. Tolleneer, P. Bonte, & S. Sterckx (Eds.),
Athletic enhancement, human nature and ethics: Threats and opportunities of
doping technologies (pp. 291-310). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5101-9_16
Butcher, R. & Schneider, A. (1993). Doping in sport: An analysis of the justification for
bans and the ethical rationale for drug-free sport. Canadian Centre for Drug-free
Sport.
Butcher, R., & Schneider, A. (1998). Fair Play as Respect for the Game. Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport,25(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1998.9714565
Cahn, S. K. (2015). Coming on strong: Gender and sexuality in women’s sport.
University of Illinois Press.
Carr, C. L. (2008). Fairness and Performance Enhancement in Sport. Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport,35(2), 193-207.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2008.9714738
Christiansen, A. V., & Møller, R. B. (2016). Who is more skilful? Doping and its
implication on the validity, morality and significance of the sporting test.
Performance Enhancement & Health,4(3-4), 123-129.
Cooper, R. A., & Cooper, R. (2019). Rehabilitation Engineering: A perspective on the
past 40-years and thoughts for the future. Medical Engineering & Physics,72, 3-12.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medengphy.2019.08.011
Cummins, C., Orr, R., O’Connor, H., & West, C. (2013). Global positioning systems
(GPS) and microtechnology sensors in team sports: A systematic review. Sports
Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.),43(10), 1025-1042.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-013-0069-2
Cust, E. E., Sweeting, A. J., Ball, K., & Robertson, S. (2019). Machine and deep
learning for sport-specific movement recognition: A systematic review of model
development and performance. Journal of Sports Sciences,37(5), 568-600.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1521769
36
De Oliveira, M. S., Steffen, V., & Trojan, F. (2023). A systematic review of the literature
on video assistant referees in soccer: Challenges and opportunities in sports
analytics. Decision Analytics Journal,7, 100232.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100232
Devine, J. W. (2022). Elements of excellence. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,49(2),
195-211.
Di Luigi, L., Pigozzi, F., Sgrò, P., Frati, L., Di Gianfrancesco, A., & Cappa, M. (2020).
The use of prohibited substances for therapeutic reasons in athletes affected by
endocrine diseases and disorders: The therapeutic use exemption (TUE) in clinical
endocrinology. Journal of Endocrinological Investigation,43(5), 563-573.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-019-01145-z
Dimeo, P. (2016). The myth of clean sport and its unintended consequences.
Performance Enhancement & Health,4(3-4), 103-110.
Dimeo, P., & Møller, V. (2018). The anti-doping crisis in sport: Causes, consequences,
solutions. Routledge.
Dyer, B. (2020). A Pragmatic Approach to Resolving Technological Unfairness: The
Case of Nike’s Vaporfly and Alphafly Running Footwear. Sports Medicine - Open,
6(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00250-1
Errekagorri, I., Castellano, J., Echeazarra, I., & Lago-Peñas, C. (2020). The effects of the
Video Assistant Referee system (VAR) on the playing time, technical-tactical and
physical performance in elite soccer. International Journal of Performance Analysis
in Sport,20(5), 808-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2020.1788350
Evans, R., McNamee, M., & Guy, O. (2017). Ethics, Nanobiosensors and Elite Sport:
The Need for a New Governance Framework. Science and Engineering Ethics,
23(6), 1487-1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9855-1
Faure, C., Limballe, A., Bideau, B., & Kulpa, R. (2020). Virtual reality to assess and
train team ball sports performance: A scoping review. Journal of Sports Sciences,
38(2), 192-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1689807
Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology (Vol. 5). Oxford University Press
New York.
Fiorentini, C., Esefeld, K., & Halle, M. (2022). Medication for patient-athletes-The
therapeutic use exemption procedure. European Journal of Preventive Cardiology,
29(3), 556-558. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjpc/zwac005
Foster, L., James, D., & Haake, S. (2012). Influence of full body swimsuits on
competitive performance. Procedia Eng,34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.04.121
Fraleigh, W. P. (1984). Right Actions in Sport: Ethics for Contestants. Human Kinetics
Publishers.
Gardner, R. (1989). On performance enhancement substances and the unfair advantage
argument. J Philos Sport,16.https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1989.9714469
Gerrard, D., & Pipe, A. (2017). Therapeutic Use Exemptions. Medicine and Sport
Science,62, 55-67. https://doi.org/10.1159/000460700
Gleaves, J. (2021). A Moral Examination of the Therapeutic Use Exemption in
Anti-Doping. Journal of Olympic Studies,2(1), 53-71.
https://doi.org/10.5406/jofolympstud.2.1.0053
Gleaves, J., Llewellyn, M. P., & Lehrbach, T. (2014). Before the rules are written:
Navigating moral ambiguity in performance enhancement. Sport, Ethics and
Philosophy,8(1), 85-99.
37
Henne, K., Koh, B., & McDermott, V. (2013). Coherence of drug policy in sports: Illicit
inclusions and illegal inconsistencies. Performance Enhancement & Health,2(2),
48-55.
Heuberger, J. A. A. C., & Cohen, A. F. (2019). Review of WADA Prohibited
Substances: Limited Evidence for Performance-Enhancing Effects. Sports Medicine
(Auckland, N.Z.),49(4), 525-539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-1014-1
Holm, S. (2007). Doping under medical control - conceptually possible but impossible in
the world of professional sports? Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,1(2), 135-145.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17511320701425116
Hummel, R. L., & Foster, G. S. (1986). A Sporting Chance: Relationships Between
Technological Change and Concepts of Fair Play in Fishing. Journal of Leisure
Research,18(1), 40-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1986.11969644
IOC. (2023, August 18). 1967: Creation of the IOC Medical Commission. International
Olympic Committee.
https://olympics.com/ioc/1967-creation-of-the-ioc-medical-commission
Jenny, S. E., Manning, R. D., Keiper, M. C., & Olrich, T. W. (2017). Virtual(ly) Athletes:
Where eSports Fit Within the Definition of “Sport.” Quest,69(1), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1144517
Jiménez Morgan, S., & Molina Mora, J. A. (2017). Effect of Heart Rate Variability
Biofeedback on Sport Performance, a Systematic Review. Applied
Psychophysiology and Biofeedback,42(3), 235-245.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10484-017-9364-2
Kaebnick, G. E., Gusmano, M. K., & Murray, T. H. (2014). The Ethics of Synthetic
Biology: Next Steps and Prior Questions. Hastings Center Report,44(S5), S4-S26.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.392
Karkazis, K., & Fishman, J. R. (2017). Tracking U.S. Professional Athletes: The Ethics
of Biometric Technologies. The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB,17(1),
45-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1251633
Kayser, B. (2018). Ethical aspects of doping and anti-doping: In search of an alternative
policy [PhD Thesis]. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KULeuven).
Kayser, B., & Broers, B. (2015). Doping and performance enhancement: Harms and
harm reduction. In Routledge handbook of drugs and sport (pp. 363-376).
Routledge.
Kayser, B., & De Block, A. (2021). Would Relaxation of the Anti-doping Rule Lead to
Red Queen Effects? Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,15(3), 371-385.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2020.1770846
Kim, D., & Ko, Y. J. (2019). The impact of virtual reality (VR) technology on sport
spectators’ flow experience and satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior,93,
346-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.040
Kious, B. M. (2008). Philosophy on steroids: Why the anti-doping position could use a
little enhancement. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics,29(4), 213-234.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-008-9078-9
Kirkwood, K. (2004). Out of the Olympic Closet: Abandoning Prohibitions on Doping in
Favour of a Harm Reduction Approach. Western Ontario.
Kirkwood, K. (2009). Considering Harm Reduction as the Future of Doping Control
Policy in International Sport. Quest,61(2), 180-190.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2009.10483609
38
Kornbeck, J. (2013). The Naked Spirit of Sport: A Framework for Revisiting the System
of Bans and Justifications in the World Anti-Doping Code. Sport, Ethics and
Philosophy,7(3), 313-330. https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2013.831115
Kremenik, M., Onodera, S., Nagao, M., Yuzuki, O., & Yonetani, S. (2006). A Historical
Timeline of Doping in the Olympics (Part 1 1896-1968). Kawasaki Journal of
Medical Welfare,12(1), 19-28.
Kretchmar, R. S. (1975). From Test to Contest: An Analysis of Two Kinds of
Counterpoint in Sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,2(1), 23-30.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1975.10654094
Lavin, M. (1987). Sports and Drugs: Are the Current Bans Justified? Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport,14(1), 34-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1987.9714449
Lenk, C. (2013). Is Human Enhancement Unnatural and Would This Be an Ethical
Problem? In J. Tolleneer, S. Sterckx, & P. Bonte (Eds.), Athletic Enhancement,
Human Nature and Ethics: Threats and Opportunities of Doping Technologies (pp.
45-57). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5101-9_3
Lindholm, J. (2019). The Netflix-ication of sports broadcasting. The International Sports
Law Journal,18(3), 99-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-019-00145-8
Lippi, G., Franchini, M., & Guidi, G. C. (2007). Prohibition of artificial hypoxic
environments in sports: Health risks rather than ethics. Applied Physiology,
Nutrition, and Metabolism,32(6), 1206-1207.
Loland, S. (2002a). Fair play in sport: A moral norm system. Routledge.
Loland, S. (2002b). Technology in sport: Three ideal-typical views and their
implications. European Journal of Sport Science,2(1), 1-11.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390200072105
Loland, S. (2009). The Ethics of Performance-Enhancing Technology in Sport. Journal
of the Philosophy of Sport,36(2), 152-161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2009.9714754
Loland, S. (2018). Performance-Enhancing Drugs, Sport, and the Ideal of Natural
Athletic Performance. The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB,18(6), 8-15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1459934
Loland, S., & Hoppeler, H. (2012). Justifying anti-doping: The fair opportunity principle
and the biology of performance enhancement. European Journal of Sport Science,
12(4), 347-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2011.566374
Lopez Frias, F. J. (2019). Unnatural Technology in a “Natural” Practice? Human Nature
and Performance-Enhancing Technology in Sport. Philosophies,4(3), Article 3.
https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies4030035
Loquercio, A., Segu, M., & Scaramuzza, D. (2020). A general framework for uncertainty
estimation in deep learning. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters,5(2),
3153-3160.
Lüschen, G. (1976). Cheating in sport. Social Problems in Athletics, 67-77.
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue.https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268035044/after-virtue
McNamee, M. (2007). Sport, ethics and philosophy; context, history, prospects. Sport,
Ethics and Philosophy,1(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/17511320601173329
McNamee, M. J. (2012). The Spirit of Sport and the Medicalisation of Anti-Doping:
Empirical and Normative Ethics. Asian Bioethics Review,4(4), 374-392.
Miah, A. (2005). From anti-doping to a ‘performance policy’ sport technology, being
human, and doing ethics. European Journal of Sport Science,5(1), 51-57.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390500077285
39
Miah, A. (2007). Genetics, Bioethics and Sport. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,1(2),
146-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17511320701425181
Miles, H. C., Pop, S. R., Watt, S. J., Lawrence, G. P., & John, N. W. (2012). A review of
virtual environments for training in ball sports. Computers & Graphics,36(6),
714-726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2012.04.007
Morgan, W. J. (1994). Leftist theories of sport: A critique and reconstruction. University
of Illinois Press.
Murray, T. H. (2016). The ethics of doping from a public health perspective. In Doping
and Public Health. Routledge.
Nor, N., Sunar, M., & Kapi, A. (2019). A Review of Gamification in Virtual Reality
(VR) Sport. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Creative Technologies,6(21).
https://eudl.eu/doi/10.4108/eai.13-7-2018.163212
Obasa, M., & Borry, P. (2019). The Landscape of the “Spirit of Sport”: A Systematic
Review. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry,16(3), 443-453.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-019-09934-0
Owen, N., King, H., & Lamb, M. (2015). Literature Review of Race Driver Fatigue
Measurement in Endurance Motorsport. Procedia Engineering,112, 344-348.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.07.260
Pavitt, J., Braines, D., & Tomsett, R. (2021). Cognitive analysis in sports: Supporting
match analysis and scouting through artificial intelligence. Applied AI Letters,2(1),
e21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ail2.21
Petersen-Wagner, R., & Lee Ludvigsen, J. A. (2022). The video assistant referee (VAR)
as neo-coloniality of power? Fan negative reactions to VAR in the 2018 FIFA Men’s
World Cup. Sport in Society, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2022.2070481
Pike, J. (2018). Therapeutic use exemptions and the doctrine of double effect. Journal of
the Philosophy of Sport,45(1), 68-82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2017.1416621
Ramkumar, P. N., Luu, B. C., Haeberle, H. S., Karnuta, J. M., Nwachukwu, B. U., &
Williams, R. J. (2022). Sports Medicine and Artificial Intelligence: A Primer. The
American Journal of Sports Medicine,50(4), 1166-1174.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211008648
Ritchie, I. (2013). The construction of a policy: The World Anti-Doping Code’s ‘spirit of
sport’ clause. Performance Enhancement & Health,2(4), 194-200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2014.10.002
Rodrigo-Carranza, V., González-Mohíno, F., Santos-Concejero, J., & González-Ravé, J.
M. (2021). Comment on “A Pragmatic Approach to Resolving Technological
Unfairness: The Case of Nike’s Vaporfly and Alphafly Running Footwear.” Sports
Medicine - Open,7(1), 94. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-021-00378-8
Russell, J. S. (2007). Broad Internationalism and the Moral Foundations of Sport.
https://philpapers.org/rec/RUSBIA-2
Salasuo, M., & Piispa, M. (2012). Perspectives to doping substance use outside elite
sports in Finland. Finnish Youth Research Network and Finnish Youth Research
Society Internet Publications,123, 52.
Samuel, R. D., Galily, Y., Filho, E., & Tenenbaum, G. (2020). Implementation of the
Video Assistant Referee (VAR) as a Career Change-Event: The Israeli Premier
League Case Study. Frontiers in Psychology,11, 564855.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.564855
40
Savulescu, J., Foddy, B., & Clayton, M. (2004). Why we should allow performance
enhancing drugs in sport. British Journal of Sports Medicine,38(6), 666-670.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2003.005249
Savulescu, J. (2006). Justice, Fairness, and Enhancement. Annals of the New York
Academy of Sciences,1093(1), 321-338. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1382.021
Savulescu, J. (2014). Performance Optimization and Physiological Doping. Substance
Use & Misuse,49(9), 1186-1189. https://doi.org/10.3109/10826084.2014.904124
Schlembach, C., Schmidt, S. L., Schreyer, D., & Wunderlich, L. (2022). Forecasting the
Olympic medal distribution - A socioeconomic machine learning model.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change,175, 121314.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121314
Schneider, A. J., & Butcher, R. R. (1993). Why Olympic Athletes Should Avoid the Use
and Seek the Elimination of Performance-Enhancing Substances and Practices From
the Olympic Games. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,20(1), 64-81.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1993.9714504
Sheridan, H. (2006). Tennis Technologies: de-skilling and re-skilling Players and the
Implications for the Game. Sport in Society,9(1), 32-50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430500355782
Simon, R. L. (1984). Response to Brown and Fraleigh. Journal of the Philosophy of
Sport,11(1), 30-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1984.9714411
Simon, R. L. (2000). Internalism and internal values in sport. Journal of the Philosophy
of Sport,27(1), 1-16.
Spitz, J., Wagemans, J., Memmert, D., Williams, A. M., & Helsen, W. F. (2021). Video
assistant referees (VAR): The impact of technology on decision making in
association football referees. Journal of Sports Sciences,39(2), 147-153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1809163
Suits, B. (1967). What is a Game? Philosophy of Science,34(2), 148-156.
Suits, B. (1978). The grasshopper: Games, life and utopia. Broadview Press, Toronto.
Taborri, J., Keogh, J., Kos, A., Santuz, A., Umek, A., Urbanczyk, C., van der Kruk, E.,
& Rossi, S. (2020). Sport Biomechanics Applications Using Inertial, Force, and
EMG Sensors: A Literature Overview. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics,2020,
2041549. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2041549
Tamburrini, C. (2013). WADA’s anti-doping policy and athletes’ right to privacy.
FairPlay, Revista de Filosofia, Ética y Derecho del Deporte,2, Article 2.
Tamir, I., & Bar-eli, M. (2021). The Moral Gatekeeper: Soccer and Technology, the Case
of Video Assistant Referee (VAR). Frontiers in Psychology,11, 613469.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613469
Tjønndal, A., Haudenhuyse, R., de Geus, B., & Buyse, L. (2022). Concussions, cuts and
cracked bones: A systematic literature review on protective headgear and head
injury prevention in Olympic boxing. European Journal of Sport Science,22(3),
447-459. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2021.1872711
Trivedi, J., Soni, S., & Kishore, A. (2021). Exploring the Role of Social Media
Communications in the Success of Professional Sports Leagues: An Emerging
Market Perspective. Journal of Promotion Management,27(2), 306-331.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1829774
UNESCO. (2017). Evaluation of UNESCO’s International Convention against Doping in
Sport-UNESCO Digital Library.
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000258739
41
WADA. (2003). World Anti-Doping Code. World Anti Doping Agency.
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada_code_2003_en.p
df
WADA. (2021). World Anti-Doping Code. World Anti Doping Agency.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/world-anti-doping-program/world-anti-dop
ing-code
Waddington, I. (2010). Surveillance and control in sport: A sociologist looks at the
WADA whereabouts system. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics,
2(3), 255-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/19406940.2010.507210
Waddington, I., Christiansen, A. V., Gleaves, J., Hoberman, J., & Møller, V. (2013).
Recreational drug use and sport: Time for a WADA rethink? Performance
Enhancement & Health,2(2), 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2013.04.003
Waddington, I., & Møller, V. (2019). WADA at twenty: Old problems and old thinking?
International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics,11(2), 219-231.
Weiss, P. (1969). Sport: A Philosophic Inquiry. Southern Illinois University Press.
Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus,109(1), 121-136.
Zglinski, J. (2022). Rules, Standards, and the Video Assistant Referee in Football. Sport,
Ethics and Philosophy,16(1), 3-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2020.1857823
42
Chapter 2
Establishing the theoretical foundation for the Ideal Olympic
Contest
“We promise to take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the rules and
in the spirit of fair play, inclusion and equality. Together we stand in solidarity and commit
ourselves to sport without doping, without cheating, without any form of discrimination. We
do this for the honour of our teams, in respect for the Fundamental Principles of Olympism,
and to make the world a better place through sport.”
The Olympic Oath
(IOC, 2021a)
Introduction
Chapter 1 critically analyzed the limitations of performance enhancement regulation in
sports. This chapter aims at building principled conditions for the ideal Olympic Contest.
This conceptual undertaking starts off by making crucial differentiations between
"sportsmanship" as pertaining to individual athletes’ conduct (Keating, 1964; Arnold, 1983;
Feezell, 1986; Sessions, 2004; Abad, 2010; Vallerand et al., 1996) - as opposed to "fair play"
as systemic construct involving collaborative responsibilities among multiple actors (Loland,
2002; Butcher & Schneider, 1998; UEFA, 2021). Appreciation of this distinction is central to
fully grasping multifaceted issues that are made even more complex due to emerging
technologies persisting within the Olympic Games. The need to preserve integrity here goes
beyond players’ actions and behaviors. This chapter then explores the dual nature of the
dynamics embedded in the Olympic Games, representing the fusion of elite sport with
philosophical and humanistic goals. Integrating insights from fair play conceptions from the
seminal works of Loland (2002) and Butcher and Schnieder (1998), and the Fundamental
Principles of Olympism (IOC, 2021b), I plan to present key parameters necessary for
43
fostering an idealized Olympic contest. These include: 1) non-discrimination and fair equal
opportunity; 2)preserving sporting excellence; 3) adherence to safety and harm prevention; 4)
meritocracy in advantages distribution; 5) justice in rule enforcement; 6) goal realization
facilitating humankind’s harmonious development; 7) striving through peak performance;
and 8) preserving competitive uncertainty.
Sportsmanship3and Fair Play - Drawing a distinction
The philosophical ethos underlying sports has been the subject of numerous academic
debates, focusing on intricate notions such as 'sportsmanship' and 'fair play.' While
'sportsmanship' and 'fair play' are often used interchangeably (Hummel & Foster, 1986;
Session, 2004; Abad, 2010; Serrano-Durá et al., 2021), drawing a distinction can offer the
coherence required for a solid conceptual foundation. Scholarship on sportsmanship as an
ethical construct reveals multifaceted perspectives on this complex phenomenon. Keating
(1964) contends that the concept has been muddled by confusion between sporting pursuits
as amusement versus hardcore competition for prizes and victory. He suggests virtues like
generosity apply variably depending on recreational or elite athletic objectives. Arnold
(1983) analyzes sportsmanship through three lenses: social union, pleasure promotion, and
altruism. For Arnold, the ideal entails a concern for others beyond self-interest, though each
viewpoint captures unique facets. However, Feezell (1986) challenges firm dichotomization
between sports and elite athletics, arguing that individuals often simultaneously embody
player and competitor identities. Feezell conceptualizes sportsmanship as balancing serious
competition with playful joy, emphasizing the importance of ‘play’ at all levels. Vallerand et
3'Sportsmanship' as used throughout this dissertation is considered gender-neutral, adopted to maintain
consistency with pre-existing literature and avoid potential confusion in bridging various conceptions of
'Sportsmanship'.
44
al. (1996) delineate five sportsmanship dimensions: commitment, respect for rules/officials,
social convention adherence, respecting opponents, and avoiding win-at-all-costs attitudes.
Sessions (2004), however, focused on honor as a central aspect of sportsmanship, which
concerns player behavior during interactions demonstrating mutual admiration and
recognition amid competitive environments. Similarly, yet distinctively, Abad's (2010)
approach encompasses values oriented towards fairness, equity, good form, and the
will-to-win attitude, contextualizing sportsmanship. Sportspersonship as an evolving process
of epistemic meditation (Nlandu, 2008). These varying interpretations suggest that no
unifying element exists, but rather emphasize unique virtues intrinsically intertwined with
individuals (essentially sportspersons) engaging appropriately during sporting events.
In contrast to the conceptions of sportsmanship in the literature, which primarily concentrates
on the personal conduct of playing participants, fair play can be argued to encompass broader
stakeholders and dimensions beyond mere players. For example, Loland (2002) provides an
ethical framework based on play, fairness, and justice norms applicable to addressing player
behavior and organizational policies to ensure equal opportunity to perform. These values
serve as a basis for rule development respected and accepted by all cooperating parties
involved in competition. Moreover, Butcher and Schneider's (1998) conception of fair play
rooted in respect for the game showcases shared commitment towards respecting sports as
practices that have internal goods that are unique and worth valuing. Other fair play
conceptions exist but face critiques. Some like WADA’s approach to the ‘Spirit of Sport’4
may portray fair play as a "bag of virtues" (Butcher and Schneider, 1998) - a method that is
often criticized for being inconsistent. For instance, while one ethical theory might prioritize
4Check p.11-13 of this thesis for more information on the ‘bag of virtues’ conceptualization.
45
virtues like honesty and respect as fundamental to fair play, another might emphasize
perseverance and self-discipline. This approach can lead to inconsistencies; a divergent value
like 'striving for personal excellence' may clash with 'collective teamwork.' Such a “bag of
virtues” methodology becomes problematic as it lacks a standardized framework, leading
scholars like Butcher & Schneider (1998) and Sheridan (2003) to critique its lack of cohesion
in truly defining fair play. Others emphasize fair play arising from sport's playful nature, but
the sport/play distinction proves problematic (Butcher & Schneider, 1998; Sheridan, 2003).
A third conception views fair play as an agreement to follow formal rules in contests.
However, this overlooks informal norms (Eassom, 1998). A fourth conception fair play as
respect for the rules themselves, but this neglects actions not explicitly prohibited yet still
unfair (D'Agostino, 1981).
The literature presents varied conceptions of 'fair play' that capture elements of its
complexity, yet each offers only a partial view. A multidimensional approach encompassing
perspectives from various fields (i.e. philosophy of sport, sociology of sport, etc.) may be
necessary. Such an approach would push the boundaries of traditional interpretations, digging
deeper into the intricate layers that lie beneath the surface. Nevertheless, while this thesis
underscores the importance of recognizing the profound depth of 'fair play,' the primary
objective remains to delineate a clear distinction between the concepts of 'sportsmanship' and
'fair play.' Additionally, in this chapter, I seek to draw on the distinction made and
amalgamate the prevailing conceptions of 'fair play' that resonate with the philosophy of the
Olympic Games. To conceptualize 'fair play' from scratch, on the other hand, would be
tantamount to undertaking a separate thesis in its entirety. While acknowledging the potential
46
profundity of 'fair play' is pivotal, an exhaustive exploration of its vast depths remains a
challenge to be met in subsequent research.
The literature exploring the concepts of sportsmanship and fair play raises several concerns
that warrant critical examination. Three key points stand out: (1) an emphasis on the moral
and motivational aspects of athletes in most conceptions of sportsmanship; (2) a lack of a
clear distinction between 'sportsmanship' and 'fair play'; (3) a lack of conceptualizations of
fair play that are specific to the Olympic Games. It is evident from various interpretations
offered by scholars such as Keating (1964), Arnold (1983), Feezell (1986), Sessions (2004),
Abad (2010), and others, that they have focused primarily on athletes' internal states or
actions as a determinant factor for sportsmanship. Although these aspects are vital in
understanding sportsmanship at the individual level, a clearer conception might arise from
integrating these conceptions with other dimensions such as social influences, institutional
policies, cultural context, and coaching principles, among others, that also significantly shape
an athlete's behavior and sporting outcomes. To elaborate further on this point, consider the
issue of doping in sports. Despite athletes being responsible for complying with anti-doping
rules by avoiding the use of performance-enhancing drugs, addressing doping adequately
requires numerous essential stakeholders' cooperation. These crucial players encompass
coaches, team managers, and medical staff members, along with national governing entities
coupled with international organizations like the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and
the International Olympic Committee (IOC). Successfully battling doping involves each
stakeholder upholding certain ethical standards. By broadening the scope of analysis beyond
personal motivation and conduct, we can enable a better conceptual understanding of
sportsmanship and fair play as concepts and their role within an ethical framework suitable
for contemporary challenges.
47
Fair play a broad concept
In this section, I argue that the key distinction between sportsmanship and fair play, is that
fair play transcends individuals' conduct, behavior and motivations to encapsulate a broader
array of sporting and ethical norms adhered to by multiple stakeholders. These stakeholders
include: players themselves, as well as, policymakers such as NOCs or IOC members
engaged in framing related policies or procedures that impact sporting outcomes directly or
indirectly. Butcher and Schneider (1998) adopts a similar position in their conceptualization
of fair play as ‘respect for the game’; respect at the personal level and the level of policy.
“We can think about the implications of viewing fair play as respect for the game at
two levels. At the personal level of the individual athlete, fair play as respect for the
game will provide guidelines as he or she considers what ought to bedone. At this
personal level, respect for the game will influence actions on the Field of play,
attitudes toward one's opponents, and even one's own level of commitment to the
game. Fair play as respect for the game also has implications for actions and
decisions at the level of policy. Most sports have, in MacIntyre'ssense, institutions.
These institutions are comprised of sports governing bodies, rule committees,
administrative superstructures, and so on. At this level, too, fair play and respect
mandate particular decisions decisions that refer to the best interests of the game
concerned.”
Butcher and Schneider (1998, p.14)
To better understand how fair play encompasses not only the behavior of individual athletes,
and how it also extends to various policies established to uphold conduct by prioritizing the
internal interest of the sport at different levels within, I will explore various examples in this
section. The International Committee for Fair Play (CIFP) is a non-profit organization
founded in 1963 by the International Sports Press Association (AIPS) and the International
Council of Sport Science and Physical Education (CIEPSS). Governed by French Law, the
CIFP has its headquarters at Maison du Sport Français in Paris. Recognized by the
International Olympic Committee and a partner of UNESCO, the organization's primary
objective is to protect and promote the spirit of fair play, alongside observing written and
48
unwritten rules, respecting opponents, combating violence, and preventing doping in both
elite sports and sports for all.
“In order to promote the values represented by fair play, the CIFP influences the
behaviour, methods and the social and ethical role of:
●athletes
●coaches
●sports managers
●parents
●medical personnel
●physical education teachers
●sports organisations
●referees and judges
●the public in general and especially sports fans
●the media
●partners and sponsors.”
(CIFP, 2006)
The Financial Fair Play guidelines implemented by the Union of European Football
Associations (UEFA) between 2010 and 2022, served to restrict excessive spending and
endorse long-term financial security in European club football (UEFA, 2020). In this
instance, fair play includes specific actions taken by clubs. The current (as of 2023) UEFA
Statutes - Article 7 relating to member associations, adopts a broad conception of fair play
that precedes “loyalty, integrity and sportsmanship” in the conceptual hierarchy.
“Article 7 - Fair Play, Statutes, Laws of the Game: Member Associations shall have
the following obligations: a) to observe the principles of loyalty, integrity and
sportsmanship in accordance with the principles of fair play....”
(UEFA Statutes 2021).
“in accordance with a rule, law, wish , is, following or obeying a rule, law, wish, etc.”
(Cambridge Dictionary, 2023)
UEFA defines Fair play as:
“‘Fair play’ means acting according to ethical principles which, in particular, oppose
the concept of sporting success at any price, promote integrity and equal
opportunities for all competitors, and emphasize respect of the personality and worth
of everyone involved in a sporting event.”
(UEFA, 2021)
49
UEFA insightfully frames fair play as a vital ethical principle fostering integrity, equity and
respect amid relentless competitive intensity (UEFA, 2021). Though imperfect, their broad
conceptualization valuably conveys fair play's normative influence and utility as a systemic
construct necessitating collective ethical adherence, beyond just individual virtues.
Conceptualization of Fair Play and Sportsmanship in UEFA Statues
Figure 2.1: Shows the conceptual hierarchy with Fair Play being at a higher and broader
level and sportsmanship at a lower level of the Hierarchy
Distinguishing sportsmanship and fair play necessitates examining cases where ethical
decision-making involves collective, not just individual responsibilities. As mentioned in the
earlier example, effectively combating doping requires close cooperation between diverse
entities - coaches, medical staff, governing bodies, and others. - not just athletes personally
abstaining. While individuals choosing not to dope demonstrates personal sportsmanship,
collaborative prevention efforts embody systemic fair play. This example reveals how
sportsmanship centers the player, whereas fair play encompasses multifaceted networks
upholding competition integrity. Intriguingly, Butcher and Schneider (1998) identified other
potential uses of the term ‘sportsmanship’; in manifestations beyond competitive events, like
graciously sharing job information with rivals. Another case is jeopardizing personal victory
to demonstrate general moral obligations, as a Canadian Olympian yachtsman rescuing a
drowning opponent. Those examples might highlight the complexity of ‘sportsmanship’ as a
50
concept, yet it continues to demonstrate that sportsmanship relates more to individuals’
actions and behavior.
Analyzing these examples allows us to comprehend that both sportsmanship and fair play are
essential components within modern competitive sport's ethical fabric. However, where
sportsmanship is primarily concerned with personal virtues exemplified by individual
players' actions (e.g., respecting others or playing cleanly), fair play necessitates broader
networks; coaches instilling codes of conduct on their teams; referees ensuring equitable
contests; event organizers upholding essential equipment's universal accessibility, all working
in tandem toward facilitating and maintaining ethical sport. From this perspective, fair play
encompasses not only athletes' actions but also policy decisions made by sporting institutions
that promote the sport’s internal goods5, like equal opportunity and competitiveness among
all participants (Loland and Hopler, 2012). Given the strong influence of various
stakeholders involved in Olympic events, it's essential for researchers to understand the
differences between sportsmanship residing in individual-based virtues and the broader
regulatory systems of fair play. This understanding is crucial for developing models that
outline theoretical frameworks for future advancements that affect a wide range of
participants.
It is important to note that I don’t intend to draw my own conceptualization of either
‘sportsmanship’ or ‘ Fair Play’, my goal here is only to highlight differences that are enough
to make a clear distinction. This distinction can be easily adopted by existing
conceptualizations of both concepts to increase their utility in the real world. Separating
5Please refer to page 11 for an in-depth explanation of internalism.
51
concepts of sportsmanship and fair play acknowledges nuanced layers involved in the
multi-stakeholder realm of sport, particularly regarding challenges, such as, technology
regulation at the Olympic Games. Sportsmanship, as primarily concerned with athletes'
personal conduct and virtues, is essential, but inadequate when analyzing complex
multi-layered issues precipitated by emerging technologies. Fair play, by contrast, considers
broader circles and stakeholders: athletes, officials, policymakers, institutions, and assorted
influencers shaping conditions impacting the interest of the practice.
Table 2.1: Examples of actions that impact Fair Play in a multi-denominational system
Stakeholders
Actions positively impacting fair play
Actions negatively impacting fair play
Athletes
Displaying respect for opponents and
accepting the outcome gracefully.
Using performance-enhancing drugs to
gain unfair advantage (e.g., the Russian
state-sponsored doping scandal during
Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics)
Coaches
A coach demonstrates respect for the rules
and spirit of the game by acknowledging a
misjudgment that goes in their favor and
requesting a correction (e.g., accepting a
penalty)
Encouraging athletes to find loopholes or
exploit rules for advantage (e.g.,
Badminton coaches instructing players to
lose intentionally to gain favorable draws
in London 2012)
Sports Clubs
Instituting robust anti-doping programs and
ethical training (e.g., UK Athletics' Clean
Athletics program)
Failure to uphold standards of integrity,
resulting in institutionalized cheating (e.g.,
systemic doping in Russian Athletics
Federation)
Referees
Enforcing rules impartially and consistently
(e.g., the handling of false start rule in
Athletics in 2012 Olympics)
Inconsistent or biased adjudications,
undermining trust in fairness (e.g., the
boxing judges controversy in Rio 2016)
IOC/NOCs/IFs
/NSFs
Implementing rigorous testing and strict
penalties for doping (e.g., IOC's retesting
policy)
Neglecting duty to ensure fair and clean
competition (e.g., inaction or cover-ups in
the face of doping evidence)
52
Event
Organizers
Ensuring equal conditions and accessibility
for all competitors (e.g., Tokyo 2020's
measures for heat and accessibility)
Failing to maintain standard conditions for
all competitors (e.g., variable wind
conditions affecting results in ski jumping
at Pyeongchang 2018)
Venue
Managers
Ensuring venues are equipped for equal
opportunity (e.g., Tokyo 2020's measures for
heat)
Failing to maintain standard conditions
across all venues (e.g., uneven track
surface at Rio 2016 velodrome)
Sports
Scientists
Developing techniques and tools that
enhance performance without breaching
fairness (e.g., sports psychologists' work on
athlete's mental resilience)
Researching and promoting
performance-enhancing substances (e.g.,
BALCO (Bay Area Laboratory
Co-operative) scandal in 2003).
Inventors
Innovating sports equipment that enhances
fair competition (e.g., improvements in
timing equipment)
Creating equipment providing undue
advantage to some athletes (e.g., Speedo's
LZR Racer suit controversy in swimming)
Media
Highlighting examples of fair play and
sportsmanship (e.g., media praise for Abbey
D'Agostino and Nikki Hamblin's actions in
Rio 2016)
Undue focus on winning at all costs,
without due regard for fair play (e.g.,
media hype and pressure on athletes to
win by any means necessary)
Fans
Applauding sportsmanship over mere victory
(e.g., fans' respect for athletes showing
sportsmanship in Tokyo 2020)
Encouraging or celebrating
unsportsmanlike behavior (e.g., fans
condoning aggressive or unfair behavior
for the sake of victory)
The Dual Nature of the Olympic Games: A Nexus between Sporting
Contest and Olympism
The Olympic Games occupy a unique position in the realm of sporting events, serving as
both a competitive contest and an embodiment of a broader philosophy-Olympism
(Scheinder and Hellal, 2022; Schnieder and Butcher, 1993). Drawing upon the Fundamental
Principles of Olympism, provided by the International Olympic Committee (IOC), I can
analyze how these two aspects are intertwined and shape the very essence of this exceptional
event. Olympism, as stated in the Olympic Charter, is defined as "a philosophy of life,
53
exalting and combining in a balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind" that seeks
to create "a way of life based on [...] social responsibility and respect for universal
fundamental ethical principles" (IOC, 2021b). In contrast to other significant championships
like World Championships, which primarily focus on athletic competition itself, the Olympic
Games endeavor to transcend conventional sports events' confines by embracing deeper
values associated with human development and global harmony.
Figure 2.2: A summary of the seven Fundamental Principles of the Olympism in the July,
2021 version of the Olympic Charter
The Olympic Games have a duality, acting as both a sports competition and a worldwide
celebration of fundamental human values embraced by the philosophy of Olympism. It may
initially appear contradictory to some that an event primarily centered around winning
medals could uphold its ideals, like peace, unity and equal opportunities for all. However,
this argument doesn't consider the ways in which sport competition itself becomes a platform
for expressing the core values and principles of Olympism (Parry, 1998). For example, when
54
participants compete at or near their best during Olympic competition - demonstrating
intense dedication towards achieving optimal results, they simultaneously enact a
deeply-rooted commitment to upholding Olympism's social values. Moreover the structure of
the Olympic Games allows for the promotion of both sports interests and Olympism through
policies, such as, ensuring non discriminatory contests (as stated in Fundamental Principle 4
of the Olympic Charter) and demanding political neutrality from participating organizations
(as stated in Fundamental Principle 5 of the Olympic Charter). Embracing these principles
enhances the Olympic Movement belief in harmony and fairness in sports governance. The
Olympic Games hold a position as both a sporting contest and a representation of Olympism,
which strengthens its moral foundation and sets it apart from other major championships. As
a result, this exceptional event not only showcases physical abilities, but also exemplifies
profound ethical commitments that captivate athletes and audiences alike, an
accomplishment to which few other sporting events can lay claim.
However, some critics argue that the actual realization of the ideals embodied in the
philosophy of Olympism falls short at times (Loland, 1995). The lived reality of the Games
might reveal tensions and contradictions between competition and Olympism that cannot be
easily resolved. The Olympic Games is driven more by factors rather than the actual
embodiment of Olympism (MacAloon, 2011). Loland (1995) argues that knowledge about
the origins of Olympism offers insights into why the Olympics continue to captivate people
even though they may not perfectly align with its ideals in reality. As he explains,
"In a modern society characterized by secularization and rationalization, by die
Entzauberung der Welt, to use Weber’s description of the process, the Olympic
Movement represents an alternative. Every Olympic year, it offers to a world wide
audience strong and deep experiences in a setting of rituals and ceremonies in which
55
human possibility and freedom, at least in a symbolic form, is celebrated and
cherished"
(Loland, 1995, p. 68).
While one might criticize the Olympic Games for not fully embodying the ideals of
Olympism, it is important to recognize and pursue the philosophical values that this
movement represents (DaCosta, 2006). Despite the challenges posed by competition and
commercialization the vision of celebrating excellence and fostering harmony through sports
remains significant (Naul, 2008). While Olympism may have shortcomings, we should
rededicate ourselves to saturating the Games with its core doctrine fostering fair play. The
grandeur of the Opening Ceremonies, the inspiring performances by athletes from all nations,
and the shared experience of spectators worldwide, serve as reminders of the enduring
importance of the Olympic Games. When instances of discrimination or questionable ethics
arise they should compel us to reaffirm our commitment rather than abandoning the potential
offered by the Olympic Movement. In short, Olympism matters deeply, especially when
forgotten; its duality with competition is inherently generative, as overcoming contradiction
drives progress. Our task is thus not to surrender Olympism but to strengthen it, approaching
each Games as an opportunity to enact its values more fully.
56
Table 2.2: Summary of the distinctions made so far
Concepts
Sportsmanship
Fair Play
Olympic Games
Distinctions
Focuses on player behavior and
personal virtues during sporting
events. Varies in interpretation -
including honor, pleasure
maximization, respect for
others, the will-to-win attitude,
and commitment to one's sport
participation (Keating, 1964;
Arnold, 1983; Feezell, 1986;
Sessions, 2004; Abad, 2010;
Vallerand et al., 1996).
Encompasses ethical norms adhered
to by multiple stakeholders (e.g.,
officials, institutions, policymakers).
Applies to both individual conduct
and broader policies and practices in
the sports industry, including but not
limited to promoting integrity, equal
opportunities, and respect (Loland,
2002; Butcher & Schneider, 1998;
UEFA, 2021).
Unique dual nature that
combines sporting
contests with a broader
philosophy-Olympism.
Promotes both sport
interests and deep
ethical commitments
(IOC, 2021b).
Fair Play as internal to the Olympic Games: Navigating the Dual
Sport-Philosophical Dimensions of Olympism
Conceptualizing fair play within the Olympic context requires a nuanced examination of
Olympism's unique dual nature. As delineated in the Fundamental Principles of Olympism
(IOC, 2021b), Olympism transcends mere sporting contests. This facet is crucial to
comprehending what constitutes fair play at the Olympics, as a practice with a defined
philosophy that is worth a conceptualization of fair play that is ‘internal’ to the practice itself
(Butcher and Schneider, 1998; Scheider and Hellal 2022). The dual nature of the Olympic
Games becomes clearer in reference to key passages from the Olympic Charter (IOC,
2021b), which defines Olympism as a "philosophy of life, exalting and combining in a
balanced whole the qualities of body, will and mind." This tenet signals that Olympism
extends beyond sporting contests themselves by seeking to instill specific universal ethical
principles across diverse realms such as culture, education, social responsibility, and respect
for human dignity.
“The practice of sport is a human right. Every individual must have the possibility of
practising sport]……] requires mutual understanding with [.....] fair play.”
(IOC, 2021b - Fundamental Principle 4)
57
Grasping fair play in relation to Olympism requires an analytical approach that is attuned to
such ambitions within this domain, rather than focusing exclusively on athletic prowess or
rule adherence. The MacIntyrean perspective offered by Schneider and Butcher (1993) and
Butcher and Schneider (1998) is very invaluable when navigating arguments pertaining to
fair play and its significance for both sporting aspects as well as underlying philosophical
commitments entrenched within Olympism. Butcher and Schneider (1998) examine the
nature of sports as Suitian (1977) games as autotelic activities that are performed for their
own sake and defined by their ‘constitutive rules’; Kretchmarian (1975) contests which
emphasize the competitive aspect of sports; and MacIntyrean (1981) practices focusing on
the pursuit of internal goods within a specific activity. They argue that understanding sports
through this framework enables a more nuanced interpretation of fair play as "respect for the
game”. This lens offers a unique conceptualization of fair play in the Olympic Games.
Kretchmar's theory differentiates sports into tests and contests (Kretchmar, 1975). Tests are
characterized by a binary outcome, whereas contests involve a spectrum of success gauged
against other competitors. A balance between vulnerability and impregnability is maintained
in tests, ensuring fairness and unpredictability. Contests, on the other hand, focus more on
outperforming others and require continuous adjustment in response to the rivals'
performance, which adds a layer of strategic intricacy (Kretchmar, 1975). Applying
Kretchmar's (1975) perspective on sports as contests in an Olympic context reveals that
competition is not only significant for determining excellence in athletic performance but
also necessitates maintaining fairness beyond contest rules. Given the pursuit of relative
superiority in contests, competitors must agree on common grounds for conducting their
58
respective games. This shared understanding emphasizes the a shared interest in fairness
required among athletes and serves as a vital foundation for advocating fair play during these
strategically intricate and comparative contests where victory margins may be slim but
significant (Kretchmar, 1975).
Simultaneously, Butcher and Schneider (1998) acknowledge MacIntyre's concept of practices
to further enrich our understanding of sporting contests. A practice that has interests worth
pursuing, aligning the internal motivation of the athlete with the internal goods of the sport
will lead to personal growth or mastery through actively participating in a specific activity.
This participation often involves adherence to established standards while still remaining
open to change within historical traditions. In taking up both the competitive focus of
Kretchmarian contests and the pursuit for inner fulfillment of MacIntyrean practices, Butcher
and Schneider (1998) ultimately suggest an innovative interpretation of fair play grounded in
respect for one's chosen endeavor.
“There are two commonly used and rather similar senses of respect. In the first,
weaker sense, one can respect merely by observing or following. In this sense, We
respect the rules of the road by adhering to the speed limit, stopping at stop signs,
and so on. The second sense of respect is stronger and carries connotations of
honoring, holding in regard, esteeming, or valuing. It is this second sense of respect
that is operative in moral discussions of respect for autonomy, or equal respect for
persons.Here, the idea is that one should, from a moral point of view, value the
interests, rights, preferences, and so on, of others as one values one's own. In the
context of sport, it is easy to run the two senses together.”
(Butcher and Schneider, 1998, p.9)
One significant implication drawn from this conception is that respect for one's sport entails
adopting its interests, an idea particularly relevant when examining ethics within Olympism.
For instance, athletes, coaches, and officials partaking in a specific event must adhere to
59
ethical principles associated with fair play based on both contest rules and an evolving ethos
embedded in MacIntyrean practices. Consequently, such adoption creates a motivation for all
parties to strive for excellence while maintaining fairness within the framework of Olympic
competition.
“A practice involves standards of excellence and obedience to rules as well as the
achievement of goods. To enter into a practice is to accept the authority of those
standards and the inadequacy of my own performance as judged by them. It is to
subject my own attitudes, choices,preferences and tastes to the standards which
currently partially define the practice.”
(MacIntyre, 1981, p.190)
Schneider and Hellal’s (2022) study takes Butcher and Schneider's foundation further by
presenting an argument pinpointing fair play at the Olympic Games, integral to its sporting
aspects as well as philosophical themes - as respect for these Olympics themselves.
Upholding this notion involves maintaining rules and values pertinent to each sport while
concurrently committing to Olympism's wider philosophy of life. Drawing upon the concept
of transformation of interest (Butcher and Schneider, 1998) and on principles like inclusivity
within each sport practice, illustrates how accepting responsibilities connected with the
Olympic Charter signals transformative acts, whereby involved parties, implicitly or
explicitly, consent towards upholding its core principles. These stakeholders’ collective
agreement demonstrates their willingness in prioritizing both components - sporting prowess
alongside Olympism’s core philosophy throughout all dimensions of their work during these
games, or as Olympism aims, a ‘life philosophy’.
“Belonging to the Olympic Movement requires compliance with the Olympic
Charter”
(IOC, 2021b - Fundamental Principle 7)
“We promise to take part in these Olympic Games, respecting and abiding by the
rules and in the spirit of fair play, inclusion and equality. Together we stand in
60
solidarity and commit ourselves to sport without doping, without cheating, without
any form of discrimination. We do this for the honour of our teams, in respect for the
Fundamental Principles of Olympism, and to make the world a better place through
sport.”
(The Olympic Oath - IOC, 2021a)
In the general context of sport, Butcher's and Schneider's (1998) position of Fair play as
respect for the game, has been criticized in the literature. Sessions (2004) writes:
“Many speak of sportsmanship as “respect for the game,” a devotion or commitment
to a sport that transcends particular triumphs and failures. Doubtless most
competitors do love the competition independently of the winning (or love the winning
in large part because of the competition), but it is not clear how this love extends to
“the game” itself. It is even murkier why this love should extend beyond the player’s
playing lifetime: Why should a competitor care about some abstraction-a
constellation of rules of play and principles of fair play-or some future instances of
that abstraction that he or she will not participate in or even be around to enjoy?”
(p.49)
This critique doesn't stand on much ground in the Olympic context. My interpretation posits
that accepting the Olympic Charter represents a transformation of interest, where all parties
involved, whether through employment or volunteerism (e.g., International Olympic
Committee members and employees), signing onto specific agreements or the Charter itself
(e.g. International and National Sporting Organizations), or participating in the Olympics and
swearing an oath (e.g. athletes) - implicitly, or explicitly, consent to uphold its principles. By
doing so, all parties collectively agree to prioritize both components - the sporting contest
and Olympism. I can go further and argue that this specific distinction is what defines an
Olympian, a title that is retained for life. This raises an intriguing question for future research
and ethical considerations: Should the title of 'Olympian' be revoked if an individual later
violates the philosophy of Olympism, whether through committing a crime, doping, or any
other actions contrary to its principles? If the essence of being an Olympian is intrinsically
tied to upholding these values, then does straying from them in the future undermine that
very essence? While these questions merit further exploration, given the confines of this
61
research, I shall limit my discussion to recognizing the distinct nature of the Olympic
dynamic.
To comprehend fair play in the context of the Olympic sports, it is necessary to acknowledge
the interplay in between ‘sporting contests’ and ‘cultural-philosophical’ facets targeted at
promoting global ethical concepts. Making use of the intellectual groundwork offered by
Butcher and Schneider (1998) along with Schneider and Hellal (2022 ), respect for the
Olympic Games includes attending to these two vital dimensions concurrently. This
concurrent attainment requires adherence to rules and values within each sporting activity,
while also remaining dedicated to supporting the ‘Olympism’ part among all participants
throughout their participation in particular games. For example, the historical reunion of
North and South Korea's women's hockey teams at the 2018 Winter Olympics, held jointly
under a united flag for the first time in Olympic history. While contentious political issues
surrounded this event, players demonstrated solidarity and shared ambition respecting the
internal values of the games, an embodiment of the Olympic version of fair play and the
fundamental principles of Olympism, that reconciles competition with global unity and
inclusivity. This rich interplay showcases the unique capacity of Olympism for encouraging
respect that is derived from participants' equal commitment to upholding internal values
entrenched in the Olympic Games, while competing at the highest level in their sport. The
unification of the North and South Korean hockey teams provides a tangible example of how
the Olympic Games can transcend political divides through athletes' shared commitment to
the ideals of Olympism. Despite ongoing tensions between their nations, the players came
together under a united flag in a powerful display of harmony. Their solidarity and mutual
62
respect, even as competitors, embodied Olympism (i.e. the sociocultural facet of fair play)
that prizes inclusivity and global connection alongside athletic excellence.
Figure 2.3 The diagram illustrates the interrelation between respect for the game and the core
elements of the Olympic Games. While this diagram emphasizes the 'Olympism' aspect (and its
fundamental principles). The 'contest' component will be delved into in the subsequent section.
Fair Play as a moral norm system for the Olympics
Loland's scholarship sets the standard for understanding and assessing fairness and fair play
in sports, having developed the most rigorous ethical model to date (Loland, 2002, 2020;
Loland & Hoppeler, 2012). In this analysis, I will draw on the extensive work of Sigmund
Loland (2002) and Loland & Hoppeler, (2012). Loland (2002) constructs a moral norm
system for fair play that encompasses two main norms: fairness and play. The fairness norm
advocates adherence to a shared ethos when participating in sports competitions, ensuring
equal opportunities for competitors and abiding by rules set out for just competitions. On the
other hand, the play norm emphasizes maximizing intentional goal-realization among
participants while conforming to the shared ethos. This delicate equilibrium between fairness
63
and play, and between predictability and unpredictability, manifests what Loland (2002)
(after Warren Fraleigh) famously called "the sweet tension of uncertainty of outcome," an
experiential value characteristic of good sport competition.
A Justified Fairness norm:
“Parties voluntarily engaged in sport competitions ought to act in accordance with
the shared ethos of the competitions, if this ethos is just, that is, if:
●The competitors are given equal opportunity to perform by eliminating or
compensating for significant inequalities that the competitors cannot influence
in any significant way and for which they cannot be held responsible;
●Athletic performance is interpreted as based on talent and individual effort,
and performances adhere to a basic norm of not exposing others or oneself to
unnecessary harm;
●Unequal treatment in the distribution of advantage is in reasonable
accordance with actual inequality in athletic performance, and unequal
treatment in terms of eliminating or compensating for advantage gained
through rule violations is in reasonable accordance with the actual inequality
that has arisen due to the violation.”
( Loland, 2002, p.105)
A Justified Play norm:
“2 Parties voluntarily engaged in sport competitions ought to act so that all parties
concerned have their intentional goals linked to the competition realized to the
greatest possible extent by:
●realizing a norm for competitors playing (according to a shared, just ethos) to
win to the greatest possible extent;
●realizing a matching of competitors of similar preference strength and of
similar performance potential to the greatest possible extent.”
( Loland, 2002, p.144)
One key concept in Loland's work is the principle of Fair Equality of Opportunity (FEOP),
which elaborates on earlier ideas related to formal equality and justice as fairness (Loland &
Hoppeler, 2012). It makes a strong argument emphasizing that individuals must not be
treated unequally based on factors beyond their control. This principle aligns with Kantian
ethics, which consider human dignity and respect essential values, besides being congruent
with neo-Aristotelian theories emphasizing virtue development through overcoming
64
challenges morally guided by fairness norms. Loland (2002) suggests that there's a link
between fair play in sports and human flourishing, or eudaimonia, in line with Aristotle's
proposal (1976). When sport strikes a balance between agonistic elements (equal
opportunities to perform) and aleatory factors (chance moments), it creates an exhilarating
yet nurturing space for individual growth (Loland, 2002). Putting emphasis on just
competition, as well as respect for opponents, within an environment based on merit,
cultivates human flourishing that aligns with the Olympic values. Loland's moral norm
system recognizes how critical having a ‘shared and just ethos’ is. This shared and just ethos
can be extended to the collective efforts of various stakeholders and policy makers, and it
aligns well with the broad conceptualization of Fair Play discussed earlier in the chapter.
Figure 2.4: The chart illustrates the concept of "Fair Play" in the context of the Olympic Games. It
emphasizes the dual nature of the Olympics, encompassing both sporting contests and a broader
philosophy of Olympism. The sporting aspect is effectively conceptualized by Loland's 2002 norms
of fairness and play. Adherence to these norms and Olympism ensures respect for fair play, with
behaviors, actions, policies, and technologies playing a pivotal role.
Table 2.3: Summary of discussed Fair Play conceptions
Conceptualization
Butcher and Schneider (1998);
Schneider and Hellal (2022)
Loland (2002)
65
Definition of fair play
Fair play is seen as "respect for the game"
- following the rules and values of sports
as MacIntyrean practices.
Fair play involves adhering to shared just
norms of fairness and play in sports
competitions.
Theoretical foundation
Interpretive approach drawing on
understandings of contests, games,
practices, and transforming interests
within practices.
Combines consequentialist and
non-consequentialist moral philosophy
using principles of equality, justice,
internal interests and fairness.
Role of the Olympics
Fair play means respecting the sporting
practice and broader Olympism
commitments.
Olympics are high-stakes competitions
requiring adherence to Loland's moral
norms.
Possible Criticisms
Abstract notion of respecting a
transcendent "game" beyond wins and
losses.
Complex, abstract norms may not apply
well in real sports contexts.
Implications
Enriches views of sports and Olympism by
prioritizing sport's interests.
Shapes how we see sports/competitions
and how stakeholders should act regarding
them.
Establishing the Groundwork for Ideal Olympic Contest
In the quest to better understand, and indeed shape, the ideal conditions of an Olympic
contest, this section embarks on a triadic endeavor. It draws from Loland's (2002) normative
framework for fair play; Butcher and Schneider's (1998) interpretive approach that
extrapolates from the idea of transformation of interest within MacIntyrean practices; and
the adoption of the principles that underpin Olympism. While Loland’s mixed approach,
emphasizing fairness norms intertwined with play norms, stands seemingly disparate against
Butcher and Schneider’s (1998) MacIntyrean perspective inclined towards respect for the
game - there exists convergence in understanding what constitutes 'ideal' sporting behavior
within their differentiated methodologies. It is important to acknowledge that the attempt to
integrate various perspectives into a coherent set of conditions for the ideal Olympic contest
that are embedded with fair play is ambitious at best. It risks oversimplifying nuances in each
viewpoint. The synthesis may gloss over tensions between different theories. For this reason,
66
one must endeavor a comparative analysis of the different norms and conditions presented
by the different perspectives.
Table 2.4: A comparative analysis of the viewpoints on the ideal Sporting contest.
Loland’s (2002) Justified
Fair Play Moral Norms
Butcher’s and Schneider’s (1998)
Necessary Conditions for Fair
Play
Fundamental Principles of
Olympism
"Parties voluntarily engaged
in sport competitions ought
to act in accordance with the
shared ethos of the
competitions, if this ethos is
just." (Loland, 2002, p.105)
“The match must be fairly
contested, that is, played within
the rules of the game” (Butcher
and Schneider, 1998, p.15)
"Sport as a Human Right" -
"Practicing Sport Without
Discrimination" - "Spirit of
Friendship, Solidarity and
Fair Play"
"Competitors are given equal
opportunity to perform by
eliminating or compensating
for significant inequalities
that the competitors cannot
influence in any significant
way and for which they
cannot be held responsible."
( Loland, 2002, p.105)
"The contestants should be evenly
matched. The ideal contest
requires that the contestants be at
comparable levels of skill and
fitness." (Butcher and Schneider,
1998, p.15)
"Enjoyment of Rights and
Freedoms" -
"Non-Discrimination on Any
Basis (Race, Colour, Sex,
Orientation, Language, etc.)"
"Athletic performance is
interpreted as based on talent
and individual effort, and
performances adhere to a
basic norm of not exposing
others or oneself to
unnecessary harm." (
Loland, 2002, p.105)
“The outcome of the contest
should be determined by sporting
skill or ability, not extraneous
factors such as egregious luck or
errors in officiating. Conditions of
play, such as weather, may create
additional obstacles but must not
be so severe as to undermine the
exhibition of skill.” (Butcher and
Schneider, 1998, p.15)
"Philosophy of Life" -
"Balancing Body, Will and
Mind"
"Unequal treatment in the
distribution of advantage is
in reasonable accordance
with actual inequality in
athletic performance. "(
Loland, 2002, p.105)
-
-
67
"Unequal treatment in terms
of eliminating or
compensating for advantage
gained through rule
violations is in reasonable
accordance with the actual
inequality that has arisen due
to the violation." ( Loland,
2002, p.105)
-
-
“Parties voluntarily engaged
in sport competitions ought
to act so that all parties
concerned have their
intentional goals linked to
the competition realized to
the greatest possible extent.“
( Loland, 2002, p.144)
Parties involved should align their
interest with those of the sporting
practice. (Butcher and Schneider,
1998)
"Goal" - "Sport Serving the
Harmonious Development of
Humankind" - "Promotion of
Peaceful Society and
Preservation of Human
Dignity"
“Realizing a matching of
competitors of similar
preference strength and of
similar performance
potential to the greatest
possible extent.” ( Loland,
2002, p.144)
“For an ideal match, the
contestants must have a high
degree of skill. Good contests can,
however, take place between
evenly matched opponents at any
level of skill. The contestants
should be evenly matched. The
ideal contest requires that the
contestants be at comparable
levels of skill and fitness.”
(Butcher and Schneider, 1998,
p.15)
-
"Players must play to win."
(Loland, 2002 p.148)
“The contestants should play at or
near their best.” (Butcher and
Schneider, 1998, p.15)
"Philosophy of Life" -
"Promotes Joy of Effort,
Good Example, Social
Responsibility, and Universal
Ethical Principles"
"The sweet tension of
uncertainty of outcome"
(Loland, 2002, p.148)
“The outcome of the contest
should be in doubt until the end.
(This should be guaranteed by
having evenly matched
contestants playing at their best.)”
(Butcher and Schneider, 1998,
p.15)
-
68
Discussing the comparative analysis:
Analyzing Loland's justified fair play moral norms (2002), Butcher and Schneider’s (1998)
necessary conditions for the Ideal Contest and the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, give
us a deep understanding of the conditions for the Ideal Olympic Contest. This comparison
reveals common ideas, varied views, and evolving interactions, that together, outline what
makes an ideal Olympic contest. One striking similarity among these philosophies is their
shared focus on equality and fairness. All three agree that sport contests should be based on
equal chances, but reward athletes differently based on merit - essentially by skills, talent or
effort they bring to the game, rather than factors beyond players' control.
"Athletic performance is interpreted as based on talent and individual effort, and
performances adhere to a basic norm of not exposing others or oneself to
unnecessary harm."
( Loland, 2002, p.105)
“The outcome of the contest should be determined by sporting skill or ability, not
extraneous factors such as egregious luck or errors in officiating. Conditions of play,
such as weather, may create additional obstacles but must not be so severe as to
undermine the exhibition of skill.”
(Butcher and Schneider, 1998, p.15)
"Philosophy of Life" - "Balancing Body, Will and Mind"
(IOC, 2021b)
Most sports are designed to give competitors equal opportunities, while rewarding the
superior skill, effort and strategy of the victor. For instance, in a 100-meter sprint, all runners
start side-by-side, facing the same distance to the finish line. Yet the fastest sprinter
demonstrates the most honed abilities and conditioning to earn the gold medal. Similarly,
during a tennis match, both players take turns serving and returning, but the player with
better skill and stamina wins more points and ultimately prevails. In soccer, each team fields
69
the same number of players on a regulation-size pitch, yet the squad that passes, dribbles and
shoots more adeptly will score more goals and seize the win. So while the format of the
contest is equitable, the triumphant athlete or team rightfully reaps greater rewards for
excelling thanks to merit. Another facet that all three approaches agree on, is fairness. The
essence of sports lies in voluntary participation, grounded in community values and the
shared ethos of competitions, as long as it is just (Loland, 2002, p.105). Competitions must
adhere to the rules, ensuring fairness (Butcher and Schneider, 1998, p.15). The Olympic
spirit embodies principles like practicing sports without discrimination, emphasizing
friendship, solidarity, and fair play (IOC, 2021b).
There are however differences evident in their specific orientations towards justice and
fairness. Whilst Loland (2002) highlights the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle and the
unequal treatment proportionate to the impact of rule violation-induced inequalities as part of
sporting justice, neither Butcher & Schneider (1998) nor the fundamental principle of
Olympism explicitly touch upon this aspect. Similarly, Loland (2002) emphasizes individual
intentional goals being realized within competition which augments his philosophical stance
towards individualism within collective settings - something less explicit or absent in other
examined contexts.6The intersection of the examined ethical positions cultivate conditions
conducive for optimal Olympic contests - ones fostering physical excellence paired equitably
with moral integrity. For instance, Butcher & Schneider’s emphasis on evenly matched
contestants playing at their best underpins an unwritten creed of striving ceaselessly for
personal betterment - a sentiment synonymous with Loland’s push towards realizing athletes’
6Butcher and Schneider (1998) evaluated internal and external motivation in their paper. Yet, they didn’t
integrate these discussions into their necessary conditions for fair play. The theory relies on the ‘transformation
of interest’ within the practice, i.e., prioritizing the interest of the practice over motivations.
70
intentional goals whilst also resonating with the promotion of joy derived from effort
invested, which is a goal of the Olympic Games.
Another example embarks on perceived fairness induced via balance between competitions
executed in safe, yet purposeful settings, exploiting sporting talent without the risk of undue
harm, while rendering violations accountable via appropriate sanctions. A tenet central to
Loland’s norms, whilst indirectly echoing Butcher’s and Scheidner’s idea around skill-based
outcomes unaffected by extraneous influences, and the focus on peaceful harmony
safeguarding human dignity as demanded by Olympism. A synthesis of these established
moral philosophies of sport indicates that certain shared principles can create optimal
conditions for Olympic contests. The interplay between equality of opportunity and
merit-based recognition surfaced in these doctrines, typifies idealized Olympic Games. Here,
cutting edge competitive endeavors, presented in a spirit of virtue, allow extraordinary
triumphs over human limitations. Such events celebrate sporting excellence while advancing
the common good. Moreover, they aim to foster peace and enact societal well-being. In this
way, the Olympic spirit promoting cooperation, dignity and community becomes intertwined
with advancing civilization.
Conditions of Fair Play Embedded With Fundamental Principles of
Olympism:
This comparative exploration offers synergistic outlooks aiming not just at marrying these
academic viewpoints, but also weaving them into fundamental principles espoused by
Olympism. Through this process, one could perceptively distill essential attributes that can
determine an ideally enacted Olympic contest rooted in mutual respect, fostering equality of
71
opportunity, embodying meritocracy, whilst guarding against unnecessary harm. Thus,
athletically vested parties who play to win, can nurture the further goals of harmonious
human development, advancing civilization.
Distilled Conditions for the Ideal Olympic Competition7
1. Non-Discrimination and Fair Equal Opportunity for Performance: participants
should be given equal opportunity to perform, practicing sport without discrimination.
This means eliminating, or compensating for, significant inequalities that competitors
cannot influence or be held responsible for (Loland, 2002). The ideal contest requires
that the contestants be evenly matched, with comparable levels of skill and fitness
(Butcher & Schneider, 1998). This aligns with the Olympic Charter's Fundamental
Principle 4 of "practicing sport without discrimination" and the spirit of friendship,
solidarity and fair play (IOC, 2021b).
2. Preserving Sporting Excellence: Sporting performance should be interpreted as
based on talent and individual effort. The outcome of the contest should be
determined by sporting skill or ability, not by extraneous factors such as luck or errors
in officiating (Butcher & Schneider, 1998). Conditions of play may pose additional
7This analysis aimed to distill key conditions for an ideal Olympic contest by drawing from Loland's (2002)
framework of fair play norms, Butcher and Schneider's (1998) necessary criteria, and the Olympic Charter's
fundamental principles. However, an extensive defense validating this synthesized set of ideal conditions will
not be undertaken here, as both Loland (2002) and Butcher and Schneider (1998) have already provided
rigorous examination and justification of their respective positions in their published works. Loland devoted an
entire book to systematically developing and advocating for his pluralistic moral theory of fair play in sport
grounded in the Fair Equality of Opportunity Principle. Meanwhile, Butcher and Schneider's article
meticulously laid out an interpretive approach situating fair play as "respect for the game" within MacIntyrean
philosophy. Thus, the scholarly foundations upholding the distilled conditions outlined already exist. This
analysis aimed not to duplicate previous academic efforts in re-establishing this conceptual territory but rather
to synthesize from existing discourse shared tenets that could inform a composite vision of the ideal Olympic
contest. The conditions represent a distillation - they are extracted and condensed from broader, nuanced
perspectives that merit direct consultation for deeper understanding. Further defense of the conditions was
avoided here because Loland (2002) and Butcher and Schneider (1998) thoroughly validated similar arguments
previously within their published works which served as key sources for this distillation.
72
obstacles but should not undermine the exhibition of skill (Butcher & Schneider,
1998). This upholds the principles of excellence and joy of effort outlined in the
Olympic Charter (IOC, 2021b).
3. Adherence to Safety and Harm Prevention: Performances should adhere to the
Olympic spirit of friendship, solidarity and fair play (IOC, 2020), adhering to a basic
norm of not exposing others or oneself to unnecessary harm (Loland, 2002). This
emphasizes protection of competitors' wellbeing.
4. Meritocracy in the Distribution of Advantages: Unequal treatment in the
distribution of advantage should be reasonably aligned with actual differences in
sporting performance (Loland, 2002). In other words, any discrimination should be
based on merit, primarily sporting performance, adhering to the principles of good
governance outlined in the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2021b). This maintains integrity
through fair competition.
5. Justice in Rule Enforcement: Any unequal treatment or punishment due to rule
violations should be proportional to the unfair advantage or inequality arising from
the violation (Loland, 2002), ensuring the enjoyment of rights and freedoms in sport
as per the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2021b). This upholds justice.
6. Goal Realization Promoting Harmonious Development of Humankind: All
parties concerned in sport competitions should act so that their intentional goals
which align with those of the practice and the goal of the Olympism, the harmonious
development of humankind, are realized to the greatest possible extent (Loland, 2002;
Butcher & Schneider, 1998; IOC, 2021b). This fosters human flourishing through
sport.
73
7. Striving for Excellence through Maximum Performance (i.e. Players must play
to win) : Players and other stakeholders should strive to win and perform at or near
their best (Butcher & Schneider, 1998), promoting the joy of effort, a fundamental
principle of the Olympism (IOC, 2021b). This celebrates the pursuit of excellence.
8. Preservation of the Uncertainty Outcomes: The game should maintain what
Fairleigh and Loland described as the "sweet tension of uncertainty of outcome"
(Loland, 2002), the outcome of the contest should be in doubt until the end, ideally
guaranteed by having evenly matched contestants playing at their best in the spirit of
friendship and solidarity (Butcher & Schneider, 1998). This preserves the excitement
of competitive sport.
Conclusion
In this chapter, through a critical review of seminal literature on sportsmanship, fair play and
Olympism, philosophical foundations were developed to conceptualize conditions for an
ideal Olympic contest. The analysis attended to the conceptual gaps, outlined previously,
regarding governance regulating performance-enhancing technology. Crucially, distinctions
between 'sportsmanship,' attributed to an athlete's conduct, and 'fair play', depicted as being
systemic and encompassing diverse stakeholders' responsibility were identified. Such
contrasting notions established sport's ethical intricacies as extending beyond personal traits -
demanding considerable collective endeavors while maintaining standards. I then explored
how the Olympic Games uniquely fuse elite sporting competition with a profound philosophy
(Olympism) that exalts human excellence alongside universal values like "social
responsibility and respect for fundamental ethical principles" (IOC, 2021b, p. 8). This duality
shapes the Olympic Games' essence.
74
To conceptualize fair play within this context, I examined influential scholarly perspectives.
Butcher and Schneider (1998) proposed fair play as 'respect for the game' - adherence to
rules, competitive spirit, and internal goods worth valuing. Loland (2002) offered a
normative system upholding equality, intentional goal realization and uncertainty. Integrating
these views while drawing on the Olympic Charter, I contend that fair play in the Olympics
requires respecting the games themselves (Schneider & Hellal, 2022), including both
sporting and philosophical facets. Accepting the Charter signifies consent to prioritize the
ideals of Olympism. I also explored Loland's (2002) framework emphasizing adherence to
justified moral norms of fairness and play. Loland's (2002) complex ethical theory addresses
intricate ideas of justice, equal opportunity, and safety norms, in the sport sphere. Along with
Butcher’s and Schneider’s (1998) perspectives, Loland's (2002) work has shaped key
conditions for ideal Olympic competitions. A comparative evaluation of these theories
alongside Olympism's fundamental principles, enabled a detailed understanding of synergies
and tensions between these theories. While divergent in approach, the analyzed philosophical
perspectives reveal much synergy regarding principles for an ethically ideal sporting contest,
providing a foundation to address issues threatening the integrity of the Olympic Games. The
synthesized examination identified eight conditions vital for an ideal Olympic contest. These
conditions encompassed principles of non-discrimination, sporting excellence, safety and
harm prevention, meritocracy, just rule enforcement, human flourishing through sport, the
relentless pursuit of excellence, and the preservation of outcome uncertainty. Together, these
elements, grounded in seminal scholarly perspectives and the essence of Olympism, painted a
comprehensive picture of what constitutes a fair, ethical, and exemplary Olympic
competition.
75
Limitations
While this chapter achieved its stated goal of establishing foundational ethical parameters for
conceptualizing ideal Olympic contests, certain limitations must be acknowledged that
present avenues for refinement through future research. The conceptual synthesis integrating
Loland's (2002) sophisticated framework with interpretive perspectives risks glossing over
meaningful nuances within each theory. Loland's (2002) highly detailed articulation of
justified moral norms for fairness and play merits close analysis in its own right before
attempting integration with other models. Collapsing varied conceptualizations into a
consolidated list of principles inevitably loses certain subtleties. Tensions persist between
understandings of justice, natural talent development, and uncertainty derived from the
different theories analyzed. For instance, Loland's explicit focus on distributing advantages
proportionally based on performance contrasts with Butcher and Schneider's focus on
internal goals and not this dimension of justice. The brief treatment here was inadequate to
fully unpack the roots of such discrepancies or their implications for technology regulation.
Much work remains in undertaking comparative analysis that retains nuance within each
theory.
Reference List
Abad, D. (2010). Sportsmanship. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,4(1), 27-41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17511320903365227
Aristotle. (1976). The Ethics of Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics (J. A. K. Thomson &
H. Tredennick, Eds.). Penguin Books.
Arnold, P. J. (1983). Three Approaches Toward an Understanding of Sportsmanship.
Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,10(1), 61-70.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1983.9714401
76
Butcher, R., & Schneider, A. (1998). Fair Play as Respect for the Game. Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport,25(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1998.9714565
Cambridge Dictionary. (2023, May 31).
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/accordance
Carr, C. (2008). Fairness and performance enhancement in sport. J Philos Sport,35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2008.9714738
DaCosta, L. (2006). A Never-Ending Story: The Philosophical Controversy Over
Olympism. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,33(2), 157-173.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2006.9714699
D’Agostino, F. (1981). The Ethos of Games. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,8(1),
7-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1981.9714372
Eassom, S. (1998). Games, rules, and contracts. Ethics and Sport, 57-78.
Feezell, R. M. (1986). Sportsmanship. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,13(1), 1-13.
Gordon, E. C., & Dodds, C. (2023). High altitude, enhancement, and the ‘spirit of sport.’
Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,50(1), 63-82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2023.2168679
International Fair Play Committee-CIFP Statutes, (2006).
http://www.fairplayinternational.org/cifp-statutes
IOC. (2021a). Fundamental changes to the Olympic oath at Tokyo 2020 Opening
Ceremony-Olympic News. International Olympic Committee.
https://olympics.com/ioc/news/fundamental-changes-to-the-olympic-oath-at-tokyo-
2020-opening-ceremony
IOC. (2021b). Olympic Charter. International Olympic Committee.
https://olympics.com/ioc/olympic-charter
Keating, J. W. (1964). Sportsmanship as a Moral Category. Ethics,75(1), 25-35.
Kretchmar, R. S. (1975). From Test to Contest: An Analysis of Two Kinds of
Counterpoint in Sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,2(1), 23-30.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1975.10654094
Sessions, W. (2004). Sportsmanship as Honor. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,31(1),
47-59. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2004.9714648
Loland, S. (1995). Coubertin’s ideology of Olympism from the perspective of the history
of ideas. OLYMPIKA,4, 49-78.
Loland, S. (2002). Fair play in sport: A moral norm system. Psychology Press.
Loland, S. (2020). Caster Semenya, athlete classification, and fair equality of
opportunity in sport. Journal of Medical Ethics,46(9), 584-590.
https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2019-105937
Loland, S., & Hoppeler, H. (2012). Justifying anti-doping: The fair opportunity principle
and the biology of performance enhancement. European Journal of Sport Science,
12(4), 347-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2011.566374
MacAloon, J. J. (2011). Scandal and governance: Inside and outside the IOC 2000
Commission. Sport in Society,14(3), 292-308.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2011.557265
MacIntyre, A. (1981). After Virtue.https://undpress.nd.edu/9780268035044/after-virtue
Naul, R. (2008). Olympic education. Meyer & Meyer Verlag.
Nlandu, T. (2008). Play Until the Whistle Blows: Sportsmanship as the Outcome of
Thirdness. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,35(1), 73-89.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2008.9714728
77
Parry, J. (1998). Physical education as olympic education. European Physical Education
Review,4(2), 153-167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X9800400206
Pearson, K. M. (1973). Deception, Sportsmanship, and Ethics. Quest,19(1), 115-118.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.1973.10519761
Schneider, A., & Butcher, R. (1993). Why Olympic athletes should avoid the use and
seek the elimination of performance-enhancing substances and practices from the
Olympic Games. J Philos Sport,20.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1993.9714504
Schneider, A., & Hellal, M. (2022). The implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on
fairness and fair play for Olympic athletes training for the Tokyo Olympic Games.
In Philosophy, Sport, and the Pandemic (pp. 185-201). Routledge.
Serrano-Durá, J., Molina, P., & Martínez-Baena, A. (2021). Systematic review of
research on fair play and sporting competition. Sport, Education and Society,26(6),
648-662. https://doi.org/10.1080/13573322.2020.1786364
Sheridan, H. (2003). Conceptualizing `Fair Play’: A Review of the Literature. European
Physical Education Review,9(2), 163-184.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1356336X03009002003
Suits, B. (1977). Words on Play. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,4(1), 117-131.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1977.10654132
UEFA Statutes, (2021).
https://documents.uefa.com/search/all?filters=FT_ContentType_custom~%2522UE
FA+Statutes%2522&content-lang=en-GB
Vallerand, R. J., Deshaies, P., Cuerrier, J.-P., BriÈre, N. M., & Pelletier, L. G. (1996).
Toward a multidimensional definition of sportsmanship. Journal of Applied Sport
Psychology,8(1), 89-101.
78
Chapter 3
Technology and Olympism: An Ethical Framework For Olympic
Sports
Introduction
Expanding on the conceptual groundwork laid in Chapter 2, this chapter progresses onto
forge an assessment framework that encapsulates ethics for evaluating technology integration
within the distinctive sphere of Olympic sports. The preceding multidimensional analysis
distilled principles deemed vital for engendering ethically sound and meaningful sporting
contests at the Olympics. The eight criteria developed in chapter 2, serve as the basis for
evaluation for the integration of new technologies in Olympic sport. While technologies
aligning with, and augmenting, these foundational sporting principles may be deemed
permissible, those severely undermining, or contravening, these values could warrant
prohibition - regardless of intended functionality. In this journey, I will explore the debates
between instrumentalism, substantivism, determinism, and Feenberg’s critical theory of
technology, to highlight how technologies may embody values, and emphasize the
importance of evaluation that considers ethics (Heidegger, 1977; Jonas, 1974; Winner, 1980;
Feenberg, 2005). Heidegger's perspective on technology transforming our world compels us
to assess its essence beyond efficiency goals (Heidegger, 1977). To address the occurrence of
consequences when adopting new technologies I incorporate the Doctrine of Double Effect8
as a practical tool for weighing intended benefits against potential harms (McIntyre, 2023). I
8The Doctrine of Double Effect, rooted in Thomistic thought, posits a moral distinction between intended
outcomes and merely foreseen ones in human action. It articulates a framework wherein actions causing
harmful effects are permissible if they fulfill certain conditions, chiefly serving a good end and lacking a direct
intention to cause harm. This doctrine holds significant influence in ethical discussions, particularly in medical,
legal, and military domains, offering nuanced analysis of complex moral scenarios.
79
will classify sports technologies into six categories based on their intended aims and
functions. Within each category, I then apply the Doctrine of Double Effect to strike a
balance, between desired goals and possible side effects. Technologies that align with these
conditions and generate benefits will be compared to harms that are considered ethically
acceptable. Technologies that blatantly violate principles, or cause disproportionate
disruptions, will raise concerns. This phased methodology provides a roadmap for integrating
technology in ways that uphold fair play. The classification of technology into categories,
based on their intended purposes, provides structure, while incorporating the Doctrine of
Double Effect adds nuance when weighing trade offs.
Technology and sport
The predominant view in philosophy of technology in the context of sport has been one that
sees technology as a means to an end, an efficiency driven tool to achieve human goals and
values (Miah, 2005; Loland, 2002b). This instrumentalist perspective understands technology
as lacking inherent moral value, with the intended ends of the agent supplying any ethical
dimension. However, substantive and critical theories of technology philosophers have
highlighted limitations in this perspective by arguing that technology inherently embodies
and propagates certain values, shaping our relation to the world in non-neutral ways
(Heidegger, 1977; Jonas, 1974; Winner 1980, Feenberg, 1991). Building on this, one could
argue technology in sport not only serves intended purposes, but also transforms the nature of
sport itself, by altering the human experience and embodiment of sporting activities, shifting
sports towards techno-scientific paradigms, and embedding different values like
quantification and efficiency into sporting cultures. For example, A simple ball in a game of
football, can be seen as an instrument that facilitates play, but if the ball gets integrated into a
80
game of football, it transforms the game to the point that the game of football might no
longer be definable without the technology. The values of competition, spectacle and
progress take on new meanings through technological mediation (Tiles and Oberdiek, 1995).
In sport, while technology serves instrumental purposes like improving performance, it can
also have unintended ‘performance-altering effects’ (Miah, 2005) that transform the nature of
sport itself. Integrating video replay, athlete tracking systems, and spectatorship technologies
propagates values of high-performance that substantially reshape sport. An instrumentalist
may define technology simply as applying scientific knowledge to serve sport interests, but a
critical theorist may argue that technology redefines the ideals of ‘faster, higher, stronger’
(the Olympic motto) in light of new technical possibilities. Miah (2005) categorizes various
performance-altering technologies in sport:
“Technologies that make sport possible;
Technologies that improve Safety and Reduce Harm
Technologies that de-skill or re-skill sports;
Technologies that dehumanise performances;
Technologies that increase participation and/or spectatorship”
(Miah, 2005, p. 53)
Dyer (2015; 2020) offers an impact-based lens in his analysis of the literature that can offer a
critical view of technology in sport that further expanded these effect and determined the
impact of technology in sport as the following:
●“Harm or health (to the athlete or others)
●Un-naturalness
●Unfair advantage or consideration of fairness
●Coercion
●Safety and spectator appeal
●Integrity of the game, harm to or advantage over the sport itself, or the
'spirit of the sport'
●deskilling and reskilling
●Dehumanization
●Cost (or excess cost)
81
●The internal goods of a sport
●Equal opportunity or access”
(Dyer, 2015, p.2)
Miah (2005) recognizes the overlap between his categorizations, and this can be confidently
attributed to the overlap between intended application and the final impact of technology on
sport. Indeed, we can see similar overlap in Dyer’s (2015) review of literature on the impact
of technology. This intersection creates an interesting dilemma: Which lens is most suitable
to evaluate new technologies in sport? Logically, a new technology unproven in sport can
only be evaluated based on intentions. However, potential impacts of technologies can alter
the practice of sport beyond our intended purpose. I aim to categorize technologies based on
intended functions, and evaluate their permissibility considering unintended alterations to
sport's values by applying principles like the Doctrine of Double Effect. This framework
locates technologies on an intentions spectrum, then layers evaluative lenses asking if
unintended impacts, problematically reconceptualizing the ideal Olympic Contest.
Considering multiple ethical dimensions and principles enables to comprehensively judging
technologies based on their holistic integration into sport.
Sports and philosophy of technology
In considering philosophical perspectives on technology, Feenberg’s critical theory of
technology is best suited for this framework examining both intended, and unintended,
consequences of technology in sport. Feenberg's critical theory moves beyond simplistic
instrumentalism to see technologies as value-laden, propagating biases and unevenly
distributing impacts based on their embedded values (Feenberg, 1991). While substantivism
justifiably identifies how technologies propagate certain values and shape experiences,
substantively beyond mere utility, it tends toward technological determinism in asserting
82
technologies have fixed trajectories, rather than mutability (Heidegger, 1977). Pessimistically
focused on harms, substantivism underestimates potentials for democratizing reforms in
sports technology integration to better align with ethical values. This one-sidedness obscures
a more complete picture. Technological determinism can go further in portraying technology
as an autonomous force impacting sports with determined outcomes, discounting possibilities
for democratization or imaginative alternative configurations (Feenberg, 2005). Determinism
exaggerates technology’s agency beyond human control, failing to recognize sport’s active
shaping of technology based on cultural values. Determinism rigidly focuses on technology
itself, giving technology significant agency. In contrast, Feenberg’s critical theory strikes a
balance - seeing technology as value-laden, so requiring ethical scrutiny, yet avoiding
extremes of technological utopianism, or dystopianism, by highlighting prospects for
democratic discourse on integrating technology responsibly (Feenberg, 2002). The emphasis
on democratization, uncovering systematic biases, and linking technologies to cultural
values, makes Feenberg’s critical theory uniquely well-suited for comprehensively analyzing
technology’s multifaceted integration in the sociocultural realm of modern sport. Feenberg’s
critical theory frames technology not as fixed essence, but as a value-laden, culturally
contextualized domain requiring ethical insight and inclusive shaping (Feenberg, 1991).
Where instrumentalist assumptions of neutrality ignore many aspects of how technology
shapes the practice, Feenberg's critical theory unpacks these transformative impacts. Where
substantivist assumptions of fixed trajectories exaggerate lack of human control, Feenberg's
critical theory embraces potential benefits too. Where technological determinism ignores
reciprocal sociocultural dynamics, Feenberg's critical theory can explain the co-shaping of
sport and technology. In adopting Feenberg’s balanced critical theory to examine technology
83
in sports, the resulting analysis can avoid these limitations, better capturing the nuances and
ethical complexity involved. The alternative theories have merits, but limitations making
Feenberg's critical theory the optimal
Alignments with Feenberg's critical theory
Several alignments suggest Feenberg's critical theory's relevance as a framework for this
thesis:
●It sees technology as non-neutral, shifting meanings and relations - fitting the
transformational lens in sporting culture (Heidegger, 1977; Jonas, 1974; Feenberg,
1991).
●It foregrounds democratization and participation - aligning with developing an ethical
framework around technology evaluation (Feenberg, 1991). This aligns with the
conceptualization of Fair Play in chapter 2 as a multi-stakeholder responsibility and
the goal of the research to create an ‘accessible’ ethical framework.
●It reveals embedded social biases and uneven impacts, which Feenberg described as
‘Technical Codes’ (Feenberg, 2002) - enabling assessing technologies in sport for
possible self-serving interest though power dynamics.
●It advocates reasoned discourse about ends and impacts - appropriate for ethical
analysis (Feenberg, 2002).
●It links technology to social values and structures - contextualizing technology's
cultural role in sport (Feenberg, 1991).
Integrating conditions for the ideal Olympic Contest and Technology Assessment
Drawing on the conceptual conditions established for envisioning an ideal Olympic contest
grounded in fairness, respect, justice and Olympism's philosophy, Feenberg's critical theory
84
provides a foundation to assess technology's role in Olympic sports. Feenberg's critical
theory sees technologies as non-neutral sociotechnical systems propagating certain values
and carries a ‘Technical Code’ (Feenberg, 2002 and 2005).
“I have introduced the concept of "technical code" to articulate this relationship
between social and technical requirements. A technical code is the realization of an
interest or ideology in a technically coherent solution to a problem…. a technical
code is a criterion that selects between alternative feasible technical designs in terms
of a social goal. "Feasible" here means technically workable. Goals are "coded" in
the sense of ranking items as ethically permitted or forbidden, or aesthetically better
or worse”
(Feenberg, 2005, p. 54)
Feenberg's critical theory, through its emphasis on democratization and discernibility of
embedded values and biases, is strategically positioned for analyzing sports technology
within the framework of Olympism. The ideal Olympic contest can risk erosion or bias
introduction of new technologies; potential risks should, therefore, be dialectically balanced
against proposed benefits. Feenberg's critical theory enables proactive analysis during all
developmental stages thereby fostering more comprehensive evaluation strategies. This
approach facilitates judicious decision-making regarding technological adoption based on
how well it aligns with fostering an equitable contest environment that respects Fair Play
norms (detailed analysis of 6 different classes of technology will be presented later in this
chapter). Consequently, cultural meanings are intrinsically linked to innovations, ensuring
alignment with Olympic ideals in each integration instance. As such Feenberg's critical
theory's salient features - democratization, contextualisation and thorough inspection - render
it suitably fit as a perspective from which to ethically analyze sports technology.
Dyer (2015; 2020) extensively examined the influence of technology on sports by reviewing
literature on aspects of technology in the field. The table provided below, compares Dyer’s
(2015; 2020) research with the conditions for the ideal Olympic Contest outlined in chapter
85
2. It emphasizes the themes discussed in the literature and how they align and intersect with
the conditions for the ideal Olympic Contest.
Table 3.1: A comparative overview between Dyer’s (2015; 2020) systematic review of the
literature discussing the impact of technology on sport and the conditions for the Ideal
Olympic Contest presented in Chapter 2
Themes of arguments that
explore the Impact of
technology on sport (Dyer,
2015; 2020)
Conditions for the Ideal Olympic Contest (Chapter 2)
Harm or Health (to the athlete
or others)
Adherence to Safety norms and Harm Prevention
Un-naturalness in performance
Preserving Sporting Excellences
Unfair Advantage or
Consideration of Fairness
Non-Discrimination and Fair Equal Opportunity for Performance;
Meritocracy in the Distribution of Advantages; Justice in Rule
Enforcement
Coercion
Adherence to Safety and Harm Prevention; Non-Discrimination
and Fair Equal Opportunity for Performance
Safety and Spectator Appeal
Adherence to Safety and Harm Prevention; Preservation of the
Uncertainty Outcomes
Integrity of the Game, Harm
to or Advantage over the Sport
itself, or the 'Spirit of the
Sport'
Preserving Sporting Excellence; Meritocracy in the Distribution of
Advantages; Justice in Rule Enforcement; Goal Realization
Promoting Harmonious Development of Humankind; Striving for
Excellence through Maximum Performance
De-skilling and Re-skilling
Preserving Sporting Excellence; Striving for Excellence through
Maximum Performance
Dehumanization
Goal Realization Promoting Harmonious Development of
Humankind; Striving for Excellence through Maximum
Performance
Cost (or Excess Cost)
Non-Discrimination and Fair Equal Opportunity for Performance;
Meritocracy in the Distribution of Advantages
The Internal Goods of a Sport
Preserving Sporting Excellence; Meritocracy in the Distribution of
Advantages; Justice in Rule Enforcement; Goal Realization
Promoting Harmonious Development of Humankind; Striving for
Excellence through Maximum Performance
86
Equal Opportunity or Access
Non-Discrimination and Fair Equal Opportunity for Performance
The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE)
Having the vision of categorizing technology in sport through an intentional lens and impact
against established conditions for the ideal Olympic contest, it is essential to align these two
approaches to form a consistent evaluation methodology. This integrated approach allows us
to develop a rich understanding of each technology and how it relates to and impact, the
Olympic Contest. Just as different technologies underpin varying intentions (such as enabling
sport, promoting safety, etc.), so too do they carry potential effects that can either enhance or
distort aspects of our ideal Olympic contest. For example, technologies intended towards
ensuring safety might inherently value the condition for harm prevention, but could
counterintuitively undermine sporting excellence if it leads to a marked decrease in
performance levels. The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) is a principle originating from the
work of Thomas Aquinas in his text Summa Theologica, which understands that actions may
have two effects - one intended and one unintended. Essentially, it justifies an action with
harmful consequences if its primary intention is morally good or at least neutral, even when
adverse side-effects could be foreseen. For example, in palliative medicine, certain
treatments aimed to relieve pain might hasten death, sparkling euthanasia debates - an act
typically considered wrong rendered potentially acceptable due to this doctrine's precepts
concerning proportionality (the good outweigh foreseeable harm) and discrimination (intent).
Though primarily referenced within Catholic moral theology, contextually regarding war
ethics and self-defense analysis historically-it remains impactful across diverse ethical
discussions like abortion or problem-solving methodology. DDE has been explored before in
87
the context of assessing intention in the cases of restoration vs enhancement of performance
by technology in sport (Schneider, 2018; Pike, 2018). Schneider and Sales (2019) apply an
inverted doctrine of double effect from biomedical ethics to consider if treatments causing
performance enhancement as a side effect of treating injury are ethically permissible in sport.
According to DDE, an action is permissible if it fulfills four conditions:
●The action (in this case, the introduction or use of the technology) must be morally
good (intrinsically regardless of consequences) or at least indifferent.
●The agent (the person or organization introducing or using the technology) must
intend the good effect (the intended purpose of the technology) and not the bad effect
(any negative impacts).
●The good effect does not arise from the bad effect.
●There is a proportionately serious reason for permitting the bad effect.
(McIntyre, 2023)
According to the first condition of DDE, a wrong action would be one that is inherently evil
regardless of outcome. For instance، taking the life of a person is always unacceptable even if
it is done to save the lives of others (McIntyre, 2023). DDEs first condition emphasizes that
the action itself must be good or, at least morally neutral. Consequently an action that is
intrinsically evil fails to meet DDEs condition (McIntyre, 2023). Thus cannot be morally
justified. Some examples of actions considered wrong that would violate the first DDE
condition; committing murder, engaging in rape, inflicting torture, stealing, telling lies,
cheating. All these actions are considered intrinsically evil and therefore cannot be morally
justified under DDE. It’s important to acknowledge that the sports governing body’s action in
the proposed framework is to act as a steward of the interests of the ideal Olympic contest.
88
The action of allowing or not allowing the integration of a certain technology in sport is
rarely considered ‘evil’, the key here is having the right intention and foreseeing the impact.
Applying the Doctrine of Double Effect allows a nuanced evaluation of technological
integration in sports. Firstly, looking through an intention-focused lens based on six different
categories of technologies in sport: 1) Technology intended to facilitate constitutive
elements; 2) Technology intended to restore performance; 3) Technology intended to improve
performance; 4) Technology intended to promote safety; 5) Technology intended to monitor
officiating and integrity; and 6) Technology intended to enhance consumption and
participation. In each case, we can apply DDE by evaluating whether the technological
innovation upholds Conditions for Ideal Olympic Contest (developed in Chapter 2) - as these
represent 'good' effects:
1. Non-Discrimination and Fair Equal Opportunity for Performance;
2. Preserving Sporting Excellence;
3. Adherence to Safety and Harm Prevention;
4. Meritocracy in Distribution of Advantages;
5. Justice in Rule Enforcement;
6. Promoting Harmonious Development of Humankind;
7. Striving for Excellence through Maximum Performance; and
8. Preservation of Uncertainty Outcomes.
We then examine emergent impacts from these categories of technologies - are they
enhancing or undermining our ideal contest conditions? A safety-promoting technology may
enhance fairness by reducing injury risks but could disrupt sporting excellence if it limits
performance levels too heavily. Assessing whether technology meets these eight ideal
Olympic Contest conditions using the DDE principles as described above, assists us with
ethical dilemmas about new sport technologies.
89
Figure 3.1: The flowchart visually presents the ethical decision-making process for
integrating technology in sports.
The ethical decision-making process involves first categorizing the type of technology being
considered based on its intended purpose, such as Technology intended to facilitate
constitutive elements and Technology intended to restore performance. The technology is
then evaluated against a set of criteria for an ideal Olympic contest, including fairness, safety,
integrity, and human excellence. Using the Doctrine of Double Effect, the inherent values of
the technology itself is examined along with weighing its positive intended effects against
any potential negative unintended consequences. Finally, integrating these evaluations, a
judgment is made on whether or not integrating the technology aligns with principles of the
ideal Olympic contest. The approach underscores the importance of carefully discerning
embedded values in innovations to preserve fair play at the Olympic Games..
90
Responding to possible critiques of the proposed sports technology
evaluation framework
This section defends the sports technology evaluation framework, addressing possible
critiques concerning taxonomy categorization, Doctrine of Double Effect application and
others. I defend my approach of balancing Feenberg's critical theory insights with applied
ethics' practicality for a mixed intention/impact focused analysis. It demonstrates how
isolating categories based on intentions facilitate understanding while permitting detailed
study; adaptation of DDE provides an easy to grasp ethical rule that considers technology's
interwoven complexity.
It might be suggested that the taxonomy of categories risks oversimplification by overlooking
technologies’ subtle embedded values. However, the categories aim to orient initial
technology grouping based on intended purposes in order to then apply further value-focused
evaluation. The categories provide preliminary descriptive framing, not deterministic
jugement. The analysis crucially probes how technologies propagate biases through what
Feenberg might describe as “technical codes” beyond their explicit functions, aligning with
Feenberg’s emphasis on demystifying claims of neutrality (Feenberg, 2002). Categories offer
helpful starting points for this unpacking by orienting analyses based on broad technology
groupings. For instance, interrogating values embedded in a performance enhancement
technology begins from recognizing its explicit aims. Categories need not preclude rich
sociotechnical analysis but rather initiate it.
It might be argued that the DDE method inadequately engages technology’s complex societal
embeddedness by isolating cases abstracted from context. However, the categories schema
91
already orients contextual thinking by distinguishing broad technology groupings within
sports. The DDE simply supplies a protocol for judging specific cases based on articulated
principles. Its application occurs subsequent to categorization placing technologies in
context. DDE enables navigating ethical trade-offs within bounded case assessments, not as a
totalizing calculus. Use of DDE does not preclude dialectical analysis of technology’s
reciprocal shaping with social dynamics (Feenberg, 2005). It operates on a different register,
offering an applied ethics toolkit to practically negotiate dilemmas within broader
sociotechnical contexts. Isolating cases temporarily to focus ethical reasoning does not ignore
their embeddedness. The method's utility lies in facilitating clear normative judgments
despite inevitable uncertainties. DDE provides structured mixed intention and impact focused
analysis complementing Feenberg’s contextual emphasis.
Critics might argue the proposed framework insufficiently addresses power and bias in sports
tech regulation. However, this framework prioritizes an evidence-based approach mindful of
fair play values often compromised by ingrained interests. The technologies are grouped
based on function not only to evaluate impacts, but also to discern underlying biases masked
as neutrality claims. When technology categories threaten core sporting values, they can be
justifiably contested, or controlled, through our methodology grounded on Olympic contest
prerequisites such as inclusion, excellence and safety among others (chapter 2). This lends
strength for challenging biased 'technical codes' that promote unethical motives (Feenberg,
2005). It empowers interventions against technologies that undermine humanistic sporting
values, even if promoted under pretexts of efficiency or inevitability. The framework offers a
democratizing counterweight to technocratic power.
92
One possible critique of fixing my analysis from the sport governing body’s perspective is
the causality paradox. DDE entails an action by an agent (e.g. introducing new officiating
and safety technologies), but governing bodies, in many cases, don’t ‘do’ the action of
introducing a technology (e.g. the introduction of a new performance enhancing technology).
Technologies, in many instances, are introduced by other stakeholders like athletes, coaches,
teams, clubs, etc. There is a distinction between permitting an action versus actively doing it.
In certain contexts, allowing something to occur can be morally distinct from directly doing
it oneself (e.g. the famous trolley problem). However, in this Chapter’s examination of
technology in sports, allowing and doing will be treated equivalently. The focus is on the
ethical acceptability of the technologies themselves, not fine distinctions between regulators
allowing versus athletes actively using enhancements. Permitting a technology in sports
implies acceptance of its use in competitive contexts. Given the aims of this analysis,
allowing and doing will be viewed as ethically equivalent actions regarding these
technologies.
Responding to potential claims of over-theorization of this ethical framework, it's important
to revisit my central objective: to convert abstract ethics into a digestible tool for various
sport stakeholders. Sport regulators necessitate justifications rooted in concrete rationales and
operational methodologies rather than enigmatic philosophies. The taxonomic classification
deployed delivers a series of distinct categorizations that unambiguously facilitate discourse
across different sectors associated with sports organization and management. Principles like
safety, fairness and undeserved advantage speak to shared norms among sporting
communities. The DDE offers a structured sequence of questions framed in plain language
amenable to everyday ethical reasoning. Sufficient background knowledge of sports is likely
93
adequate for basic application. The framework aims precisely to make Feenberg's critical
theory actionable by diverse stakeholders through straightforward tools and joint concepts.
Complex sociotechnical dynamics still require elucidation by experts, but the framework
supplies initial scaffolding for pursuing evidence-based regulation anchored to accessible
knowledge.
Dual Use, Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) and Technology
A famous problem often discussed in the discussions of the ethics of technology is the
problem of ‘dual use’. The dual use problem is when a technology designed for beneficial
purposes risks misuse for harmful ends. E.g., Anabolic Androgenic Steroids are approved as
a treatment for male hypogonadism and burn victims, but are used illicitly to enhance
performance in sport. Understanding distinctions between dual use and the Doctrine of
Double Effect (DDE) helps frame technology regulation.
Dual use is an instrumental lens that refers to technologies with both legitimate and
illegitimate applications (Uniacke, 2013). In this sense, a technology itself is neutral, but can
be applied for good or ill. Dual use technologies have intrinsic characteristics making them
susceptible to dual applications (Miller & Selgelid, 2007). For instance, certain biological
agents could be used both in medical research and biological weapons. The dual use tension
is between enabling benefits versus preventing misuse. The technology harbors dual potential
depending on usage norms. With dual use, restrictions based on possible misuse force
trade-offs between preventing harm and lost opportunities from curtailed access. But
permissiveness also courts risks. In contrast, the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) deals with
single actions having an intended good effect alongside unintended negative effects
94
(McIntyre, 2023). The core question is whether pursuing a moral end can justify causing
foreseeable collateral harms. For example, certain risky surgeries aiming to save lives could
also inadvertently hasten death. Under DDE, harm may be permissible if the intended
outcome outweighs incidental effects, among other conditions. The tension exists within
one’s action, not between different applications of a technology. With DDE, inferences about
intentions guide moral judgments. Acting in good faith to prevent harms also matters
ethically, even if harms still occur. DDE considers an agent's purpose, while dual use focuses
on wider consequences of enabling technologies susceptible to misuse by others. These
distinctions matter for sports technology regulation. Governance often defaults to dual use
assumptions of weighing risks against benefits with absence of the capacity to constrain
usage. But Biomedical ethics traditions suggest DDE's intention-focused lens could enable
more nuanced oversight when governing bodies and stakeholders control the practice’s
parameters similar to sports.
Sports rules deliberately define constitutive conditions for contests, shaping purposes and
incentives. Governance can directly build selective intentions, controlling the "ends”
competing serves within rules to curtail improper "means". Sporting authorities aim precisely
to prevent misuse, not just reactively restrict access based on dual use potentials.
Technologies then operate within regulated systematic contexts aligned to proper purposes.
Still, unintended effects occur given complex sporting ecosystems. But institutional
governance through enforced rules provides opportunity for intended good effects to
dominate. Permissible intentions are then separated from unacceptable ones through
regulating norms. As a formal institutional practice, sport can demand evidence of proper
purposes before granting access to novel technologies. This contrasts with dual use
assumptions of inevitable misuse in absences of constraints on the technology itself.
95
Top-down governance shaping norms around rules provides opportunity to define acceptable
intentions technologies serve within contests. Integrity checks further verify compliance.
While power asymmetries between athletes and governance exist, this doesn’t have to be the
case with the democratization of decision making processes to regulate the practice itself,
including technology integration, based on principled definitions of purpose. There are
limitations, but sports hope to prevent harms by formalizing intentions, not just restricting
access.
A Taxonomy for Technological Integration in Sport
The next part of this chapter aims to enhance the conceptual clarity regarding the roles of
technology in sport. I will categorize technology in sport based on intention from the
perspective of sports governing bodies9, then conduct an abbreviated analysis of the potential
good and bad effect, followed by a brief example Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) analysis
to balance a representative of each category against the conditions for the ideal Olympic
Contest. The following chapters will provide more detailed case studies. Given their broad
nature, categories possess significant variance regarding any associated impact due to
different specific technologies falling under them even though they share similar agent’s
intentions. In other words, by virtue of being unique entities - each bestowed with its
individual set of characteristics - distinct technologies necessitate separate examinations for
competent assessment. When implementing DDE evaluations therefore, proper care should
be taken that critical emphasis is placed on individuality rather than collective categorization.
9It is essential to acknowledge that intention focused analysis must be tied to a single agent, in this case,
governing bodies. A good effect for the athlete might not be good for the governing body and vice-versa. While
all stakeholders should ‘respect’ their practices and prioritize the practice’s interests (the conditions for the ideal
Olympic Contest), the DDE framework weighs actions and intentions of a single agent.
96
It is important to acknowledge the six technology categories presented are wide-ranging in
scope and are not inclusive of all possible technological integration in sport. For example, we
might see in the future technologies getting introduced in sport only for the sake of
environmental sustainability. Thus, the six proposed categories are only meant to be used as a
starting point for future technologies.
Non-categorized: De-skilling and Re-skilling
As argued earlier, technology doesn't just serve its intended purpose in sport, but shapes our
understanding of the practice itself. For example, the ball, pitch, and pitch lines in a game of
football might have originally intended to serve as tools that facilitate game play, but it’s
highly doubtful that any of us can recognize a game of football without these elements. The
incorporation of all technology into sports naturally results in a transformation of the practice
that may lead to a relative process of either re-skilling, and de-skilling, as they serve to
reshape the practice. However, it is important to acknowledge that these processes are often
secondary (unintended) to the objectives of the technology, rather than being an end in
themselves. Therefore, it is prudent that when examining the intended goals of technology in
sports, we should not generally treat re-skilling, and de-skilling, as major intention based
categories. Instead, they should be seen as inevitable effects that accompany most
technological categories in sport. Let's consider the example of technologies that can result in
de-skilling. The incorporation of depth finders, bait casting reels and sonar in angling, aimed
to simplify fish detection and landing, consequently lead to increasing the popularity of the
sport (Hummel & Foster 1986). The primary objective is enhancing participation and
enjoyment, not the de-skilling effect (even this action was ‘drastic’). In instances where
certain technologies were prohibited, such as the croquet style putter design in golf or
97
'spaghetti' strung rackets in tennis (Carr, 2008; Dyer 2015; Sheridan,2006; Savulescu, 2006),
the decision to ban these innovations was based on their re-skilling impact, rather than
re-skilling being their primary goal, the primary goal could have simply been performance
improvement or increasing participation and fan engagement.
de-skilling as a "primary intention" is usually assumed as ‘bad’ as this contradicts the
principle of preservation of excellences. The paradox occurs when de-skilling is used as a
means to bring about good effects; i.e. the good effect (e.g. safety) arising from the bad effect
(de-skilling)? E.g. in cases like actions/or impacts that de-skill the sport to improve safety
like in the case of the ban on backflips in figure skating (an excellent exhibition of skill but
carries high safety risks), even though this directly violates the third DDE principle 'The good
effect (safety) does not arise from the bad effect', the (4th) proportionality principle might still
allow for de-skilling because it is the lesser harm vs safety risks.
"A third misinterpretation of double effect bases the impermissibility of causing harm
as a means to a good end on the fact that it is wrongful in itself to intend to cause
harm. There are many circumstances in which agents may cause harms as a means to
a good end and in such cases, producing a harm as a means to a good end is
compatible with having an appropriate attitude toward the harm. Surgeons may
amputate limbs to save lives while regretting the damage, the disfigurement, and the
disability that their actions will cause."
McIntyre (2023)
On the other hand, re-skilling can be argued to be an inevitable impact of all new
technologies in sport and almost always comes as a secondary unintended consequence of
adapting to the new technology (whatever category it belongs to). E.g. officiating
technologies like goal line and VAR come with a primary intention to improve rule
compliance and fair games, but eventually will lead to some form of re-skilling on the game;
e.g. players not risking being offside as much - knowing that a goal can be overruled
retrospectively even if the referee didn't catch the violation first hand. It is reasonable to
98
assume that re-skilling is an eventuality of all technological integration into sport (with a
relative extent), that can be put in the proportionality balance when assessing the integration
of these technologies.
1) Technology intended to facilitate constitutive elements.
Technology intended to facilitate constitutive elements are integral structural components
that enable a sport to exist and function (Miah, 2005). Without them, the sport would not be
recognizable, or from critical theorist perspective, these technologies once integrated into the
sporting practice, evolve to a co-constitutive relationship 10. Sport and this type of
technology can no longer be viewed separately. For instance, competitive cycling is reliant
on bicycles, and bicycles as a fundamental mobility and mechanical structure in the sport of
cycling (a technology initially intended to facilitate a sport) transformed the practice, and
was shaped by the interest (technical code) of the practice. The core constitutive implements
must remain compatible with, and ideally serve, a democratic and just interest of the practice,
that preserve conditions fundamental to fair play. They enable and give structure to the
essential interactions at the heart of a sport while transforming sport and get transformed by
sport. Thus, one needs to be very careful with introducing or changing any aspects of this
category of technologies in sport.
Other examples of (Co)Constitutive technologies include:
●Firearms and targets for shooting events.
●Balls tailored to specific sports (weight, size, bounce, etc.).
●Game equipment like bats, sticks, racquets, etc.
10 These technologies are extremely transformative to and by the sporting practices. These types of technologies
warrant caution and extensive scrutiny before implementation as they risk transforming the practice
substantially.
99
●Ice rinks, pools, courts, playing fields.
Good effects
Introducing new technology intended to facilitate constitutive elements can transform sports
in ways that challenge traditional notions of fair play (Dryer, 2020). Many constitutive
sports technologies introduced over the years align with the conditions of the ideal Olympic
Contest. For instance, improved wave breaking lane dividers and time keeping and
measuring methods in swimming, enabled fairer competitions and consistent results.
Standardized parameters for equipment in competition like weight for rowing boats,
swimsuits in swimming, etc. These uphold the values of fair equal opportunity, preserving
excellence based on talent and effort, and competitive intensity. Most standardization of
equipment specifications attempt to eliminate potential advantages unrelated to talent, effort,
and skill (Loland and Hoppeler, 2012). Technologies broadening access also align with the
conditions of the ideal Olympic Contest. Overall, technologies that standardize conditions,
preserve the demonstration of sporting excellences, and expand inclusion, generally promote
fairer contests at the Olympics.
Potential Bad effects
Specialized sports gear in general and equipment pose ethical dilemmas for Fair Play. As
Loland (2002a) argues, competition requires "equal opportunity to perform" (p. 105).
However, innovations granting significant advantage unrelated to effort threaten this
equilibrium. The principle is not formal equality but Fair Equality of Opportunity (FEOP) -
eliminating arbitrary inequalities outside competitors' control (Loland & Hoppeler, 2012).
Prohibiting the LZR Racer and Polyurethane full body suits, Nike’s VaporFly shows
100
granting disproportionate improvements fails this test, as access depended on financial means
and access, not talent, skill and effort. However, FEOP does not demand eliminating all
advantages, only that unequal treatment aligns with actual performance disparities (Loland,
2002, p. 105). The key is whether advantage derives from arbitrary factors beyond control
versus talent and dedication. Equipment costs barring access contradict FEOP and
meritocracy. Butcher and Schneider (1998) argue fairness requires that "the outcome of the
contest be determined by skill, not extraneous factors" (p. 15). Pricing athletes out undercuts
this aim. However, some differences in access to training resources are inevitable. The issue
is when inequality becomes so substantial as to undermine the legitimacy of results.
Reasonable people can debate where to draw this line. But at some degree of inequality,
victory becomes less about effort than wealth, contravening fair play. Regulating access to
preserve meaningful competition, even if imperfect, may be necessary.
Innovations benefitting all athletes equally may stand according to FEOP, might still create
tension with the exhibition of sporting skill. In a situation where every swimmer has access
to full body Polyurethane swimsuits, and assuming that all swimmers gain the same marginal
benefit from using these suits, the issue of FEOP is suspended and it becomes an issue of
how these suits undermine the demonstration of skill and sporting excellence (Devine, 2011,
2022; Butcher and Schneider, 1998), or how Miah (2005) and Dyer (2015; 2020) explained
as a de-skilling technology. Advances in swimsuit technologies significantly influenced the
performance of athletes to the point that breaking a swimming record was no longer about
talent, effort and skill, but rather a direct impact of advances in technological swimsuits. The
introduction of full body Polyurethane swimsuits in 2009 (Pre-ban) created significant
distortion of swimming performances as seen in the graph below.
101
Fig. 3.2: Graph shows the average best times for each year in the Men’s 50m Freestyle since
2008. The red area coincides with the introduction of full body Polyurethane swimsuits.
Example of DDE evaluation of LZR Racer and Polyurethane full body Swimsuits:
Using the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) as a guiding philosophical framework, a
thorough evaluation of constitutive facilitator technology in sport can be undertaken. This
doctrine will be applied through four conditions to illustrate its impact on sports ethics.
1) The action (in this case, the introduction or use of the technology) must be
morally good or at least indifferent.
The introduction of technological innovations that are intended to facilitate aspects of the
sport maintain good or neutral effect. The action of introducing new swimsuits, is not of
itself inherently evil. Swimsuits for swimming are a necessary part of sport, their design and
availability can introduce disparities within competitions based on athletes' socio-economic
resources or de-skill the game (Miah, 2005). Therefore, while they comprise essential
elements of their designated games and are hence justified in this count, questions linger
102
regarding whether such use aligns with FEOP principles (Loland & Hoppeler, 2012) and
undermine the demonstration of skill and sporting excellence (Devine, 2011, 2022; Butcher
and Schneider, 1998).
2) The agent (the person or organization introducing or using the technology) must
intend the good effect (the intended purpose of the technology) and not the bad
effect (any negative impacts).
The intent behind introducing these technologies is to facilitate gameplay and serve the
interest of the sport (i.e., the technical code), but when innovation offers significant
advantages unrelated to effort or skill but depends rather on access to financial means it
undermines fair equal opportunity principle, meritocracy, and skill demonstration (Loland,
2002a). Therefore, the intention could be muddled as fairness the de-skilling effect starts
undermining "skill and dedication" (Butcher & Schneider, 1998).
3) The good effect does not arise from the bad effect.
The LZR Racer swimsuit transforms the practice of swimming. The initial intent is to serve
the interest of the games, in this sense, facilitate the game. They might aim to directly
increase game efficiency or assist sporting excellence. Thus, the good effect of increasing
efficiency and sporting excellence is not a result of the inequality it creates.
4) There is a proportionately serious reason for permitting the bad effect.
The proportionately condition of the Doctrine of Double Effect would consider if the good
effect sufficiently outweighs, or balances, the negative impact. In this context, constitutive
technologies present a tricky situation. On one hand, they indisputably shrink down
inefficiencies and enhance overall sport’s performance which is a value required for progress
103
in any sport. Conversely, they introduce disparities on grounds of financial access to
premium equipment and might de-skill the sport; thus proportionality here is a delicate
balance. The challenge lies in balancing benefits derived from advancements against
potential disruptions to conditions for the ideal sporting contest i.e., access discrepancies due
to arbiting factors like wealth, thereby breaching 'Fair Equality of Opportunity' and the
demonstration of skill and sporting excellences. Paradoxically while incentivizing progress
through innovating such technologies, regulating them cautiously is integral so that the basic
equality among competitors does not disintegrate. These challenges epitomize tensions
involved when applying DDE principles in assessing ethical implications associated with
evolving contemporary Olympic Sports scenarios. The LZR Racer full-body swim suits and
other Polyurethane suits undermine fairness, the demonstrations of sporting excellence, and
meritocracy principles. With alternatives available that don't produce as potent negative
effects, then it’s reasonable to conclude that such swimsuits' good effect don’t outweigh their
unintended bad effect, and shouldn’t be allowed in competition.
2) Technologies intended to Improve Performance
Technologies intended to Improve Performance, refer to any methods or tools used by
athletes, coaches, sports scientists with the aim of improving physical and mental abilities of
athletes/teams. These technologies have the value of efficiency as their primary driver.
Technologies intended to Improve Performance in sport can be normatively categorized into
two types: those that are acceptable and those that are unacceptable (this is a mere
description and not prejudice). It’s often hard to make that distinction (Morgan, 2009;
Schneider, 2018; Heuberger & Cohen, 2019).
The Blurred Lines of Performance Tech
104
Conventionally, or at least according to the WADA Code (2021), ‘good’ performance
improving technologies in sport are usually the one that maximize the athletes natural talent.
One important distinction that is worth mentioning, is an acceptable performance improving
technology can be argued to be the one that “invokes the phenotypic plasticity of the human
organism, a consequence of the specifics of the evolution of the human species. Accepting
bodily reaction patterns and using the innate adaptability of humans to physical challenges
cohere with the idea of developing natural talent" (Loland and Hoppeler, 2012, p. 272).
Technologies intended to Improve Performance in sport augment values of striving for
excellence through maximum performance and preserving sporting excellence by pushing the
boundaries of human potential. They may provide fair equal opportunity if made accessible
to all competitors. Generally, these technologies possess the capacity to intend to do ‘good’.
Historically, acceptable forms of performance enhancement utilize technologies that align
with natural human adaptability and talent development. These technologies work within the
range of normal human physiology to optimize performance potential. Examples of current
acceptable technologies include:
●Scientific training principles and methods. Sports scientists research and develop
training principles tailored to the human body's natural physiological capacities.
Periodized training programs, recovery techniques, and optimized practice structure
boost performance through natural talent development (Hopkins, 1991; Lockie et al.,
2012; Renshaw et al., 2019; Viru & Viru, 2001).
●Sports psychology. Mental skills training, visualization, relaxation, and motivation
techniques leverage the natural adaptability of the human brain and psyche for
enhanced focus and confidence (Renshaw et al., 2019; Butler, 2020; Cox, 1998;
Singh, 2022).
105
●Sports analytics. Data analysis and modeling sports performance allows coaches and
athletes to make strategic decisions based on empirical trends. Analytics tap into
natural human strategic thinking rather than artificially boosting physical capabilities
(Fried & Mumcu, 2016; Singh, 2020; Szymanski, 2020).
Currently, according to WADA's interpretation of the 'Spirit of Sport' and their definition of
'natural' innate talent, there are technologies deemed unacceptable in sports. These
unacceptable technologies according to Loland’s and Hoppeler’s (2012) conceptualization,
exceed human phenotypic plasticity and disrupt natural talent development. For Example:
●Anabolic steroids and growth hormone. These drugs manipulate hormones and
muscle growth in ways the body cannot naturally achieve (Cellotti & Cesi, 1992;
Kadi et al., 1999).
●Blood doping. Boosting red blood cell counts beyond natural levels increases oxygen
delivery for enhanced endurance. Methods include transfusions of stored blood or
injections of erythropoietin (EPO) (Robinson et al., 2006; Schumacher et al., 2012).
●Gene doping. Inserting synthetic genes aims to switch on natural performance
boosting processes the body cannot trigger itself. This constitutes clear artificial
manipulation (Haisma & de Hon, 2006; Unal & Unal, 2004).
●Amphetamines and stimulants. These drugs provide unnatural metabolic and nervous
system stimulation to increase alertness and delay fatigue(Docherty, 2008; Thevis et
al., 2010).
Determining the ethical acceptability of performance improving technologies represents one
of the most complex and divisive issues in sports ethics scholarship (Loland, 2002b; Miah,
2004). Despite extensive philosophical analysis spanning several decades, a clear consensus
106
on principles for distinguishing between acceptable and unacceptable forms of performance
enhancement remains elusive (Tamburrini, 2005; Loland and McNamee 2016). The core of
this challenge stems from the multifaceted nature of performance enhancement and the ways
technologies become embedded in complex socio-cultural contexts of sport. There is
profound disagreement among experts regarding how to prioritize and balance the various
ethical values at stake, including fairness, safety, integrity, natural performance, human
excellence, competitiveness, spectator entertainment and more (Loland, 2018a; Tamburrini,
2005). Diverse perspectives exist on which principles matter most and how to adjudicate
conflicts between them. For WADA, a substance or a method is unacceptable if it fulfills two
of three criteria: 1) Enhances or has the potential to enhance performance; 2) Causes harm or
has the potential to cause harm to health; 3) Violates the Spirit of Sport (WADA, 2023).
The Literature Gap (Chapter 1): Addressing the Inadequacies in Regulating Sports
Performance Technology
●Definition of doping has shifted from broad moral concepts like ‘artificial advantage’
to legalistic rules violating specific provisions (IOC, 1967;Ritchie, 2013; WADA,
2021). This reactionary approach risks misalignment with ethical foundations as
technology advances.
●Justification grounded in contested internalist notions of "spirit of sport" lacks solid
substantive reasoning and relies more on rhetorical appeals (Obasa & Borry, 2019;
Waddington et al., 2013).
●Naturalistic fallacies conflate nature with inherent value absent supporting arguments.
Appeals to nature require critical examination and should be the primary driver of
permissibility evaluation (Lenk, 2013; Bonte, 2013; Kaebnick, 2014; Loland, 2018).
107
●Concept of “spirit of sport” lacks coherence, transparency and input from diverse
stakeholders (i.e. consistency and transparency in its interpretation). Its use as a
justification for banning enhancements remains ambiguous (Obasa & Borry, 2019;
Waddington et al., 2013).
●Rights-based critiques contend prohibition disregards athlete health, autonomy and
proportionality (Kayser & Broers, 2015; Tamburrini, 2013).
●Evidence basis for banned substances warrants re-examination. Many lack proven
performance benefits or health risks to athletes (Heuberger & Cohen, 2019).
●Overall, existing frameworks lack proactive foresight and principled justification
needed to address complex, context-dependent cases as technology advances.
Reliance on rhetorical appeals is insufficient.
Proposing Distinctions Based on Ideal Olympic contest Conditions:
Confronted by limitations and controversy laden landscapes - this assessment proposes
carving out distinctions regarding acceptability/unacceptability utilizing an empirical
framework drawn from ideal conditions underpinning Olympic competition (Chapter 2).
Technologies intending to improve performance must pass ethical security through the
suggested framework to be deemed acceptable in sport. Technologies intending to enhance
performance will be deemed unacceptable if they fail the DDE assessment proportionality
balance. This implies that if a technology significantly violates one, or multiple of the
following principles, without providing enough 'good' to offset the 'bad', it would not be
considered tolerable. For instance, if a technology:
1. Creates unjust inequalities in access or opportunity between competitors.
108
2. Allows non-sporting factors like wealth or access disproportionately influence
competitive outcomes rather than merit.
3. Poses significant health and safety hazards to athletes beyond normal risks inherent to
the sport.
4. Confers benefits and advantages unrelated to talent, effort, skill or merit.
5. Compromises the integrity of regulatory systems by enabling undetectable violations.
Like "invisible" doping techniques circumventing testing protocols.
6. Diverges from the broader goals of Olympism by overemphasizing results above
holistic personal and humanity’s growth. Win-at-all-costs mentalities contradict
Olympic ideals.
7. Undermines athletes' motivation to perform to the best of their abilities in events.
Like an AI tactician that encourages the athlete to lose a game to gain a strategic
advantage later in the competition.
8. Dramatically reduces normal uncertainties and variability in performance inherent to
sports. Excessive predictability strips away suspense and excitement.
Analysis of Intended Application and Potential Impact
Technologies intended to improve the body’s natural innate capacity serve as invaluable tools
that athletes, coaches, and sports scientists can utilize for enhancing an athlete's physical
abilities in alignment with their natural talent. It is essential to critically evaluate the use of
such technologies within the ideal conditions necessary for fair competitions that capture
Loland’s (2002), Butcher’s and Schneider's (1998) perspectives and align with the Olympic
Charter's ideals. From Loland's perspective focusing on fairness norms intertwined with play
norms, participants should voluntarily engage in sport competitions using acceptable
performance-enhancing technologies aligned with a shared, just ethos (Loland, 2002a). The
use of these technologies should not expose athletes or others to unnecessary harm while
ensuring equal opportunity for all competitors, irrespective of their socio-economic
109
backgrounds. Herein lies one potential issue. While these technologies are conventionally
permissible, they logically tend to be more accessible by wealthier nations thereby
perpetuating imbalances in competition due to inequalities related to country-specific
resources. Butcher and Schneider (1998) advocate respecting the sporting practice itself
including its inherent interests. Fair play involves not only adherence to rules but also respect
for competitive aspects and philosophies undergirding sports practices. Hence, using training
techniques like biomechanics analysis or mental training could contribute towards increasing
competitiveness provided it does not compromise rules or challenge intrinsic values
associated with a particular sport (Butcher & Schneider, 1998).
The essence of sport is rooted in a display of skill mastery and sporting prowess (Loland,
2018a). However, employment of enhancement devices or substances can severely
undermine these core attributes. If we take gene doping as an example; altered genes are
inserted to activate or switch off certain physiological behaviours which wouldn't occur
naturally (Miah, 2007). Even though these actions amplify an athlete’s physical abilities, it
ultimately confines success to bio-manipulation, rather than merit-based competence and
hard work. The blurring line between natural talent magnification through rigorous training
versus artificial 'unearned' skill increases consequent to scientific tampering subverts
conditions for the ideal sporting contest (Chapter 2). Further, compounding these
techno-ethical issues are health risks associated with performance enhancement technologies
usage. A notable exemplar is anabolic steroids - renowned for hormone manipulation -
engenders acute liver malfunctions or cardiovascular disorders (Niedfeldt, 2018). Similarly
problematic are blood doping strategies enhancing oxygen delivery aimed at augmenting
endurance and drastically increase stroke risk factors (Eichner, 2007). Obligated adherence to
health preservation enshrined within Olympic values signals profound reservations regarding
110
such risky ventures notwithstanding their monumental performance outputs. The epitome of
fair competition rests on providing equitable opportunity for talents to be displayed coupled
with advantage distributions primarily based on sheer ability and effort rather than
externalities such as superior access to innovative advancements aiding superior performance
output (Loland, 2002). Thus, unequal access or leverage over cutting edge biotechnologies
could tip the scale favourably towards more affluent participants creating discriminatory
cleavages violating distributive justice principle characteristic inherent in ideal sport
contestation.
Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) and Anabolic Steroids.
1) The action (in this case, the introduction or use of the technology) must be
morally good or at least indifferent.
The use of anabolic steroids in the context of sport embodies efficiency as its main
value. The intended purposes, or 'good' effects as per DDE, includes enhanced
muscle mass and recovery which could aid an athlete's performance (Cellotti & Cesi,
1992). Arguably, this aligns with some conditions for an ideal Olympic competition
namely striving for excellence through maximum performance and preserving
sporting excellence.
2) The agent (the person or organization allowing the use of the technology) must
intend the good effect (the intended purpose of the technology) and not the bad
effect (any negative impacts).
In this case, the agent as the sport governing body allows the use of anabolic steroids
to enhance the performance of the competitions and not the unfairness or the harm.
The intention of itself is good as explained earlier.
111
3) The good effect does not arise from the bad effect.
Keeping a fixed perspective in my evaluation (DDE from the perspective of sport
governing bodies), The good effect of performance improvement is independent from
the bad effect. The use of anabolic steroids will directly improve performance of the
user, i.e, the use of anabolic steroids doesn’t lower the performance of the other
competitors, rather just enhance the performance of the user. It can be argued using a
probabilistic perspective that the user of the anabolic steroids will gain an advantage
by lowering the chances of other athletes to win - thus the good effect (sporting
excellence) might arise from the bad effect (unfairness).While it’s true, the
performance improvement can still be valued directly and independent of ‘winning’.
4) Is There is a proportionately serious reason for permitting the bad effect of
anabolic steroids in sport?
As specified in the provided definition, PEDs like anabolic steroids generate
numerous ‘bad effects’ contradicting ideals integral to competitive sports. These
include:
●Creating unfair inequalities since wealthier athletes or teams have greater
access to more advanced and safer anabolic steroids compared to less
privileged competitors (criterion 1). This violates principles of equity and
fairness.
●Allowing non-sporting factors and resources to disproportionately affect
outcomes rather than talent and effort (criterion 2).
●Posing major health hazards like cardiovascular disorders, liver damage and
other adverse effects that endanger athlete wellbeing (criterion 3) (McVeigh et
al., 2022).
●Conferring performance advantages unrelated to effort, skill development or
merit (criterion 4).
112
●Enabling undetectable doping infractions through designer steroids eluding
detection, undermining anti-doping integrity (criterion 5) (Fainaru-Wada &
Williams, 2006).
●Overemphasizing winning-at-all-costs mentalities, conflicting with
Olympism’s holistic growth goals (criterion 6).
●Potentially demotivating clean athletes unable to match enhanced results from
steroid users (criterion 7).
●Reducing normal variability in outcomes by enabling artificial performance
spikes, diminishing suspense and excitement (criterion 8).
The grave harms posed, spanning health, fairness, motivation and integrity issues, appear too
serious to justify allowing steroid usage simply for performance gains. These significant
ethical costs outweigh the intended good as required by DDE proportionality (McIntyre,
2023). Strong grounds exist that the intended goods of enhanced sporting excellence fail to
provide proportionately serious reasons permitting the multiple bad effects of anabolic
steroids defined by established criteria. Upholding key ethical principles integral to sports
necessitates prohibiting PED usage to foster fairness, health, integrity and human excellence.
The costs appear disproportionate from an ethical perspective, precluding their justification
under DDE guidelines.
3) Technologies intended to Restore Performance:
Performance restorative technologies are equipment, medications, therapies, and other aids
that aim to help athletes recover from training, injuries or manage acute or chronic medical
conditions that affect sports performance. These technologies embody the value of health.
Performance restorative technologies can be categorized into two main types - recovery and
compensatory technologies:
113
a) Recovery Technologies:
These technologies are designed to assist athletes in recovering from ‘temporary state’ of
illnesses, intense training, competitions and other physically demanding aspects of sports.
The goal of recovery technology is to help athletes regain their top performance. Outside of
sports athletes can experience acute medical conditions like infections that directly impact
their performance (Harris, 2011). For example, antibiotics or antivirals can be used to aid an
athlete in fighting off an infection. In the realm of sports, restoring performance is crucial for
maintaining exertion levels and minimizing the risk of injury. Various techniques are
employed to speed up recovery, reduce muscle soreness, facilitate waste elimination from the
body and ultimately restore athletes performance (Cochrane, 2004; Dupuy et al., 2018;
Thorpe, 2021). Additionally nutrition and hydration management strategies play a role in
assisting physical recovery by supporting energy replenishment after activity and aiding in
tissue repair efforts (Malsagova et al., 2021). Moreover, periods dedicated solely for rest
work synergistically with other techniques fostering a more rapid restoration process (Dupuy
et al., 2018). Hydrotherapy is an approach primarily applied using contrast water principles
entailing switching between hot/cold bathing - is popular among elite athletes. Despite its
reception being anchored largely on anecdotal evidence it is suggested that said technique
potentially mediates inflammation episodes while boosting overall cell revitalisation rates
(Cochrane, 2004). This underpins periodization application designed to alternately structure
training strenuousness combined with corresponding relaxation intervals leading to further
optimizing sportspersons’ long term performances capacity (Thorpe, 2021).
Examples include:
114
●Pharmaceuticals that are non-relevant athletic performance: Antibiotics, Antivirals,
Vaccines etc (Harris, 2011).
●Cryotherapy - helps reduce inflammation and speed up healing (Kwiecien &
McHugh, 2021).
●Percussive massage devices - provide deep muscle stimulation to accelerate recovery
(Konrad et al., 2020).
●Sleep trackers - optimize rest and recovery during sleep (Driller et al., 2023).
●Nutritional supplements - supply nutrients needed for rebuilding muscle and
connective tissues (Huecker et al., 2019).
●Neuromuscular electrical stimulation - helps muscles reactivate after being dormant
(Abitante et al., 2022).
●Proper recovery allows athletes to maintain high performance levels over periods of
heavy exertion. The technologies optimize the body's natural recuperative abilities
(Izzicupo et al., 2019).
b) Compensatory Technologies:
Compensatory technologies usually involve allowing the athlete to compensate for a chronic
medical condition (e.g. diabetes, asthma, poor vision, etc.) or an acute condition that wasn't
able to be properly treated using recovery technologies (e.g. conditions needing Therapeutic
Use Exemption under WADA’s framework). Their ‘technical code’ values Loland’s Fair
Equality of Opportunity (FEOP). These technologies help athletes manage chronic illnesses,
disabilities or conditions that are uncontrollable by that athlete that may negatively affect
sports performance.
Examples include:
●Asthma inhalers - allow clear breathing for athletes with asthma (Allen et al., 2022).
●Hormone Replacement Therapy - for athletes who suffer from hypogonadism,
degenerative conditions,etc (Bhasin et al., 2018).
115
●Cochlear implants - restore hearing for athletes with hearing loss.
●Insulin for diabetic athletes.
●Corrective lenses - compensate for vision issues.
These technologies may potentially enhance performance in healthy athletes. The ideal is that
sports governing bodies allow exemptions for the use of compensatory technologies for
athletes in need - the key here is the intention to compensate for a dissadvantge and not
enhance performance (Morgan, 2009; Schndeider, 2018). Compensatory technologies with
enhancement potentials should only be explored as a last resort after all alternative ‘recovery’
treatments were ineffective.The technology intends to neutralize disadvantages from health
conditions. Both recovery and compensatory technologies aim to restore athletes to their
typical performance baseline, allowing them to continue competing when injuries or illnesses
arise.
Analysis of Technologies intended to Restore Performance.
The integration of recovery and compensatory technologies into Olympic sport should be
evaluated against key ethical conditions for ideal sporting contests proposed earlier in
Chapter 2. Foremost, both types of restoration technology aim to promote equality of
opportunity and fairness, upholding the Olympic Charter’s principle of non-discrimination
(Loland, 2002a; IOC, 2020). Caution is required to ensure that the technology stays within
the bounds of offsetting disadvantage rather than enhancing performance. When applied
judiciously and constrained within typical functioning bounds, performance restoration can
also preserve the ideal of sporting excellence determined by talent and dedicated effort.
Sustaining high training volumes and honing skill through recovery aids, or managing
chronic conditions that otherwise preclude elite sport participation upholds the celebration of
human potential through determination and grit (IOC, 2021).
116
A longstanding ethical debate in regulating performance technologies pivots on the
boundaries between appropriate treatment versus improper enhancement (Morgan, 2009).
The former aims to correct dysfunction and disadvantage, while the latter pursues
supra-normal capacities (Schneider, 2018). However, as Morgan notes, clear delineation
inevitably proves difficult, with risks of ambiguity about permissible restoration versus illicit
augmentation (Morgan, 2009). Though ostensibly for equalization, compensatory
interventions could enable unintended performance enhancement if not carefully constrained,
undermining integrity of achievement (Schneider, 2018). For instance, permitted asthma
medications like salbutamol could potentially improve performance if abused beyond
medical need (Schneider, 2018). Strict evaluation against quantified standards of “normal”
functioning collapses on the empirical reality of individual variability and practical
infeasibility of precise equivalence (Pike, 2018). As Pike argues, granting exemptions based
purely on calibrating some exact degree of advantage conferred is unworkable in practice
(Pike, 2018). The complexities and uncertainties of sporting preparation and competition
preclude such precision.
A procedural solution centered on deliberative transparency and athlete participation
provides a principled path through the risks of ambiguity. As Pike suggests (2018), published
deliberation about permitted exemptions offers a voice to concerned competitors in assessing
potential unfairness. Review by representative athlete councils also helps ensure decisions
reflect participant norms and avoid paternalism (Pike, 2018). Basically, the affected parties
themselves can help mutually determine the bounds of reasonable advantage conferred by
exempted technologies. This procedural justice approach eschews pretensions of precision in
net advantage calculation, focusing instead on upholding reasonableness and trust. The
117
affected athletes themselves are empowered to debate and construct the standards sustaining
integrity. Moreover, as the doctrine of double effect highlights, the intended purposes and
uses of performance technology are ethically relevant, not just quantified outcomes
(Schneider, 2018).
Consideration of whether exempted interventions aim at permitted ends of equitizing
opportunity versus illegitimate enhancement provides moral grounds for deliberation. As
moral agents, we properly make ethical distinctions between consequences which are
intended versus those which are merely foreseen (Schneider, 2018). Technologies deployed
consciously for improper augmentation contravene fair play, in contrast to technologies
pursued in good faith for equity but with potential incidental effects. Transparency and
athlete participation allow judging such intentions and purposes. Where potential for
incremental advantage exists, voluntarily minimizing benefits through restraint demonstrates
good faith. Ultimately, relying purely on quantified calibration of advantage ignores that
sports unfold amid vast uncertainties, against a background of human variation. The affected
athletes themselves should mutually determine the standards of reasonable advantage within
zones of ambiguity. Their participation injects lived norms into regulating evolving
technologies aimed at the human body. Technologies should elevate rather than diminish the
essence of cooperative competition as defined by the Olympic Charter. These tenets include
excellence, solidarity, respect and fair play (IOC, 2021).
Another intriguing case is the one of ‘doping down’. Schneider (2020) explains, doping
down refers to athletes reducing their natural testosterone levels through medical intervention
to be eligible for protected categories in women's sport. This constitutes the inverse of
118
performance restoration, which typically focuses on offsetting disadvantages beyond the
athlete’s control, rather than suppressing capabilities. However, the conceptual framework
outlined in here still offers principles to evaluate doping down cases. The Doctrine of Double
Effect (DDE) proportions intended goods against foreseeable harms (McIntyre, 2023). Here,
enabling broader participation upholds inclusion, but risks violating integrity and agency.
Layered analysis examining intentions, impacts and processes enables nuanced judgments
about introducing technologies to ‘doping down’ with ethical tradeoffs. Structured
application of DDE and emphasis on stakeholder democratic participation, and balancing
principles of bodily integrity and agency, might offer a rich analysis of this specific case.
While this case is certainly worth its own thesis, and doesn’t directly fit into the proposed six
categories, it's important to discuss (even briefly) how the proposed framework can
accommodate this case.
Applying Doctrine of Double Effect to Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT).
1) The action (in this case, the introduction or use of the technology) must be
morally good or at least indifferent.
Testosterone replacement therapy (TRT) is a treatment for hypogonadal men aiming to
normalize their testosterone levels through methods like injections or transdermal patches
(Bhasin et al., 2018). From the perspective of sports governing bodies, allowing TRT for
athletes diagnosed with hypogonadism can be seen as good or at neutral (DDE condition 1).
The intention behind the action is to enable participation in sports by addressing a
disadvantage caused by a condition that the athlete can't control.
2) The agent (the person or organization introducing or using the technology) must
intend the good effect (the intended purpose of the technology) and not the bad
effect (any negative impacts).
119
The intention behind permitting TRT exemptions is restoring athletes disadvantaged by
hypogonadism to typical testosterone levels, not artificially enhancing performance (DDE
condition 2). Clinical verification of below-normal testosterone is required along with
evidence TRT returns levels to an acceptable population range. However, governing bodies
must ensure team doctors make proper diagnoses not fabricated to enable enhancement.
Strict medical oversight, adverse health effects at supra-physiological doses, and random
testing help deter intentional misuse. With proper safeguards against abuse, TRT for
hypogonadism can be ethically deployed to offset disability versus illicitly augmenting
abilities.
3) The good effect does not arise from the bad effect.
The performance benefit of TRT (bad effect) does not arise directly from the medical
normalization it provides (DDE condition 3). Restored testosterone levels may indirectly
enhance performance as a side effect but this is not inherent to the therapeutic purpose.
However, incrementally raising levels beyond typical population ranges would constitute
intentional enhancement. Clear dosage guidelines and ongoing monitoring of athlete levels
are vital to constrain the performance boost to an incidental byproduct within the bounds of
therapy, not the intended aim. Intentionally calibrating dosage to maximize performance
would violate the proportionality limits of treatment.
4) Is There is a proportionately serious reason for permitting the bad effect?
For TRT to align with the DDE's proportionality principle, the benefits must outweigh the
risks of permitting usage (DDE condition 4). A strong case exists that enabling sport
participation for those with hypogonadism outweighs concerns about incidental performance
gains. Banning TRT would unfairly preclude athletes with this condition absent an allowable
120
alternative. The threats must not outweigh the benefit of offsetting hypogonadal
disadvantages. Strict medical oversight and dosage guidelines minimizing duration of
exposure are thus essential to proportionality. It can be argued that permitting any risk of
performance enhancement, however incidental, violates fairness. But forcing athletes to forgo
treatment and suffer impaired functioning also seems unfair. There are no straightforward
solutions given sports' contextual nuances (Morgan, 2009). Reasonable people in democratic
settings (i.e. with proper diverse representation of all impacted parties) can debate where to
draw proportionality lines amid ambiguity. However, provided conservatively managed
within population testosterone ranges, the benefits appear to outweigh the ethical costs under
a DDE analysis. Blanket bans seem disproportionate if medically supervised replacement
aligns with therapeutic intent and avoids intentional enhancement.
DDE provides principles for weighing ethical trade-offs, but application relies on prudential
judgements. Though risks exist, evidence suggests TRT for hypogonadism can meet
proportionality standards if carefully constrained. Strict medical requirements confirming
below-normal levels, constrained dosage aligning with population averages, ongoing
monitoring and prompt cessation when levels normalize can constrain enhancement to an
incidental byproduct of treatment, supporting therapeutic justification. However, athlete
intentions matter, not just quantified testosterone levels (Schneider, 2018; Pike, 2018).
Ultimately, managed TRT seems to pass DDE tests for ethically permitting an otherwise bad
intervention, but only under close governance. Each case warrants thorough investigation
before exemptions are granted, with diligent oversight sustained thereafter. If misused, TRT
risks violating sporting integrity. When applied judiciously and transparently, TRT offers a
path to preserving Olympic values of Fair play, friendship and solidarity. Our technologies
should enable more to share in the enrichment of human achievement, not bar lives we do not
121
fully understand. While proportionality conclusions remain contestable, procedural fairness
and compassion offer guideposts amid uncertainty.
4) Technology intended to promote safety in sport
Technology intended to promote safety in sport aims to protect the athletes from unnecessary
harm- they embody the value of health. This category includes equipment, guidelines, and
practices implemented to protect athletes from harm inherent in sporting practices. The
primary intention of the technologies is to promote safety in sport by adhering to the safety
norms. They aim to fulfill the key condition for an ideal Olympic contest of protecting
competitor wellbeing by minimizing unnecessary risks of injury (Loland, 2002). While sports
inherently involve some risk, exposing the athletes to unnecessary risk, opposes Olympic
ideals of friendship and human development (IOC, 2021).
Analysis of technology intended to promote safety in sport.
Technology-focused solutions are increasingly prominent safety promoters. They embody
values of safety and harm-reduction. Protective gear represents a traditional approach to
reducing physical trauma - for example, helmets in American football, padded headgear in
boxing and hockey, and shin pads used in soccer (Gelberg, 1995). While often effective,
concerns arise on overly insulating athletes and enabling more dangerous play. Advances in
impact-absorbing materials and designs like newer football helmet technologies better
address concussion risks from collisions (Gelberg, 1995; Cournoyer & Tripp, 2014). More
holistic, integrated approaches to injury prevention blend equipment innovations with
training principles, biomechanics analysis, medical screening, and safety-focused rules and
adherence (Owoeye et al., 2018). For example, “smart” wearables today collect physiological
122
data, tracking indicators like elevated heart rate to optimize training loads and avoid
overtraining injuries (McCall et al., 2015). Even sports surface designs better absorb impacts,
like engineered synthetic turf (Petrass & Twomey, 2014). Integrating these diverse
safety-focused technologies more thoughtfully into sports training and competition could
better optimize injury prevention.
However, potential conflicts between safety-promoting technologies and ideal competition
conditions warrant consideration. Universal safety protocols could undermine fairness and
meritocracy principles if implemented unequally across competitors. Mandating certain
protective gear could also impede excellence, limiting maneuverability and physical
capabilities. Proportional integration mindful of balancing safety imperatives and
competition integrity shows promise. For example, data-driven “workload management”
balances training stresses and recovery to curb overuse injuries, aligning with human
development goals (Gabbett, 2016). Ultimately, transparent, evenly applied safety protocols
enabling excellence represent ethical applications. Safety-focused regulations can also
inadvertently undermine sporting skill demonstrations. For example, banning dangerous but
athletically difficult maneuvers like backflips in competitive figure skating was
well-intentioned for protecting athletes from serious injury risks. However, this also
de-skilled performances by disallowing elite skaters from displaying their full athletic
capabilities. Overly rigid restrictions on innovative maneuvers in the name of safety can
constrain excellence, undermining the spirit of competitive virtuosity. Still, prudent
regulation balancing safety and advancement, like only allowing very skilled skaters to
attempt risky jumps, demonstrates ethical oversight. Sporting bodies should aim to expand
possibilities for excellence through principled protections, rather than limiting achievement
123
potential through excessive constraints. With thoughtful guidance, safety protocols can
mitigate risks while still celebrating human capabilities. Potential impacts also depend on
how technologies shape competition norms over time. If safety improvements like advanced
helmet designs enable increasingly reckless styles of play (Gelberg, 1995) then ethics are
undermined. But normalized expectations around physiological monitoring and workload
management may promote healthier training environments. This aligns with the Olympics’
guiding vision of joy in effort towards excellence and friendship across rivals. Of course,
uncertainty of outcome could suffer if safety technologies create large asymmetries in
capability and advantage between competitors. But moderate, evenly distributed integration
preserves competition integrity.
Applying Doctrine of Double Effect to padded headgear in boxing:
1) The action (in this case, the introduction or use of the technology) must be
morally good or at least indifferent.
Requiring padded headgear in boxing competition, aims to minimize traumatic brain injuries
in boxing matches (Boxing Canada, 2019). The intention here can be easily considered as
morally good. However, headgear could also alter competition dynamics in unintended ways.
2) The agent (the person or organization introducing or using the technology) must
intend the good effect (the intended purpose of the technology) and not the bad
effect (any negative impacts)
Governing bodies mandating headgear, intend to uphold boxer safety, meeting DDE
condition two. But critics may argue that added weight and bulk with headgear ironically
increase risks from repetitive subconcussive blows. This complicates determinations of
intended versus unintended effects.
124
3) The good effect does not arise from the bad effect.
Headgear directly intends to cushion head blows as a safety mechanism. But resultant
changes to boxer tactics and spectator appeal may cause indirect side effects. However, some
may contend that headgear encourages more reckless offensive styles. This potentially
inverts the means-ends relationship if increased danger is an inadvertent byproduct.
4) Is There is a proportionately serious reason for permitting the bad effect?
A key dispute is whether headgear's protection outweighs any elevated injury risk from
modified boxing styles, as required by DDE condition four. Proponents emphasize reduced
superficial facial cuts and other acute trauma from adding protection (Boxing Canada, 2019).
But critics argue subtler neurological damage could rise, violating the "do no harm"
principle. In essence, the merits of mandated headgear hinge on uncertain trade-offs between
acute injury reductions and potential rises in chronic neurological trauma. A DDE analysis
reveals ethical complexity masked by straightforward safety assumptions. More data on
headgear's injury impacts could better inform proportionality judgments. Short of definitive
evidence, transparency and boxers participating in crafting regulations uphold ethical
oversight amid uncertainty. If integrated compassionately, safety technologies like headgear
can largely align with preventing needless harm while preserving boxing's inherent values.
5) Technology intended to monitor officiating and integrity
Technology intended to monitor officiating and integrity refers to any system, application,
tool or device used in sporting events or competitions to observe and assess rule compliance -
embodying the values of justice and fairness. The primary intention of technologies intended
to monitor officiating and integrity in sports aligns with promoting the conditions for an ideal
125
sporting contest. The inherent goal of such tools is providing unbiased judgment, upholding
compliance to rules, preventing illicit practices, like doping or illicit equipment use, are in
harmony with the principles of non-discrimination and fair equal opportunity performance,
adhering to safety and harm prevention, justice in rule enforcement, and meritocracy in the
distribution of advantages. Further, these technologies strive for preserving sporting
excellence by mitigating errors in officiating which might unfairly tilt match results.
Henceforth, their introduction into a sporting context can be deemed fundamentally
good/neutral from an ethical standpoint since they uphold the integrity and fairness that
underpin competitive sports.
Analysis of Technology intended to monitor officiating and integrity
The emergence of sophisticated officiating and integrity technologies represents a
development within the ethical evolution of competitive sports. Technologies like video
assistant referee (VAR), goal-line sensors, and computer vision tools have been progressively
incorporated across various sports to enhance real-time officiating accuracy and ensure closer
integrity monitoring (Spitz et al., 2021). However, a philosophical rumination on these
technologies reveals a complex interplay of ethical questions and trade-offs pertaining to
their appropriateness. On one hand, such technologies uphold the cardinal sporting principles
of fairness and ethical conduct. Enabling impartial and accurate officiation regardless of
human limitations of perception, or bias, helps meet sporting contests' objective of
establishing the best athlete through a standardized rules framework (Tamir & Bar-eli, 2021).
Their use also deters ethical violations by applying consistent surveillance on events like
simulation, illegal equipment usage or pharmaceutical doping - aligning with the emphasis
126
on rules compliance and integrity in sports. The VAR system has tangibly improved
refereeing accuracy from 92.1% pre-VAR to a post-introduction of 98.3% (Spitz et al., 2021).
Achieving such reliability exclusively through unaided human oversight may prove
challenging. However, critics caution against pursuance of flawless officiation at the expense
of other sporting ideals. Excessive interference through VAR reviews or sensors may obstruct
the free-flowing tempo, spontaneity and unpredictability that characterize sporting contests
(Zglinski, 2022).
Drug testing plays a crucial integrity role in sports by deterring doping via random,
unannounced tests year-round, even requiring some athletes to report daily whereabouts
(Tamburrini, 2013). While pivotal for fairness, constant surveillance, like observed urine
sampling, raises privacy concerns. Testing procedures aim to uphold fairness but engender
ongoing debates regarding privacy costs. Ultimately effectiveness necessitates invasiveness,
but ethical unease persists around extensive, inescapable oversight confronting bodily
autonomy. Drug testing exemplifies technology upholding rules yet straining against deeper
values.
Applying Doctrine of Double Effect to VAR:
1) The action (in this case, the introduction or use of the technology) must be
morally good or at least indifferent.
When we apply DDE to VAR technology, the "action" here refers to its implementation in
sports events-particularly football matches. As proponents argue, the primary objective or
intended "good effect" of this action is associated with enhancing accuracy and objectivity
within decision-making processes. Thereby it eliminates certain types of foul play or
unethical behaviours and human errors inherent in officiating at brisk paces during live
matches (Spitz et al., 2021). This goal aligns itself with enhancing impartiality (Tamir &
127
Bar-eli, 2021) while ensuring justice and preservation of sporting excellence - prerequisites
for Ideal Olympic competitions.
2) The agent (the person or organization introducing or using the technology) must
intend the good effect (the intended purpose of the technology) and not the bad
effect (any negative impacts)
However, like any action taken in this world, implementing VAR isn't free from unintended
or negative impacts-the so-called "bad effects". Herein lie issues arising from disruptions
during match-play entailing additional playing time concerns; moreover certain subjectivities
concerning interpretation remain - especially handball offences posing further challenges
exploring broader transparency frameworks (Zglinski, 2022). Also critical here are
socio-cultural implications along with fan reception which substantially influence constructs
shaping popular narratives around acceptability within power dynamics embedded globally
across sports concerned.
3) The good effect does not arise from the bad effect.
For VAR, the good effect of enhanced integrity through video review stands independent of
bad effects like disrupted pace. Correcting errors directly stems from footage, not indirectly
from tempo loss. Though slowed flow, limited discretion, and diminished unpredictability are
undesirable byproducts of VAR itself, the system's core benefit - upholding fairness via
definitive evidence - arises separately, not from those consequences. Thus VAR meets the
DDE principle that intended goods do not stem directly from unintended harms. The positive
aims arise independently despite negative side effects.
4) Is There is a proportionately serious reason for permitting the bad effect?
Moreover, while acknowledging these potential disruptions causing added time implications
during matches due to VAR review process- elucidated as 'bad effects' in DDE theory - their
128
ratio compared to tangible game-enhancement achieved through improved decision-making
is pivotal too (Errekagorri et al., 2020). Applying such proportionality analysis holds validity,
both empirically as well as ethically, considering significant accuracy rate improvements
post-VAR inclusion reported consistently across studies attaining about a notable 98.3%
efficiency level illustratively (Spitz et al., 2021). This amplifies safety standards preserving
sporting excellence, alongside creating environments fostering merits based justly decided
competitions, aligning strongly with foundational principles driving Olympic spirit. While
critiques exist, e.g., subjective interpretation difficulties on matters such as handball offenses,
leading to potential bias in decision making, current discussions overall support how
technology can enhance transparency in enforcing the rules of the game. However, given
changing circumstances over time, there remains room for improvement by simplifying
guidelines and clarifying objectives that could reduce dispute possibilities and enable broader
acceptance among all stakeholders involved in football - players, referees or fans alike thus
underlying its significance universally. In conclusion, though challenges persist they do not
form a strong case against using this technique, due to clear benefits from various ethical
perspectives, namely, promoting fairness, non-bias competitiveness upholding ideals closely
related with Olympism.
6) Technology intended to enhance consumption and participation
Technology intended to enhance consumption and participation refer to innovations aimed at
augmenting and improving the spectator experience of sports, and encouraging participation
(Real, 2002; Schneiders & Rocha, 2022). These innovations strive to create personalized and
interactive experiences, for fans and viewers (Smith & Westerbeek 2010). Such technologies
encompass many forms, including broadcasting advancements in venue innovations, digital
129
frameworks and platforms, new viewing formats, data driven metrics and diverse methods
for engaging with customers or fans. They help popularize a sport by adopting strategies like
optimizing real time analysis and delivering personalized content (Thompson et al., 2014).
The primary intention driving this category of technology is to enhance sports consumption
while promoting fan engagement and grassroots participation in sporting events. This
category embodies many values, like financial and participatory sustainability - two crucial
elements for the survival and the continuation of the practice.
Analysis of technology intended to enhance consumption and participation in sport.
An exploration into the implications of technology intended to enhance consumption and
participation, when viewed through the lens of the Conditions for an ideal Olympic contest,
reveals both enhancing and detracting elements. These technologies, including streaming
platforms, social media networks, and mobile applications (Lindholm, 2019; Trivedi et
al.,2020), may foster accessibility and inclusivity by bridging geographical or
socio-economic gaps. The principle of non-discrimination is thereby reinforced as these
innovations democratize viewership and broaden sporting communities. Furthermore,
advancements facilitating consumption also enhance engagement between fans and athletes -
creating a more immersive experience that encourages friendship and solidarity among
diverse communities (Le Noury et al., 2022). This interactive dimension brought forth by
virtual reality not only yields personalized experiences but also amplifies popularity in less
accessible regions-the spark behind previously unseen growths in certain sports. For
example, attracting audiences worldwide regardless of location-based limitations like heat
issues impeding Ice Hockey's feasibility in Middle-Eastern countries.
130
Despite the impacts there are also consequences associated with the use of these technologies
in sports. A direct impact technology intended to enhance consumption and participation, this
is the way sports have become commercialized and turned into commodities (Ciomaga &
Kent, 2015; Edwards & Corte, 2014). The growing use of technology has increased money,
marketing, and media influences in sports, which raises concerns about the loss of
independence and authenticity in the sporting world. There is also a worry about exploitation
of athletes, fans and communities (Connor, 2009). Moreover technology can contribute to
exclusion and discrimination in sports by creating divides, inequalities and biases. Athletes
and fans may face discrimination or harassment based on their identities or performance data
(Azzarito & Harrison 2008) - an underperforming athlete who is now very accessible on
social media networks, can be harassed by thousands of angry fans not only on the
pitch/venue but also during their privat time. This situation deviates from the principles of
non discrimination. Prioritizing accessibility may sometimes sacrifice the level of skill
necessary to succeed in sport (i.e. de-skill), like in the example of the U-groove golf clubs
and death finders in fishing, this goes against the principle of meritocracy. Although
incorporating technology intended to enhance consumption and participation into sports has
the potential to improve accessibility, engagement, inclusivity and popularity it's important to
be aware of its drawbacks. These include commercialization, commodification, exclusion
and de-skilling - all of which can compromise the conditions for competition. As we keep
delving into and embracing technology in sports, finding a balance that maximizes its
advantages while minimizing its drawbacks becomes essential, for upholding the integrity
and principles of sports.
Application of Doctrine Of Double Effect to Augmented Reality (AR)
131
1) The action (in this case, the introduction or use of the technology) must be
morally good or at least indifferent.
The integration of augmented reality (AR) technology, by governing bodies aims to enhance
the enjoyment of spectating which is morally neutral. The use of AR can provide fans with
enriched access to information during events (Craig, 2013; Le Noury et al., 2022). However,
this intended spectator benefit risks inadvertent harms like commercialization, athlete
exploitation, or discriminatory impacts. While the core purpose of AR seems acceptable it is
crucial to have constraints in place to prevent the negative effects from overshadowing the
intended positive outcomes according to the Doctrine of Double Effect.
2) The agent (the person or organization introducing or using the technology) must
intend the good effect (the intended purpose of the technology) and not the bad
effect (any negative impacts)
The introduction of AR technology by governing bodies signifies a morally neutral action.
These entities are guided by their intention to enhance fan engagement and improve the
sports experience. Therefore despite the consequences related to commercialization, athlete
exploitation or discrimination (Ciomaga & Kent 2015; Connor, 2009; Azzarito & Harrison
2008) we cannot consider their intentions as ethically wrong. This delicate balance between
advancements and potential drawbacks highlights the moral complexity that comes with
technological progress and necessitates ongoing ethical considerations.
3) The good effect does not arise from the bad effect.
For augmented reality (AR), intended spectating good effects arise independently, and not
directly from foreseeable bad effects. With careful oversight minimizing harms, AR's good
effects could be achieved without necessarily producing significant bad effects. Still,
responsible governance is essential to ensuring good effects dominate, given foreseeable
132
risks. AR must be carefully implemented to maximize the good effects while averting
unintended bad effects.
4) Is There is a proportionately serious reason for permitting the bad effect?
The proportionality principle requires assessing if there are proportionately serious reasons
for permitting foreseeable bad effects of an action (McIntyre, 2023). For augmented reality
(AR) in sports, salient potential harms include exclusion, data exploitation, and
commercialization, absent appropriate safeguards (Ciomaga & Kent 2015; Connor, 2009;
Azzarito & Harrison 2008). The intended ‘good effects’ are spectatorship experience
improvement and encouraging participation. For AR to satisfy proportionality, the
advantages must sufficiently outweigh foreseeable adverse impacts, rather than the reverse.
Positive initiatives, like generalizing access, proper oversight, and debiasing could address
risks. Overall, AR integration seems to pass proportionality if governance curtails harm. But
vigilance is essential as unchecked risks could easily override benefits and violate sporting
values. The immersive powers of AR require oversight to ensure its advantages align with,
and not violate, the conditions of the ideal Olympic Contest. With constraints minimizing
foreseeable problems, proportional gains seem achievable. But absent prudent controls, AR
risks disproportionate harms spanning exclusion, data ethics and commercialization -
violating proportionality standards. Diligent governance and evidence-based risk assessment
is vital to sustain proportionality and justify permitting AR in sports under a DDE analysis.
Conclusion
This chapter has developed a framework for ethical evaluation, specifically aimed at
assessing technology adoption in Olympic sports. An integral achievement of this study lies
in the conceptual clarity achieved by categorizing technology by primary intention, from the
133
perspective of governing bodies, and amalgamating two philosophical paradigms -
Feenberg's critical theory and the Doctrine of Double Effect - crafting a comprehensive,
nuanced examination schema for sports technology integration. Feenberg's critical theory
spotlights how technologies propagate values, shape relations, and distribute impacts in
non-neutral ways demanding ethical scrutiny (Feenberg, 1991). Complementarily, the
Doctrine of Double Effect supplies principles for weighing intended goods against
foreseeable harms, providing a systematic protocol for ethical assessment (McIntyre, 2023).
Integrating these conceptual lenses allowed the development of a taxonomy categorizing
sports technologies by primary aims, then evaluating specific cases against ethical criteria for
ideal Olympic contests. This fusion of categorization, intention-focused and consequentialist
analyses enabled examining sports technologies through diverse ethical dimensions.
The taxonomy of six technology categories - constitutive, performance improvement,
performance restoration, safety promotion, officiating and integrity, consumption and
participation - provides a broad orientation to sports technology dynamics. However,
individual technologies ultimately require bespoke analyses accounting for nuanced details.
The categories supply initial orientation, while case assessments offer particular insights.
Demonstrating this, the thesis applied abbreviated Doctrine of Double Effect illustrations to
specific technologies like VAR, testosterone replacement therapy, and headgear. But far more
extensive analyses would be warranted to capture the full complexity of impacts against
ethical criteria. However the broad categorical introductions set the stage for analyzing cases.
By considering the Doctrine of Double Effect the thesis highlighted how ethical assessments
depend on determining proportionality, in situations where uncertainty is inevitable. Rational
individuals may hold judgment regarding what trade offs between principles are acceptable
and what are excessive (Schneider, 2018). Articulating evidentiary bases and procedural
134
fairness in collective deliberation among stakeholders would strengthen practical application.
This links to Feenberg’s (1991) emphasis on democratizing technology decisions. Integrating
affected parties injects lived norms into discerning proportionality. The merging of
intention-focused, consequentialist and procedural ethics provides a multifaceted toolkit for
technology assessments - but prudent, inclusive judgment remains essential.
Limitations and Future Research
While the ethical assessment framework offers a useful starting point, conceptual limitations
provide opportunities for refinement through future research. The technology categories
drawn in this thesis, provide conceptual clarity necessary for the model’s accessibility, yet it
presents broad generalizations needing qualification. As noted earlier, categories encompass
significant internal variance between specific technologies. Individual tools must be
judiciously examined in context, not painted with broad brushes. The Doctrine of Double
Effect analyses done here may have only engaged one or two principles per category, the
goal was to demonstrate the concept; in depth analysis will be presented in the next chapters
in forms of rich case studies. More extensive assessments weighing technologies against all
eight contest conditions could enrich understanding of holistic impacts. Formulating
contextual adaptations of the principles for different sports may boost relevance, along with
prioritizing certain values in specific contexts. I can self critique the methodology itself, as
having over-reliance on procedural tools, risks technocratic reductionism devoid of
humanistic insight. Close collaboration between sports philosophers, sport sociologist
regulators, technologists and athletes would enrich the knowledge base. Integrating
sociotechnical analysis of how innovations diffuse through complex sporting ecosystems
135
would complement the conceptual foundations established here. Consulting athlete
communities directly in a participatory ethics approach would center lived experiences into
ethical discernment.
Reference List
Abitante, T. J., Rutkove, S. B., Duda, K. R., & Newman, D. J. (2022). Effect of athletic
training on fatigue during neuromuscular electrical stimulation. Frontiers in Sports
and Active Living,4, 894395.
Allen, H., Price, O. J., Hull, J. H., & Backhouse, S. H. (2022). Asthma medication in
athletes: A qualitative investigation of adherence, avoidance and misuse in
competitive sport. Journal of Asthma,59(4), 811-822.
Azzarito, L., & Harrison, L. (2008). `White Men Can’t Jump’: Race, Gender and Natural
Athleticism. International Review for the Sociology of Sport,43(4), 347-364.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1012690208099871
Bhasin, S., Brito, J. P., Cunningham, G. R., Hayes, F. J., Hodis, H. N., Matsumoto, A.
M., Snyder, P. J., Swerdloff, R. S., Wu, F. C., & Yialamas, M. A. (2018).
Testosterone Therapy in Men With Hypogonadism: An Endocrine Society Clinical
Practice Guideline. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism,103(5),
1715-1744. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2018-00229
Bonte, P. (2013). dignified doping: Truly unthinkable? An existentialist critique of
‘talentocracy’in sports. Athletic Enhancement, Human Nature and Ethics: Threats
and Opportunities of Doping Technologies, 59-86.
Boxing Canada. (2019). Rule change: Boxing headgear is now mandatory for all
competitors in all events in Canada - Boxing Canada.
https://boxingcanada.org/annoucements/rule-change-boxing-headgear-is-now-mand
atory-for-all-competitors-in-all-events-in-canada/
Brown, W. M. (1984). Paternalism, Drugs, and the Nature of Sports. Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport,11(1), 14-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1984.9714409
Butcher, R., & Schneider, A. (1998). Fair play as respect for the game. Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport,25(1), 1-22.
Butler, R. (2020). Sports psychology in action. CRC Press.
Carr, C. (2008). Fairness and performance enhancement in sport. J Philos Sport,35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2008.9714738
Cellotti, F., & Cesi, P. N. (1992). Anabolic steroids: A review of their effects on the
muscles, of their possible mechanisms of action and of their use in athletics. The
Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology,43(5), 469-477.
Ciomaga, B., & Kent, C. (2015). Rethinking the consequences of commercializing sport.
Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,9(1), 18-31.
Cochrane, D. J. (2004). Alternating hot and cold water immersion for athlete recovery: A
review. Physical Therapy in Sport,5(1), 26-32.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ptsp.2003.10.002
Connor, J. (2009). The athlete as widget: How exploitation explains elite sport. Sport in
Society,12(10), 1369-1377.
136
Cournoyer, J., & Tripp, B. L. (2014). Concussion knowledge in high school football
players. Journal of Athletic Training,49(5), 654-658.
https://doi.org/10.4085/1062-6050-49.3.34
Cox, R. H. (1998). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications. McGraw-hill.
Craig, A. B. (2013). Chapter 1-What Is Augmented Reality? In A. B. Craig (Ed.),
Understanding Augmented Reality (pp. 1-37). Morgan Kaufmann.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-240-82408-6.00001-1
Devine, J. W. (2011). Doping is a threat to sporting excellence. British Journal of Sports
Medicine,45(8), 637-639.
Devine, J. W. (2022). Elements of excellence. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,49(2),
195-211.
Docherty, J. R. (2008). Pharmacology of stimulants prohibited by the World
Anti-Doping Agency (WADA). British Journal of Pharmacology,154(3), 606-622.
Driller, M. W., Dunican, I. C., Omond, S. E., Boukhris, O., Stevenson, S., Lambing, K.,
& Bender, A. M. (2023). Pyjamas, Polysomnography and Professional Athletes:
The Role of Sleep Tracking Technology in Sport. Sports,11(1), 14.
Dupuy, O., Douzi, W., Theurot, D., Bosquet, L., & Dugué, B. (2018). An
Evidence-Based Approach for Choosing Post-exercise Recovery Techniques to
Reduce Markers of Muscle Damage, Soreness, Fatigue, and Inflammation: A
Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Physiology,9, 403.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2018.00403
Dyer, B. (2015). The controversy of sports technology: A systematic review.
SpringerPlus,4(1), 524. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-015-1331-x
Dyer, B. (2020). A Pragmatic Approach to Resolving Technological Unfairness: The
Case of Nike’s Vaporfly and Alphafly Running Footwear. Sports Medicine - Open,
6(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-020-00250-1
Edwards, B., & Corte, U. (2014). Commercialization and lifestyle sport: Lessons from
20 years of freestyle BMX in ‘Pro-Town, USA’. In The Consumption and
Representation of Lifestyle Sports (pp. 79-95). Routledge.
Eichner, E. R. (2007). Blood doping: Infusions, erythropoietin and artificial blood.
Sports Medicine,37, 389-391.
Errekagorri, I., Castellano, J., Echeazarra, I., & Lago-Peñas, C. (2020). The effects of the
Video Assistant Referee system (VAR) on the playing time, technical-tactical and
physical performance in elite soccer. International Journal of Performance Analysis
in Sport,20(5), 808-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2020.1788350
Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology (Vol. 5). Oxford University Press
New York.
Feenberg, A. (2002). Transforming technology: A critical theory revisited. Oxford
University Press.
Feenberg, A. (2005). Critical theory of technology: An overview. Tailoring
Biotechnologies, 1 (1), 47-64.
Fried, G., & Mumcu, C. (2016). Sport analytics: A data-driven approach to sport
business and management. Taylor & Francis.
Gabbett, T. J. (2016). The training-injury prevention paradox: Should athletes be training
smarter and harder? British Journal of Sports Medicine,50(5), 273-280.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095788
137
Gelberg, J. N. (1995). The Lethal Weapon: How the Plastic Football Helmet
Transformed the Game of Football, 1939-1994. Bulletin of Science, Technology &
Society,15(5-6), 302-309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467695015005-612
Gleaves, J. (2021). A Moral Examination of the Therapeutic Use Exemption in
Anti-Doping. Journal of Olympic Studies,2(1), 53-71.
https://doi.org/10.5406/jofolympstud.2.1.0053
Haisma, H. J., & de Hon, O. (2006). Gene doping. International Journal of Sports
Medicine,27(04), 257-266.
Harris, M. D. (2011). Infectious disease in athletes. Current Sports Medicine Reports,
10(2), 84-89.
Heidegger, M. (1977). The question concerning technology. New York,214.
Holm, S. (2007). Doping under medical control - conceptually possible but impossible in
the world of professional sports? Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,1(2), 135-145.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17511320701425116
Hopkins, W. G. (1991). Quantification of training in competitive sports: Methods and
applications. Sports Medicine,12, 161-183.
Huecker, M., Sarav, M., Pearlman, M., & Laster, J. (2019). Protein supplementation in
sport: Source, timing, and intended benefits. Current Nutrition Reports,8, 382-396.
Hummel, R. L., & Foster, G. S. (1986). A Sporting Chance: Relationships Between
Technological Change and Concepts of Fair Play in Fishing. Journal of Leisure
Research,18(1), 40-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1986.11969644
IOC. (2021). Olympic Charter. International Olympic Committee.
https://olympics.com/ioc/olympic-charter
Izzicupo, P., Di Baldassarre, A., Ghinassi, B., Reichert, F. F., Kokubun, E., & Nakamura,
F. Y. (2019). Can off-training physical behaviors influence recovery in athletes? A
scoping review. Frontiers in Physiology,10, 448.
Jonas, H. (1974). Philosophical essays: From ancient creed to technological man.
Kadi, F., Eriksson, A., Holmner, S., & Thornell, L.-E. (1999). Effects of anabolic
steroids on the muscle cells of strength-trained athletes. Medicine and Science in
Sports and Exercise,31(11), 1528-1534.
Kaebnick, G. E., Gusmano, M. K., & Murray, T. H. (2014). The Ethics of Synthetic
Biology: Next Steps and Prior Questions. Hastings Center Report,44(S5), S4-S26.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hast.392
Kayser, B., & De Block, A. (2021). Would Relaxation of the Anti-doping Rule Lead to
Red Queen Effects? Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,15(3), 371-385.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2020.1770846
Kayser, B., Mauron, A., & Miah, A. (2007). Current anti-doping policy: A critical
appraisal. BMC Medical Ethics,8,2.https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-8-2
Kious, B. M. (2008). Philosophy on steroids: Why the anti-doping position could use a
little enhancement. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics,29(4), 213-234.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-008-9078-9
Kirkwood, K. (2009). Considering Harm Reduction as the Future of Doping Control
Policy in International Sport. Quest,61(2), 180-190.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2009.10483609
Konrad, A., Glashüttner, C., Reiner, M. M., Bernsteiner, D., & Tilp, M. (2020). The
acute effects of a percussive massage treatment with a hypervolt device on plantar
flexor muscles’ range of motion and performance. Journal of Sports Science &
Medicine,19(4), 690.
138
Kwiecien, S. Y., & McHugh, M. P. (2021). The cold truth: The role of cryotherapy in the
treatment of injury and recovery from exercise. European Journal of Applied
Physiology,121(8), 2125-2142.
Le Noury, P., Polman, R., Maloney, M., & Gorman, A. (2022). A Narrative Review of
the Current State of Extended Reality Technology and How it can be Utilised in
Sport. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.z.),52(7), 1473-1489.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-022-01669-0
Lenk, C. (2013). Is Human Enhancement Unnatural and Would This Be an Ethical
Problem? In J. Tolleneer, S. Sterckx, & P. Bonte (Eds.), Athletic Enhancement,
Human Nature and Ethics: Threats and Opportunities of Doping Technologies (pp.
45-57). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5101-9_3
Lindholm, J. (2019). The Netflix-ication of sports broadcasting. The International Sports
Law Journal,18(3), 99-101. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40318-019-00145-8
Lockie, R. G., Murphy, A. J., Scott, B. R., & de Jonge, X. A. J. (2012). Quantifying
session ratings of perceived exertion for field-based speed training methods in team
sport athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research,26(10),
2721-2728.
Loland, S. (2002a). Fair play in sport: A moral norm system. Psychology Press.
Loland, S. (2002b). Technology in sport: Three ideal-typical views and their
implications. In The Ethics of Sports Technologies and Human Enhancement (pp.
163-172). Routledge.
Loland, S. (2009). The Ethics of Performance-Enhancing Technology in Sport. Journal
of the Philosophy of Sport,36(2), 152-161.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2009.9714754
Loland, S. (2013). Fair play in sport: A moral norm system. Routledge.
Loland, S. (2018a). Morgan, the ‘Gratuitous’ Logic of Sport, and the Art of
Self-Imposed Constraints. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,12(4), 348-360.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2018.1493530
Loland, S. (2018b). Performance-Enhancing Drugs, Sport, and the Ideal of Natural
Athletic Performance. The American Journal of Bioethics,18(6), 8-15.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2018.1459934
Loland, S., & Hoppeler, H. (2012). Justifying anti-doping: The fair opportunity principle
and the biology of performance enhancement. European Journal of Sport Science,
12(4), 347-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2011.566374
Malsagova, K. A., Kopylov, A. T., Sinitsyna, A. A., Stepanov, A. A., Izotov, A. A.,
Butkova, T. V., Chingin, K., Klyuchnikov, M. S., & Kaysheva, A. L. (2021). Sports
Nutrition: Diets, Selection Factors, Recommendations. Nutrients,13(11), 3771.
https://doi.org/10.3390/nu13113771
McCall, A., Carling, C., Davison, M., Nedelec, M., Le Gall, F., Berthoin, S., & Dupont,
G. (2015). Injury risk factors, screening tests and preventative strategies: A
systematic review of the evidence that underpins the perceptions and practices of 44
football (soccer) teams from various premier leagues. British Journal of Sports
Medicine,49(9), 583-589. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-094104
McIntyre, A. (2023). Doctrine of Double Effect. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.),
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023). Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/double-effect/
139
Miah, A. (2005). From anti-doping to a ‘performance policy’ sport technology, being
human, and doing ethics. European Journal of Sport Science,5(1), 51-57.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390500077285
Miah, A. (2007). Genetics, Bioethics and Sport. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,1(2),
146-158. https://doi.org/10.1080/17511320701425181
Miller, S., & Selgelid, M. J. (2007). Ethical and philosophical consideration of the
dual-use dilemma in the biological sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics,13(4),
523-580. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9043-4
Morgan, W. J. (2009). Athletic Perfection, Performance-Enhancing Drugs, and the
Treatment-Enhancement Distinction. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,36(2),
162-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2009.9714755
Niedfeldt, M. W. (2018). Anabolic steroid effect on the liver. Current Sports Medicine
Reports,17(3), 97-102.
Obasa, M., & Borry, P. (2019). The Landscape of the “Spirit of Sport”: A Systematic
Review. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry,16(3), 443-453.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-019-09934-0
Owoeye, O. B. A., McKay, C. D., Verhagen, E. A. L. M., & Emery, C. A. (2018).
Advancing adherence research in sport injury prevention. British Journal of Sports
Medicine,52(17), 1078-1079. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-098272
Pike, J. (2018). Therapeutic use exemptions and the doctrine of double effect. Journal of
the Philosophy of Sport,45(1), 68-82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.2017.1416621
Real, M. R. (2002). Media sport: Technology and the commodification of postmodern
sport. In MediaSport (pp. 14-26). Routledge.
Renshaw, I., Davids, K., Araújo, D., Lucas, A., Roberts, W. M., Newcombe, D. J., &
Franks, B. (2019). Evaluating weaknesses of “perceptual-cognitive training” and
“brain training” methods in sport: An ecological dynamics critique. Frontiers in
Psychology,9, 2468.
Ritchie, I. (2013). The construction of a policy: The World Anti-Doping Code’s ‘spirit of
sport’ clause. Performance Enhancement & Health,2(4), 194-200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2014.10.002
Robinson, N., Giraud, S., Saudan, C., Baume, N., Avois, L., Mangin, P., & Saugy, M.
(2006). Erythropoietin and blood doping. British Journal of Sports Medicine,
40(suppl 1), i30-i34.
Schneider, A. J. (2018). ‘William J. Morgan on Fair Play, Treatment versus
Enhancement and the Doping Debates in Sport.’ Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,
12(4), 386-400. https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2018.1497082
Schneider, A. J. (2020). Girls Will Be Girls, in a League of Their Own – The Rules for
Women’s Sport as a Protected Category in the Olympic Games and the Question of
‘Doping Down.’ Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,14(4), 478–495.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2020.1830843
Schneider, A. J., & Butcher, R. R. (1993). Why Olympic Athletes Should Avoid the Use
and Seek the Elimination of Performance-Enhancing Substances and Practices From
the Olympic Games. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,20(1), 64-81.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1993.9714504
Schneider, A. J., & Sales, D. (2019). The future role of the Paralympics in times of
“rebuilt bodies”. In Emerging Technologies in Sport (pp. 142-155). Routledge.
140
Schneiders, C., & Rocha, C. (2022). Technology Innovations and Consumption of
Formula 1 as a TV Sport Product. Sport Marketing Quarterly,31(3).
Schumacher, Y. O., Saugy, M., Pottgiesser, T., & Robinson, N. (2012). Detection of EPO
doping and blood doping: The haematological module of the Athlete Biological
Passport. Drug Testing and Analysis,4(11), 846-853.
Sheridan, H. (2006). Tennis Technologies: de-skilling and re-skilling Players and the
Implications for the Game. Sport in Society,9(1), 32-50.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430500355782
Singh, N. (2020). Sport analytics: A review. Learning,9, 11.
Singh, R. (2022). Sports psychology. KK Publications.
Spitz, J., Wagemans, J., Memmert, D., Williams, A. M., & Helsen, W. F. (2021). Video
assistant referees (VAR): The impact of technology on decision making in
association football referees. Journal of Sports Sciences,39(2), 147-153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1809163
Szymanski, S. (2020). Sport analytics: Science or alchemy? Kinesiology Review,9(1),
57-63.
Tamburrini, C. (2006). Are Doping Sanctions Justified? A Moral Relativistic View.
Sport in Society,9(2), 199-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430430500491264
Tamburrini, C. (2013). WADA’s anti-doping policy and athletes’ right to privacy.
FairPlay, Revista de Filosofia, Ética y Derecho Del Deporte,2, 84-96.
Tamir, I., & Bar-eli, M. (2021). The Moral Gatekeeper: Soccer and Technology, the Case
of Video Assistant Referee (VAR). Frontiers in Psychology,11.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613469
Thevis, M., Sigmund, G., Geyer, H., & Schänzer, W. (2010). Stimulants and doping in
sport. Endocrinology and Metabolism Clinics,39(1), 89-105.
Thompson, A.-J., Martin, A., Gee, S., & Eagleman, A. (2014). Examining the
Development of a Social Media Strategy for a National Sport Organisation A Case
Study of Tennis New Zealand. Journal of Applied Sport Management,6(2).
https://trace.tennessee.edu/jasm/vol6/iss2/15
Thorpe, R. T. (2021). Post-exercise Recovery: Cooling and Heating, a Periodized
Approach. Frontiers in Sports and Active Living,3.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2021.707503
Tiles, M., & Oberdiek, H. (1995). Living in a Technological Culture: Human Tools and
Human Values. Routledge.
Trivedi, J., Soni, S., & Kishore, A. (2021). Exploring the Role of Social Media
Communications in the Success of Professional Sports Leagues: An Emerging
Market Perspective. Journal of Promotion Management,27(2), 306-331.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10496491.2020.1829774
Twomey, D. M., Petrass, L. A., & Fleming, P. R. (2014). Abrasion injuries on artificial
turf: A real risk or not? South African Journal of Sports Medicine,26(3), Article 3.
Unal, M., & Unal, D. O. (2004). Gene doping in sports. Sports Medicine,34, 357-362.
Uniacke, S. (2013). The Doctrine of Double Effect and the Ethics of Dual Use.
Canberra: Australian National University Press.
Viru, A. A., & Viru, M. (2001). Biochemical monitoring of sport training. Human
Kinetics.
WADA. (2021). World Anti-Doping Code. World Anti Doping Agency.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/world-anti-doping-program/world-anti-dop
ing-code
141
Waddington, I., Christiansen, A. V., Gleaves, J., Hoberman, J., & Møller, V. (2013).
Recreational drug use and sport: Time for a WADA rethink? Performance
Enhancement & Health,2(2), 41-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.peh.2013.04.003
Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus,109(1), 121-136.
Zglinski, J. (2022). Rules, Standards, and the Video Assistant Referee in Football. Sport,
Ethics and Philosophy,16(1), 3-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2020.1857823
142
Chapter 4
The Case of Artificial Tacticians in Sport
Introduction
In the initial chapters, I developed a philosophical structure for evaluating the integration of
technology in sports. My analysis on regulatory frameworks, like doping controls, revealed
their inadequate approach due to reactive stances and vague use of "The Spirit of Sport"
concept (Chapter 1). To improve this, in Chapter 2, I proposed a template for an ideal
Olympic Contest, with principles such as equal opportunity, safety, meritocracy, and justice
based on influential works on fair play and Olympism (Loland, 2002; Butcher & Schneider,
1998; IOC, 2021). Lastly in Chapter 3, I hybridized Feenberg's critical technology theory
(1991) with the scholarship on the philosophy of sport, and the Doctrine of Double Effect,
creating a methodology to classify technologies based the intended goals, which are then
evaluated using 'intention-focused' and 'consequentialist' analyses against our earlier
established model for Olympic contests. Engaged with philosophical instruments, my
analysis now turns to examining a case study. Chapter 4 focuses on the ethical aspects of a
hypothetical AI named HOTA (Hypothetical Optimal Tactical Assistant); an epitome of
emergent algorithmic platforms streamlining competitive strategies and athletic performances
using voluminous datasets and predictive analytics (Fernández & Bornn, 2019). HOTA's
main goal is strategy enhancement and is classified as performance improvement technology.
I will assess the beneficial implications designed to conform to Olympic ideals, while
critically examining any foreseeable inadvertent adverse impacts breaching philosophical
tenets of fair competition.
143
Literature on emerging AI and AI integrated sensor technologies in
sports
Virtual Reality (VR)
The literature on Virtual Reality (VR) in sports embraces both its potential and ramifications.
Emerging research illustrates the transformative impact VR can have, particularly in
enhancing spectator experience and team training regimens (Kim & Ko, 2019; Faure et al.,
2020). Kim & Ko (2019) explain the immense immersive potential of VR that can enrich the
viewing experience of sports enthusiasts, while still enabling them to partake in the sense of
flow in sport spectating experiences. Besides fostering engagement among spectators, there's
indication that VR applications may also aid with team training. As posited by Faure et al.
(2020), a simulated environment, provided through VR means, could be harnessed to analyze
and fine-tune athletic performance, thereby strengthening players' strategy formulation and
execution abilities. The potential of motion-based video gaming in enhancing motor skills is
examined by Jenny et al. (2017). The authors emphasize the encouraging components of
innovative teaching methods in video gaming, which promote both learning and physical
activity within education. Along similar lines, Nor et al.'s study from 2020 asserts how
marrying immersive VR technology with methods like gamification has promising
implications for stimulating athletes' enjoyment during physical exercise, potentially
prompting them to improve their performance levels as well. However, it's imperative we
don't overlook ethical questions arising out of radical technological integration into sport.
Synoptically, considering these revelations arouses philosophical musings concerning what
exactly constitutes an authentic sporting encounter. This is where sporting simulations may
come under scrutiny as some may argue that VR might distort notions about authenticity
within spectatorship, or skill refinement practices inside virtual spaces, affecting historical
144
understandings around competition, training and nature. Epitomizing this debate are Virtual
Environments (VEs), such as those proposed by Miles et al.(2012), suggesting VEs could
hone sensorimotor skills integral to ball-sports mastery. Hence, novel explorations into
integrating VEs necessitate rigorous evaluation balancing gains against repercussions, not
only concerning utility, but ethical aspects regarding issues of fair play.
Digital Refereeing - Video Assistant Referee (VAR)
The ever-maturing world of professional football now depends significantly on VAR
technology, carving the path for a moral revolution in the sport. Upholding ethical conduct
and fairness has traditionally fallen onto referees who grapple with human judgement
limitations potentially impacting match results (Tamir & Bar-eli, 2021). The reality is that
today's fast-paced games present fresh challenges to referee decision making abilities.
Several studies have noted key inaccuracies specifically around offside calls - which unveils
a clear requirement for some form of technological intervention set up to prevent these
inconsistencies while keeping match proceedings standardized (Tamir & Bar-eli, 2021;
Oliveira et al., 2023).
The integration of the VAR has been an innovative approach for combating physical
limitations faced by on-field referees while ensuring the highest possible judgmental
accuracy. Moreover, psychological biases that traditionally tended to cloud referee decisions
- including pre-existing knowledge, reputation bias and susceptibly to fan influences - have
found a practical mitigation tool in VAR (Tamir & Bar-eli, 2021). While critics voice their
concerns over disruptiveness and reliability issues related to certain subjective, calls such as
handball offenses (Zglinski, 2022; Errekagorri et al., 2020), stats reveal the silver lining. The
adoption of VAR has caused accuracy rates in offside jugement to increase from 92.1% to
145
98%, thereby celebrating improved accuracy capabilities of this digital innovation (Spitz et
al., 2021). However, understanding this digital progression necessitates careful contemplation
of socio-cultural aspects, including fan reception across different cultural contexts, which are
yet unexplored territories. Subsequently, adapting transition phases efficiently toward
inclusion is essential, as was reflected through the initial lower performance rate witnessed
upon introduction processes related bottlenecks and teething troubles owing partly to the lack
of clarity goals rewards systems, procedural incorporation difficulties that were observed
(Samuel et al., 2020).
Wearable technology
Wearable technologies and sensors represent an area of profound innovation and escalating
adoption across diverse sporting landscapes. From wearable physio-monitoring devices
tracking athlete exertion and recovery, to inertial measurement units quantifying
biomechanics, these tools promise more optimized training, safety and performance (Adesida
et al., 2019; Aroganam et al., 2019; Owen, King & Lamb, 2015; Taborri et al., 2020;
Karkazis, Fishman, 2017; Evans, McNamee, Guy, 2017). However, ethical complexities
around privacy, consent, access equity, data interpretation and competitive fairness
necessitate judicious oversight integrating these transformative capabilities, congruently with
sporting values and purposes. Adesida et al. (2019) emphasize wearable technology's
transformative potential for sports biomechanics, specifically its pivotal role in reducing
injuries, and subsequently, bolstering an individual or team's overall efficacy. As the
technological landscape accelerates though, a point to ponder upon is whether every
advancement serves a beneficial and ethical purpose within sports. Significantly amplified
use of biomechanical sensors throughout multiple sporting disciplines attests to this growing
phenomenon as outlined by Taborri et al., (2020). Owen et al. (2015) highlight the relevance
146
of wearables, from both enhancing safety and evaluating performance, in endurance motor
racing. However, glancing through all these ubiquitous developments raises certain
dilemmas; like questions around transgressions into athletes' privacy rights due to excessive
data collection methods from devices? Tricky scenarios can occur, where already powerful
dynamics existing among coaches and athletes, might push players into compulsive
utilization of such technologies.
The evolution of AI into in-game tactics
Far beyond mere plays and formations, football tactics embody a distinctive style and ethos
that come alive during competition. Examining the nuanced strategies teams employ reveals
profound ethical dimensions inherent across sports. At its core, strategic decision-making in
athletics mirrors our distinctly human capacities for judgment and agency. Yet the growing
use of algorithmic techniques like machine learning, and deep learning in sports, poses
thoughtful questions about technological determinism and its impacts on free will . As these
data-driven methods enable comprehensive analysis for predicting outcomes and automating
interpretations (Cust et al., 2019; Pavitt et al., 2021; Loquercio et al., 2020), are we stripping
away space for human artistry, courage and meaning in sport?
Recent studies demonstrate these trends, with sophisticated models forecasting countries'
Olympic medal counts and optimizing team selections (Schlembach et al., 2022). But
seemingly objective algorithms gloss over intangible human elements that constitute true
sporting achievement. Technical rankings reduce unique individuals pursuing excellence into
mechanistic data points optimized by formulas. Crucially though, athletes demand treatment
aligned with moral principles like human autonomy, non-maleficence, beneficence, justice
147
along with transparency and accountability (Carrio Sampedro, 2021). Techniques for
data-driven strategic advice, from predicting goal-scoring chances to estimating decision
parameters (Fernandez & Bornn, 2019; Cervone et al., 2014), require ethical evaluation. If
optimized play usurps coaches' and athletes' agency, are we sacrificing cherished spontaneity
and creativity for robotic efficiency? Does relentless optimization erode sports' enduring
humanity and meaning? Thoughtful oversight is needed to ensure algorithmic models remain
grounded in ethics, avoiding the technocratic reduction of dynamic human pursuits into
formulaic processes devoid of spirit. With care, analytics may enlighten strategic decisions,
but never override the personal growth and fellowship at sport’s heart. Our innovations
should empower sportspeople's excellence, not diminish their humanity.
Delving deeper into this discussion, guides us to Bojinov & Bornn's research (2016), where
they scrutinized football's “pressing” tactic using AI. Pressing is a technique unemployed in
football to disrupt an opposition's defenses. This breakthrough enables teams to navigate
their opponents' strategic vulnerabilities more precisely, raising questions relative to ethics
and fair play. What if an AI guides teams to press the injured opposition’s athletes to take
advantage of the opponent's vulnerabilities? Taking this analysis path even further, leads us
back onto data driven individual performance evaluation models such as ‘off-ball scoring
opportunity (OBSO)’ (Spearman, 2018) among others. The advent of artificial intelligence
algorithms dictating player fortunes, yet again, flag up philosophical debate topics including
determinism versus free-will, along with their associated ethical counterparts debatable under
notions expressed in AI Ethics. This intricate web woven around sport strategy essentially
spirals into infinite nuances, thus connecting various threads within in-game strategy across
different spheres.
148
Carrio Sampedro (2023) argues that despite widespread use of AI in areas like performance
enhancement, injury prevention, and refereeing, sports governing bodies have not adopted
policies or regulations regarding responsible and ethical AI uses. This lack of governance
poses risks to athlete rights and wellbeing. Carrio Sampedro (2023) argues that establishing
an ethical framework and oversight mechanisms is urgently needed to promote fair,
accountable, and transparent AI uses that align with principles of Olympism. Adopting global
AI governance in sport could protect athletes while allowing AI's potential benefits.
Figure 4.1 : AI analytical capacity of sport performance (Stats Perform, 2023)
Table 4.1: Examples of emerging technologies that integrate AI in sport
Type of
Technology
Brief Description
Potential Ethical
Concerns
Citations
Artificial
Intelligence,
Machine
Learning &
Deep Learning
Utilized in sport for
automated detection of
sport movements,
calculating goal-scoring
probabilities and detecting
match phenomena.
Privacy concerns, bias in
AI training data,
over-reliance on
technology, unfair
competitive advantage,
accessibility
Cust et al., 2019; Pavitt et al.,
2021; Loquercio et al., 2020;
Ramkumar et al., 2022;
Aroganam et al., 2019; Anzer
& Bauer, 2021; Schlembach et
al., 2022
149
Biometric
Technologies,
Nanobiosensors,
Wearable
Technologies &
Sensors
Used for assessing athlete’s
performance, preventing
injuries, biomechanics
research, and monitoring
fatigue levels.
Privacy and data
security, informed
consent, unequal access,
fairness in competition
Adesida et al., 2019;
Aroganam et al., 2019; Owen,
King & Lamb, 2015; Taborri et
al., 2020; Karkazis, Fishman,
2017; Evans, McNamee, Guy,
2017
Global
Positioning
Systems (GPS)
For tracking and
monitoring of team sports
performance and strategy.
Privacy concerns,
unauthorized
surveillance, fairness in
use, accessibility
Cummins et al., 2013
Virtual Reality
(VR), Virtual
Environments
(VEs)
Used to enhance spectator
experience and for team
sports training, and to
improve sensorimotor
skills in ball sports.
Potential misuse, cyber
sickness, digital divide,
fairness, accessibility
Kim et al., 2019; Faure et al.,
2020; Nor et al., 2020; Nazira
Nor et al., 2020; Miles et al.,
2012
Video Assistant
Referee (VAR)
technology
Used in soccer for making
more accurate rule-based
decisions.
Impact on referee
decision-making,
over-reliance on
technology, fairness in
use, accessibility
Tamir & Bar-Eli, 2021;
Oliveira et al., 2023; Zglinski,
2022; Errekagorri et al., 2020;
Spitz et al., 2021;
Petersen-Wagner & Ludvigsen
,2022; Samuel et al., 2020
Case study: Artificial Intelligence (AI) - Hypothetical Optimal Tactical
Assistant
In this part, I present HOTA - the Hypothetical Optimal Tactical Assistant. Developed as an
AI in-game strategist (or AI assistant coach). This hypothetical technology is drawn up for
ethical analysis in this paper as a possible future technology. HOTA is engineered to provide
almost instantaneous strategic advice to teams during competitions. Drawing upon
substantial repositories of historic game, data and sport-specific records, HOTA becomes an
all-knowing assistant coach. It collects and processes diverse information, such as player
performance statistics, scouting reports, and medical profiles -optimizing these myriad
insights, into effective strategic recommendations. A unique feature includes gathering live
social media insights not only from players' social media accounts, but also from their broad
circles (family, friends, team-mates, etc.) - doing so enables precise calculations about how
significant personal life changes might ultimately affect an individual's tournament
150
performance. Indeed, weighing every possible outcome with remarkable confidence becomes
conceivable, as it doesn't leave out coaches or referees either, when estimating probabilities
centered around them too. Additionally, HOTA incorporates situational factors such as
weather forecasts and field conditions alongside indirect influences, like fan engagement,
which potentially influence outcomes by affecting morale or generating pressure scenarios
induced by crowds on match days.
To achieve accuracy with biometrics, all players (including opponents) actions along with
their movements, cutting edge technology powered stadiums filled with cameras are
employed to capture all activity using computer vision. This massive influx of data is fed into
a super-computer that processes super quick simulations runs within HOTAs advanced
predictive engines. HOTA provides guidance via virtual reality visors and earpieces
designed to optimize coaching decisions. Virtually overlaying gametime possibilities onto
existing circumstances, through evaluation models based on criteria like degree of fatigue
being experienced by participants, combined injury status, lets HOTA's strategically superior
recommendation capabilities shine over traditional human coaching methods. It proposes
alternative routes without dictating decisions that humans ought to be making themselves in
sport related activities. This capacity goes far beyond just pointing out mistakes, as it
includes play design optimization while synchronously reducing errors greatly.
The Analytical Framework:
In Chapter 3, a moral schema was formulated to evaluate sports technologies within the
scenario of the Olympic Games. This approach entailed classifying devices according to their
defined aims and implementing the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) as a measure for
balancing possible gains against unintended adverse outcomes. The aspiration here was to
151
assess whether these modern enhancements uphold or challenge fundamental philosophical
tenets and conditions intrinsic for an archetypal Olympic contest as elaborated in Chapter 2.
In this chapter, I am poised to illustrate how this analytical method can be practically enacted
using HOTA - a hypothetical AI assistant - as an exemplar; chosen due its designation
towards enhancing athletic performance via data-informed strategic suggestions. Hereunder it
is located within the performance enhancement category. I will probe into both supposed
benefits offered by HOTA along with its potential risks that could contradict cardinal ethical
principles presupposing fair and meaningful competition synonymous with Olympics. The
DDE paradigm from Chapter 3 furnishes us with a comprehensive mechanism aiding our
examination of impacts on ethics. By meticulously evaluating HOTA through previously
structured philosophical techniques, my objective is demonstrating efficacy embedded in
such theoretical technology assessment tools which prove invaluable whilst grappling
complex queries lying at the convergence zone between Ethics, Artificial Intelligence &
Modern Sports disciplines. The critique will underline notable aspects pertinent to discussion
employing HOTA’s case study.
152
Fig 4.2 : Flow chart guiding ethical analysis
Identify the Category of Technology:
HOTA essentially belongs to the "Technology intended to improve performance" group,
embodying the principle of facilitating efficiency. Primarily designed for sharper and faster
strategic decisions during in-game situations using inputs from a multitude of sources.
Evaluating HOTA against the Conditions of the Ideal Olympic Contest:
1) Does the technology promote fair equal opportunity for all athletes to perform,
regardless of their backgrounds or circumstances?
HOTA brings with it a host of issues linked to non-discrimination and fair equal opportunity.
This kind of AI operates on historical and live data that captures performances of individual
153
players and teams. However, critical evaluation might reveal potential biases that could be
inherent within historical and training datasets due to various societal disparities prevalent in
sports, such as gender inequality or racial discrimination (Mehrabi et al., 2021). If
unrectified, these biases could translate into potentially unfair tactical recommendations from
AI models. For example, if training data reflects persistent undervaluation of certain player
groups, due to systemic social prejudices rather than their actual performance ability,
resultant predictive models could suggest game plans that inadvertently reinforce such
negative stereotypes. This raises a foundational query related to justice - will the
implementation of AI-based tactics give all players a fair equal opportunity for performance?
The decisions should primarily depend on competitors' abilities, talent and effort. Notably
though, artificial intelligence systems would not directly affect physical competition but
mainly informs strategic decisions. Therefore, from one perspective, one might argue that
since coaches and players retain agency, choosing whether or not they adopt advised
strategies, they are collectively responsible for match outcomes.
Adversely, algorithmic biases in statistical models could lead to some athletes being
systematically disadvantaged thereby creating an unequal sporting environment contrary to
Olympian principles (IOC Charter: Fundamental Principle 4). Hence, prudent steps needed to
ensure initial development phases include techniques like fairness constraints or adversarial
debiasing reducing possible discriminatory effects (Tomalin et al., 2021; Mehrabi et
al.,2021). Moreover, determining optimal strategies based purely on quantitative assessments
risks eliminating opportunities for creative styles, is contradictory towards essential qualities
valued in sport settings like aesthetic expression (Parry, 1989) and tactical creativity
(Memmert & Roca, 2019). Could this mean losing sight of the beauty intrinsic within
unpredictability elements, embodied by sporadic creative moves, devised from flexible
154
human cognition? Future studies might explore how we can balance predictable efficiency
derived from machine learning models in modern sport. The implementation of HOTA
inevitably brings forth debates on equal access. The advancements in technologies demand
substantial monetary and knowledge investments. This consequently means that rich clubs,
or nations, are more likely to afford, embrace, and adapt effectively to AI technologies,
compared to their less affluent counterparts (DiMaggio et al., 2004). While notions of
fairness presuppose participants entering the Olympic games on equal terms strictly based on
merit and resilience, it is clear that disparities exist regarding accessibility of
technology-driven transformations. This raises critical questions breaching fair-play
principles inherent within Olympic sport ethos (IOC, 2021).
On the other hand, viewing through a distributive justice lens (Rawls, 1971) underpinned by
Robin Hood’s principle (robbing from the rich giving poor) might suggest AI tech potentially
operating as a balancing mechanism across uneven playing fields. As the technology
becomes more accessible, poorer teams who might lack the financial capabilities of hiring
experienced top-tier human coaches, due to scarce resources, could assimilate customizable,
scalable automated analytics software to mitigate such disadvantages. Using inexpensive
automation platforms compiling data-informed advice, previously reserved for those
affording expert staff salaries, may indeed be game-changing. Kuhn’s (1962) paradigm shift
concept could well find applicability here with traditional sporting environments
transitioning and replacing dependency around human tactical skill with artificial intelligence
technology. By providing these economically disadvantaged teams access to sophisticated
strategic insights, without overbearing financial penalties they otherwise bear, AI coaching
support systems can evoke the Olympic spirit by redefining boundaries set respectively for
the privileged and celebrate triumphs emerging from beyond mere richness.
155
Finally, maintaining transparency constitutes another ethical concern that is required to be
addressed, principally when advanced deep learning methodologies are applied without clear
interpretation into decision making processes (Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy Artificial
Intelligence European Commission, 2019). Keeping clear communication lines between
technical developers, coaches, and athletes, supported by external audits reviewing whether
the proposed system aligns with pre-empirical, just play regulations, emphasizes integrity is
demanded throughout sport governance literature (Lepri et al., 2018). Striking a suitable
equilibrium, amongst optimizing strategic analysis capabilities, embracing technological
advancements, whilst preserving fundamental moral principles requires efforts spanning
across transdisciplinary fields, ranging from computer scientists delivering unbiased
algorithms (Tomalin et al., 2021), to policymakers formulating robust trustworthy governing
architectures (Floridi, 2018) adaptable for evolving sporting environments.
2) Preserving Sporting Excellence: Does the technology support or enhance the
display of athletes' skill or ability in the sport?
Artificial Intelligence (AI), and its increasing role in shaping sports strategy, presents certain
challenges and opportunities. However, the bedrock of any such advancements should be
linked with preserving sporting excellence. Undoubtedly, HOTA has the potential to
significantly enhance game tactics and teams’ performances, but there are diverse elements
to sporting excellence which may not be adequately captured, or diluted, by algorithmic
analysis. Preserving Sporting Excellence signifies a culture where the outcome of the contest
is determined predominantly by an athlete's or teams’ skills, talent, efforts and abilities rather
than being heavily influenced by external factors (Butcher & Schneider, 1998); in this case,
technology-driven tactics. Under the lens of Olympism, that exalts the harmonization of
156
body, will, and mind (Fundamental principle of Olympism 1), it can be arguably posited, that
strategy formulation and decision-making - facets directly tethered to mental exertion, are
intertwined with physical prowess to embody holistic athletic performance. By this token,
one may argue for AI incorporation, noting it as an extension and enhancement of human
intellect, rather than a techno-centric usurpation. It exemplifies hard work, dedication and
skill through the exploitation of data-driven insights for evolving sophisticated strategies.
However, we must delicately calibrate this coexistence, ensuring that AI is utilized for
augmenting human ingenuity and not replacing it, because fundamental to fairplay, is the
unpredictability tied to human instinct which adds allure to competition. Upholding sporting
excellence, hence implies striking this conscientious balance between tradition rooted
aspects, like expert intuition, against innovation via technological tools such as AI tacticians.
On another note, over-reliance on AI could lead to hyper-rationalization of sports, potentially
sterilizing forms of spontaneity or creativity that play into 'moments of magic' that are so
often associated with sporting excellence. Coaching plays a crucial role in cultivating these
aspects and empowering players which cannot be replaced purely through AI-based
recommendations. Individual brilliance needs to shine through a tactical framework for true
success and indication of sporting prowess. The over-standardization feared from the uniform
adoption of AI-tactics could turn games into predictable outcomes devoid of unpredictability,
which is intrinsic to live sports events (Butcher and Schneider, 1998). Furthermore,
quantification driven nuances inherent in models like xG, or OBSO, focus primarily on
isolatable actions which risks overshadowing intangible, yet instrumental, facets of sport,
such as leadership qualities or mental resilience under pressure (Spearman, 2018; Decroos et
al., 2019). While it is logical to leverage data metrics as part of overall performance analysis,
unduly emphasis might risk turning athletes into optimization objects undermining their
157
agency and dignity. Autonomy undoubtedly enriches games - introducing prescribed paths
might limit organic decision-making during play, constraining free-flowing expression that is
central to sport ethos. The integration between technology-generated advice and human
execution needs development ensuring athletes’ exploratory instincts are not suppressed.
Finally, beyond responsible design standards, imbued within these technologies, active
human oversight remains vital, especially given ethical quandaries that common-sense
perspectives might raise against invariably complex statistical insights, that are served up by
deep-learning frameworks. Failing this standard, runs the risk turning sport contests into
primarily technological tour-de-forces, endangering long cherished norms that are
constitutive for the world's most watched competitions. As we stand at inflection points
regarding wider adoption within strategic evaluations including real-time match decision
making -integrating these decisions enhancing technologies must keep paramount preserving
principles underlying Sporting Excellence aligning machinogenic-advancement coherently
with values intrinsic to athletic meritocracy.
3) Adherence to Safety and Harm Prevention: Does the technology prioritize the
safety and wellbeing of the athletes?
Artificial intelligence technologies like HOTA bring potential advantages such as strategic
optimization. We must weigh their implications against established ethical norms of Safety
and Harm. What if an AI system suggests overly competitive or even unethical tactics? Like
exploiting vulnerabilities of physically or mentally stressed opponents. We could see a
significant increase in actions that violate sportsmanship and the values of respect, inherent
to the ideal Olympic Contest. A winning at all costs attitude doesn't align with the values of
respect, solidarity and fair play - viewing opponents as means or mindless obstacles to
158
overcome at any cost - dehumanizes the competition and violates their dignity. The
suggestion for risky game plans from AI systems may undercut the role sport plays in
promoting human development via the Olympic Games platform. While some might view
AI-driven tactical optimizations as valid, so long as it is within regulations, it's crucial to
consider how this can indirectly pressure athletes into making choices contrary to their moral
stance, hence impacting self-governance adversely. The consequence is athletes feeling
pushed into adopting questionable suggestions, made by these systems, rather than
cultivating and expressing principles anchored in both Olympism and Fair Play.
Sports culture has always had room for gamesmanship. However, the entry of AI systems
into sports strategies changes this equation substantially due to their rapid optimization
capabilities. This could potentially alter inherent game cultures in ways not anticipated or
accepted by traditional coaching methods, which might dangerously transform games into
mere optimization experiments devoid of human meaning. Supporters may argue that
advanced analytics are just additions to the coaching and planning toolbox, and teams who
turn away from it lose competitive advantage (a classic case of Prisoner's dilemma), but can
we simply normalize such tactics as ethical? If regulators do not step forward in time before
AI-driven strategies encroach upon intrinsic fair play principles; they risk compromising the
nature of sporting excellences. Sensible boundaries around extractive algorithmic tactics
particularly those endangering participant safety seems an ethical obligation worth
considering.
HOTA by virtue of its comprehensive data-driven approach entails a significant invasion of
privacy. As an open box system, HOTA amasses enormous quantities of personal information
not just from the players, coaches, and referees professionally involved in the sport, but
159
potentially from their social circles as well. While such depth of data collection might
enhance the tactical sophistication provided by this AI assistant coach, it also poses
unsettling ethical questions about individuals' right to privacy. A person's health records or
private life changes should not be fodder for a tactical analysis program; it crosses
boundaries that we ethically must respect and protect. Conversely though, employing a
closed-box system which preserves opacity around decision-making processes does mitigate
some potential violations to individuals’ privacy arising due to explicit disclosure. However
there still remains concerns about internal functionalities given how essential data is fed into
training these models internally. In efforts to balance between maximizing the benefits drawn
from this AI-based approach in sports strategy without compromising on players’ rights,
instead of opting for fully open or closed box systems , perhaps we could consider
implementing hybrid strategies that employ what Philosopher John Rawls described as a
‘Veil of ignorance’ centered design principles within AI models ensuring privacy protection
while retaining transparency wherever necessary in decision making processes. For instance
some elements regarding performance metrics could remain translucent while those
pertaining explicitly to private lives and social circles could remain opaque thereby striking
an equilibrium between functional efficiency and right to privacy .
The utilization of AI technologies like HOTA, undoubtedly presents substantial risks to
cybersecurity and invades privacy - given computer systems vulnerability to system breaches
with incentives for manipulation. These models store massive private data that may include
medical records and game plans. It's plausible for these AI systems created predominantly by
sports teams seeking a competitive edge, to be infiltrated or corrupted. This poses a threat to
fair play and privacy with the structure of the ideal Olympic Contest. This calls for an
160
effective framework that oversees such technologies. As more sophisticated analysis tools
surface in what appears similar to an arms race scenario, inherent cyber insecurity follows
closely behind the lack of proper technological governance. While skeptics may view
governing such rapidly evolving technology as impractical due largely misunderstood
boundaries posed by ethical concerns; we can counteract with how already successfully
regulatory measures are applied consistently within sponsoring safe sporting practices thus
aligning contests with humanistic principles.
4) Meritocracy in Distribution of Advantages: Does the technology distribute
advantage based on merit, primarily athletic performance?
The use of AI systems as tactical advisors raises complex questions regarding impacts on
meritocratic ideals seeking to align unequal distributions of advantage with actual athletic
performance (Loland, 2002). If thoughtfully implemented, AI analytics could enhance
objective assessment of ability. Sophisticated AI models enable quantifying decisions,
potentially improving player talent evaluation (Fernandez & Bornn, 2019; Cervone et al.,
2014). By supplementing subjective assessments with objective data-driven assessments,
analytics may better align rewards like salaries with objective ability demonstrations. In this
sense, AI could enhance meritocracy. However, unequal AI access allows disproportionate
team advantages, disrupting fairness. Unlike coaching, AI’s efficiency scale fundamentally
alters dynamics. Vast data and computing confer algorithmic edges unrelated to skill or merit.
For instance, an AI strategist could de-skill sport by usurping key strategic planning and
decision-making. Or it could reshape sport by prioritizing superior AI over talent and effort
recognition. Furthermore, AI’s opacity obscures whether outcomes reflect talent or mere
technological advantage. Dominance could stem from analytical asymmetry rather than
prowess, disrupting integrity. This risks muddying the “clarity” of excellence Devin (2022)
161
describes. Additionally, biased training data risks decisions aligned with prejudices rather
than objective merit (Michael et al., 2022), thus might create, discrimination perpetuating
historic marginalization that contradicts meritocracy’s egalitarian ethos. Strict governance
and shared standards enabling accessible AI analytics for all athletes, rather than just elites,
are imperative to preserve merit-based competition. With care, AI could enhance impartial
assessment of talent. But unregulated AI risks misaligning outcomes with merit, undermining
the spirit of fair play. Oversight mechanisms fostering equitable AI access are needed to
maintain sporting ideals.
5) Justice in Rule Enforcement: Does the technology ensure fairness in the
enforcement of rules and punishment of violations?
Justice in rule enforcement forms a core aspect of sport philosophy, invoking principles
pertaining to fair distribution, equality and retributive justice in cases of violation (Rawl,
1971; Loland, 2002). One characteristic constituting justice is that penalties or ramifications
should be proportional to actual transgressions committed aimed at correcting inequities
caused from the original misfeasance. Thus striving towards platonic Justice which demands
giving 'each their due' and upholding an overall balance within the sporting ecosystem.
Viewing through this lens AI technology emerging as an "in-game tactician" probes
interesting ethical dimensions.
Being non-human entities, AI lacks inherent intentions unlike human players, hence
traditional blame-allocation principles cannot become seamlessly applied. A well-built AI
model implements directives from coded algorithms constructed mainly in accordance with
training data inputs - thereby their decisions are primarily reflections of past actions collected
over measurable timelines. In conditions where biases have unknowingly infiltrated into
162
these datasets sophisticated models might unwittingly suggest strategies based on
discriminatory profiles disregarding Olympian principles anchored by notions of universal
respect for individual athletes irrespective backgrounds (IOC, 2021). In simpler terms, the
key elements of transparency, including justice should be implemented in all stages of
operation. There should clear communication between developers, coaches and athletes to
external auditors who ensure the systems are accurately aligned with real-world competition
conditions. Regular audits need to take place under set guidelines which check not only
transactional information but also wider issues. These could promote socially responsible
development and balance overall, achieving ‘Fair Play’, an ideal that sports is supposed to
represent according to the Olympic Charter. To fully utilize emerging technologies for
strategic analysis in sports, an ethical approach based on principles of fairness must be
established. Timely development of regulatory frameworks is necessary to address the
challenges posed by the rapid integration of artificial intelligence into the evolving domain of
athletics. This allows for upholding foundational philosophical values and educational
objectives intrinsically linked to the sanctity of competitive sport, while adapting to
innovations in technology. The goal is to maintain the core tenets of ethical sport as
technological landscapes continue to advance.
6) Goal Realization Promoting Harmonious Development of Humankind: Does the
technology align with the broader Olympic goals of promoting human
development and fostering a spirit of friendship and solidarity?
The use of AI systems as tactical guides in sports, brings up important questions about
adherence to the Olympic ideals that encourage personal and cultural growth through sport.
Even though data analysis offers several benefits, unrestricted optimization could undermine
the purpose of sports as a method for cooperative human development. Ensuring responsible
163
control, that balances innovation with long-lasting principles, is crucial. Advanced AI
analytics can enhance sports strategies, raising excellence, and thereby, further contributing
to individuals' self-fulfillment. Tactics such as improving teamwork or reducing injuries by
making optimized decisions, correspond well with goals focusing on humanity's wellbeing.
From this perspective, AI provides a way to fine-tune how sports promote human potential.
On the flip side, some may argue that unchecked optimization, without considering the social
context, could reduce sporting events into soulless games based solely on data crunching.
Placing too much emphasis on achieving maximum outcomes might lead competitors to be
treated merely like tools, rather than athletes-it goes against traditional values in sport where
participants are valued first and foremostly for who they are, not just what they do. This
concern calls for some ground rules ensuring AI genuinely uplifts character-building instead
of diverting focus away from it.
High-performance sports have always involved pushing limits. However, the Olympic
Games emphasize embracing deeper ethical values. Without a moral compass, AI systems
risk corrupting these values. Instead of humans balancing the costs and ethics involved in
decisions, we might see an overemphasis on efficiency driven by AI's relentless pursuit for
optimization. Without proper supervision, this singular focus could mean we surrender the
philosophical meaning of Olympism for the sake of productivity. Therefore, it falls upon
regulatory bodies to oversee how AI is used in sports, preventing its potential misuse that
goes against developmental objectives. Opponents argue such intervention may hamper
progress, but not scrutinizing analytics can lead to a significant loss; moving away from
teamwork and human cooperation, which is what the Games fundamentally promotes. As
long as there are checks put into place with careful attention paid towards humanistic aspects
164
during implementation - competitive intensity will only uplift harmony instead of creating
conflict within athletes using them responsibly.
7) Striving for Excellence through Maximum Performance: Can it encourage the
players to play to win?
The implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems as strategic consultants in sports,
catalyzes intricate dilemmas between optimizing performance and preserving long-standing
sporting ideologies that extol human endeavor and superiority (Butcher & Schneider, 1998).
While AI pledges beneficial methodologies, its propensity for practical maximization risks
being at odds with idealistic principles, glorifying genuine effort. On one side of the
spectrum, lies advanced AI modeling purporting to strategically enhance outcomes by
providing empirical insights to bolster performance (Fernandez & Bornn, 2019). This
reflection of an intrinsic competitive pursuit for excellence seemingly harmonizes with sports
philosophy. However, when engaged in this optimization journey, these sophisticated AIs are
devoid of a comprehensive comprehension regarding human values; hence they might
prompt insidious advice. For instance: An AI assistant coach could potentially guide players
and coaches towards premeditated under-performance or even deliberate loss, calculatedly
capitalized upon later in the competition. Arguably, it may be deemed logical in terms of
maximizing probabilities; however intentional losses conflict with the pursuit of maximum
effort. This is reminiscent of what we witnessed during the infamous Badminton debacle at
the London 2012 Olympics, where athletes were intentionally trying to lose matches to gain
an advantage later in the competition. The players were accused of "conducting oneself in a
manner clearly abusive or detrimental to the sport" for intentionally losing matches (BBC,
2012). In such scenarios, huge risks exist as such actions by artificial intelligence can
compromise crucial foundations underlying various sport practices..
165
Of course, gamesmanship has always existed alongside formal rules, as Loland (2002) notes.
But again, AI’s scale alters the calculus. Comprehensive automation enabling deliberate
underperformance, risks normalizing an end-justifies-means attitude, violating sporting
virtues. Unlike debatable human judgment, calculated algorithmic guidance erodes
aspirational principles demanding top effort. Governing bodies should thus proactively
prohibit AI directives that compromise maximum pursuit of excellence in competition,
preserving integrity of performance. This need not preclude all strategic variance by humans,
who can weigh competitive and humanistic considerations. But unconstrained AI
optimization risks philosophic loss exceeding marginal gains. With care, innovation and
enduring virtues can progress jointly. But responsible oversight is needed to ensure AI
elevates rather than demotes sports’ aspirational essence.
8) Preservation of Uncertainty Outcomes: Does the technology preserve the
uncertainty of outcomes, thereby maintaining the excitement and
competitiveness of the sport?
The use of intelligence (AI) systems, as advisors in sports raises important questions about
maintaining the element of unpredictability, which is a crucial aspect of sports enjoyed by
both participants and spectators. As Loland (2002) explains, the exciting "sweet tension" of
outcomes is a part of competitive games. Fundamentally, sports are riddled with variables
both controllable (e.g., player selection, tactics) and uncontrollable (e.g., weather conditions).
While human coaches possess an incredible ability to analyze this landscape, they are still
prone to inaccuracies and biases. Here lies HOTA's appeal; its predictive analytics offers a
superior vantage point over these variables making game plans more robust. Analyzing
minute details about the condition of each player alongside external factors, affords tactical
flexibility based on real-time data analysis thereby enhancing the excitement associated with
166
live games. This retains an element of surprise as strategies will constantly change based on
data metrics while keeping play unpredictable. On the contrary though, one may argue that
said technology could potentially lessen uncertainty outcomes, hence negatively impact
competitiveness and excitement associated with it. Advanced systems like HOTA can draw
insights beyond human perception increasing outcome predictability by providing teams with
access to advanced AI systems, an edge over their competitors, thus compromising equitable
competition, thus the results will be inequitably skewed towards those who can afford such
cutting-edge resources. Critics may also express concern that reliance on AI technologies
threatens creativity (Memmert & Roca, 2019) by reducing sport into formulaic processes
mechanically devoid of instinctive discoveries. Whereas talent often brings forth unexpected
brilliance, and errors breathe life into a match narrative, giving character to matches despite
their losses that can create legends out from underdogs - elements that makes sport
dramatically appealing.
Table 4.2: Summary of Intended Good Effects
Conditions for the Ideal
Olympic Competition
Intended Good Effects of HOTA and
Explanation
Non-Discrimination and
Fair Equal Opportunity
for Performance
Enhances objective evaluation of player talent and advising on optimal
tactics.
Preserving Sporting
Excellence
Complements and augments human ingenuity rather than replacing it.
Adherence to Safety and
Harm Prevention
Potential in advising on minimizing injury risk: By taking into
consideration player fatigue, injury status, and other health parameters,
HOTA can potentially recommend strategies that preserve player
safety and well-being.
Meritocracy in the
Distribution of
Advantages
Rewards efforts and talents through empirical insights.
167
Justice in Rule
Enforcement
Improves consistency and accuracy: AI technologies like HOTA
provide objective assessments based on rules of the game and (ideally
unbiased) training data, potentially ensuring fairness in rule
enforcement.
Goal Realization
Promoting Harmonious
Development of
Humankind
Enhances coaching and athletes’ experiences: AI coaching tools like
HOTA could possibly help elevate the game to another level of
sophistication thereby fostering personal and cultural growth through
sports .
Striving for Excellence
through Maximum
Performance - i.e. play to
win attitude.
HOTA provides necessary guidance that help teams win games and
demonstrate maximum efficiency.
Preservation of
Uncertainty Outcomes
While HOTA can analyze and predict outcomes, the actual actions are
still done by the human coach and athletes, making the outcome
potentially unpredictable.
Table 4.3: Summary of Unintended Bad Effects
Condition for the Ideal
Olympic Competition
Unintended Bad Effects of HOTA and Explanations
Non-Discrimination and
Fair Equal Opportunity
for Performance
Historical biases in the training data (e.g., racial or gender
discriminations) used by HOTA could mitigate the equality of
opportunity for performance (Mehrabi et al., 2021). Wealthy teams
could also have an upper hand as they could invest more resources in
AI infrastructure, creating a resource-based inequality.
Preserving Sporting
Excellence
Relying heavily on HOTA's advice could potentially detract from the
human elements of tactical brilliance and creativity that contribute to
sporting excellence. The human story and personal endeavor that mark
athletic achievement may also get overshadowed by technological
influence
Adherence to Safety and
Harm Prevention
HOTA's relentless pursuit for optimization could suggest aggressive or
unsafe tactics exploiting weaknesses in opponent teams. Such
outcomes could compromise the safety of athletes and undermine the
principle of fair play.
Meritocracy in the
Distribution of
Advantages
Access to AI technology like HOTA might be linked with a team's
financial capabilities rather than pure athletic merit, presenting a
skewed distribution of advantage not necessarily tied to athletic
performance.
Justice in Rule
Enforcement
With AI involvement, decisions may appear more data-driven and less
human-influenced; this could give rise to new forms of rule violations
and unjust actions, especially if the AI system was using unfairly
gathered information.
168
Goal Realization
Promoting Harmonious
Development of
Humankind
While AI might aid in optimizing athletic performance, an
over-reliance or misinterpretation by HOTA could forestall diversities
in approach, reducing opportunities for personal growth and
underlining collective development.
Striving for Excellence
through Maximum
Performance
An AI system to instruct the players to underperform to gain
advantage later in the competition.
Preservation of
Uncertainty Outcomes
Overuse of AI technology like HOTA could generate a more
deterministic outcome in the sports field and subsequently reduce the
unpredictability and chance encounters that make sports exciting.
Applying Doctrine of Double Effect from the perspective of Governing
bodies to HOTA
According to the Doctrine of Double effect (DDE), an action is permissible if it fulfills four
conditions:
●The action (in this case, the introduction or use of the technology) must be
morally good or at least indifferent.
●The agent (the person or organization introducing or using the technology)
must intend the good effect (the intended purpose of the technology) and not
the bad effect (any negative impacts).
●The good effect does not arise from the bad effect.
●A proportionately serious reason for permitting the bad effect.
(McIntyre, 2023).
1) The Action Must Be Morally Good or at Least Indifferent
The primary action involves implementing an advanced AI system, in this case HOTA, in
sports competitions. The technology has efficiency as a value integrated into it. It is designed
primarily with the aim to enhance teams' strategies and improve performance during sporting
competitions. HOTA’s main purpose is to assist in improving performance and offer fair
competition by leveraging objective data driven insights. This action appears as not
169
‘inherently’ bad. The act of implementation of HOTA is good or indifferent. HOTA’s
‘technical code’ embedded in its design warrants further scrutiny (Feenberg, 2005).
2) The Agent Must Intend the Good Effect but Not the Bad
Under this principle, stakeholders implementing HOTA should aspire towards desired
positive impacts: chiefly enhancing player/team performances through quantifiable tactical
advisories, whilst not intentionally aiming for negative repercussions, such as, privacy
invasion or algorithmic discrimination. Herein lies a critical distinction between what is
intended versus merely foreseeing probable collateral damage (Kamm, 2008). Assuming
compliance with appropriate ethical guidelines when developing these AI systems, a process
termed Ethical by Design, the stakeholders could indeed establish clear intentions striving for
positive consequences without explicitly endorsing bad repercussions. However, systemic
biases within the dataset, or algorithm construction, risks undermining intentions - hence the
importance increases for running routine audits, performed under external discretion,
ensuring fairness principles remain upheld in practice.
3) The Good Effect Does Not Arise from the Bad
According to DDE's third condition, the good effect must not be caused as a direct result
from any potential bad effect. In other words, enhanced execution tactics suggested by AI
should not arise due to non-consensual data collection infringing on individuals' privacy
rights. Preserving athlete security constitutes paramount concern in all settings, especially
when discussing sensitive areas like meticulous monitoring, that captures professional or
personal life details intertwining wider social circles. Moreover techniques ensuring initial
development phases include tested debiasing solutions that also need to be implemented,
170
addressing concerns regarding historical biases translated into unfair tactical
recommendations emerging from model prediction probabilities.
4) Proportionality
The growing reliance on sophisticated AI systems like HOTA, as tactical advisors in sports,
raises critical ethical dilemmas around privacy, bias, transparency, and the very meaning of
athletic competition. While it can be argued that HOTA's data-driven recommendations can
optimize strategy and performance, we must carefully weigh such benefits against the
associated risks and costs, both tangible and philosophical. At the core of the concerns, is the
sheer scale of HOTA's data gathering from athletes, coaches, referees and their broader social
circles. This degree of surveillance violates reasonable expectations of privacy and autonomy
(Barrett-Maitland & Lynch, 2020). Perhaps some performance metrics could be justifiably
collected with consent. However, scraping sensitive personal data unrelated to the field of
play represents an egregious overreach. Individuals maintain rights to privacy even as public
figures. Strong procedural safeguards, and limited data use, are imperative when leveraging
analytics. Further, algorithmic biases could propagate injustice if training data reflects
distorted societal prejudices around factors like race or gender (Mehrabi et al., 2021). Audits
help, but biases are often ingrained in subtle ways. HOTA's opacity around how
recommendations are derived threatens to conceal any unfairness or errors. Such lack of
transparency violates notions of human dignity. While HOTA may appear more "objective,"
its determinations still reflect subjective choices by its programmers.
Unequal access to advanced AI analytics creates inherent unfairness in leveraging this
technology (Muller et al., 2020). Wealthy teams can invest heavily in sophisticated systems
like HOTA, granting disproportionate strategic advantages unrelated to merit. This violates
171
notions of fair play by enabling greater success simply due to financial asymmetry, rather
than athletic skill. Some propose equalizing access by making foundational AI capabilities
freely available, akin to a ‘Robin Hood’ redistribution of resources. However, substantial
gaps would likely persist given the resources needed to utilize AI optimally. Further, forcing
access sharing could disincentivize innovation. A preferable alternative may be developing
sports-specific AI within leagues and granting all teams in that league equal access. This
democratized approach limits unfairness by putting all competitors, regardless of financial
standing, on equal analytical footing. Of course, other factors like coaching quality may still
confer advantages between teams. But equal AI access helps isolate determinations of
success to elements more squarely within the athletes' control. This aligned utilization across
a league allows AI's strategic benefits to augment human performance without unduly
distorting competition. Clubs are not unfairly disadvantaged by lacking proprietary AI
systems. Careful governance could still be required to ensure transparency and prevent AI
misuse. But so long as all teams work from the same foundation of ethical, standardized
analytics, competitiveness and meritocracy would be enhanced versus diminished.
More broadly, an over-reliance on relentless optimization risks diminishing the glory of
human struggle and creativity so central to sports' appeal. If AI prescribed even the smallest
choices, human agency would be suppressed, removing meaning from competition. Some
guidance can help strategize, but room for spontaneous brilliance must be protected . Further,
framing opponents as collections of vulnerabilities to exploit could erode ethics of fair play.
Unchecked AI threatens privacy. It also enables a mechanistic, cynical view of athletic
pursuits antithetical to the Olympic spirit. Non-technological alternatives like traditional
coaching offer comparable strategic benefits without the same degree of ethical pitfalls.
Ultimately, the principal aims of mutual growth, integrity and celebration underlying sports
172
should guide technological integration, not vice versa. With ethical foresight, analytic tools
can augment human performance without usurping those qualities that define athletic
excellence. Comprehensive systems like HOTA portend a dystopian path by valuing
optimization above all else. The profound human elements underpinning sports must not be
sacrificed at the altar of innovation. Selective transparent uses of analytics may be justified,
but wisdom and oversight are indispensable to prevent technology's profound implications
from corroding sports’ ethical core. With prudence, both progress and principles can flourish.
But first and foremost, we must affirm that no analytic advantage warrants trampling the
sacred dignity of sport's participants and spectators. Under its current form, given HOTA’s
foreseeable harms and invasion of privacy, and with the availability of alternatives
(traditional coaching), there is no proportionately serious reason for permitting the bad effect
of HOTA.
Conclusion
This case analysis of the hypothetical AI assistant coach HOTA evidenced both potential
benefits and grave risks of uncontrolled technological integration in high-performance sports.
While HOTA's sophisticated data gathering and simulations aim to optimize strategic
decision-making, implementation absent constraints comes at profound costs to privacy,
fairness, human dignity and the enduring appeal of competitive exertion. Several salient
conceptual implications emerge. Framing technologies purely in instrumental terms of
efficiency goals disregards how their sociocultural embeddedness alters the very meaning of
sports and excellences (Feenberg, 1991). For example, by quantifying every decision, HOTA
risks reducing athletes to optimization objects fully predictable by algorithms. Such
technocratic reduction strips away the human artistry, courage and solidarity that help
173
constitute achievements of true merit (Parry, 1989). Governance based solely on reactively
banning technologies that advantage some competitors overlooks democratizing alternatives
that expand access through constraints, not prohibition (Feenberg, 2002). Innovations like
HOTA could be permitted under strict standardization ensuring equal availability. But this
requires moving beyond reactive bans to proactive shaping that is aligned with ethical
purposes.
Comprehensive technology assessments must recognize the inevitability of value trade-offs
amidst uncertainty. In HOTA's case, augmented strategic excellence conflicts with privacy
harms; determining proportionality depends partly on prudential weighing by a sporting
community itself, not just technocrats. Dialogue, not top-down authority, must negotiate
ambiguities. Sound regulation necessitates strengthening conceptual foundations and
evidentiary bases given anti-doping policy limitations. For HOTA, verified performance
impacts ought to determine permissibility. This analysis revealed governance gaps
demanding proactive reforms upholding enduring Olympic visions through teamwork and
human growth.
Reference List
Adesida, Y., Papi, E., & McGregor, A. H. (2019). Exploring the Role of Wearable
Technology in Sport Kinematics and Kinetics: A Systematic Review. Sensors,
19(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19071597
Anzer, G., & Bauer, P. (2021). A Goal Scoring Probability Model for Shots Based on
Synchronized Positional and Event Data in Football (Soccer). Frontiers in Sports
and Active Living,3.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fspor.2021.624475
Aroganam, G., Manivannan, N., & Harrison, D. (2019). Review on Wearable
Technology Sensors Used in Consumer Sport Applications. Sensors,19(9), Article
9. https://doi.org/10.3390/s19091983
Badminton players out of doubles. (2012). BBC Sport.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/olympics/19072677
174
Barrett-Maitland, N., & Lynch, J. (2020). Social media, ethics and the privacy paradox.
Security and Privacy from a Legal, Ethical, and Technical Perspective, 49.
Bojinov, I., & Bornn, L. (2016). The pressing game: Optimal defensive disruption in
soccer. 10th MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference.
Carrio Sampedro, A. (2021). The case of AI in sport: Some ethical concerns at play.
Diagoras: International Academic Journal on Olympic Studies,5, 18-29.
Carrio Sampedro, A. (2023). The ethics of AI in sport: Taking athletes' rights and
wellbeing seriously [Final report]. Olympic Studies Centre.
Cervone, D., D’Amour, A., Bornn, L., & Goldsberry, K. (2014). A Multiresolution
Stochastic Process Model for Predicting Basketball Possession Outcomes. Journal
of the American Statistical Association,111.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2016.1141685
Cummins, C., Orr, R., O’Connor, H., & West, C. (2013). Global positioning systems
(GPS) and microtechnology sensors in team sports: A systematic review. Sports
Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.),43(10), 1025-1042.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-013-0069-2
Cust, E. E., Sweeting, A. J., Ball, K., & Robertson, S. (2019). Machine and deep
learning for sport-specific movement recognition: A systematic review of model
development and performance. Journal of Sports Sciences,37(5), 568-600.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1521769
De Oliveira, M. S., Steffen, V., & Trojan, F. (2023). A systematic review of the literature
on video assistant referees in soccer: Challenges and opportunities in sports
analytics. Decision Analytics Journal,7, 100232.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100232
Devine, J. W. (2022). Elements of excellence. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,49(2),
195-211.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Celeste, C., & Shafer, S. (2004). Digital inequality: From
unequal access to differentiated use. Social Inequality, 355-400.
Errekagorri, I., Castellano, J., Echeazarra, I., & Lago-Peñas, C. (2020). The effects of the
Video Assistant Referee system (VAR) on the playing time, technical-tactical and
physical performance in elite soccer. International Journal of Performance Analysis
in Sport,20(5), 808-817. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2020.1788350
EU. (2019, April 8). Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI | Shaping Europe’s digital
future.
https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/ethics-guidelines-trustworthy-ai
Evans, R., McNamee, M., & Guy, O. (2017). Ethics, Nanobiosensors and Elite Sport:
The Need for a New Governance Framework. Science and Engineering Ethics,
23(6), 1487-1505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-016-9855-1
Faure, C., Limballe, A., Bideau, B., & Kulpa, R. (2020). Virtual reality to assess and
train team ball sports performance: A scoping review. Journal of Sports Sciences,
38(2), 192-205. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1689807
Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical theory of technology (Vol. 5). Oxford University Press
New York.
Feenberg, A. (2005). Critical theory of technology: An overview. Tailoring
Biotechnologies, 1 (1), 47-64.
Fernández, J., Bornn, L., & Cervone, D. (2019). Decomposing the immeasurable sport:
A deep learning expected possession value framework for soccer. 13th MIT Sloan
Sports Analytics Conference.
175
Floridi, L. (2018). Soft ethics, the governance of the digital and the General Data
Protection Regulation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A:
Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences,376(2133), 20180081.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0081
Guston, D. H. (2014). Understanding ‘anticipatory governance.’ Social Studies of
Science,44(2), 218-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713508669
IOC. (2021). Olympic Charter. International Olympic Committee.
https://olympics.com/ioc/olympic-charter
Jenny, S. E., Manning, R. D., Keiper, M. C., & Olrich, T. W. (2017). Virtual(ly) Athletes:
Where eSports Fit Within the Definition of “Sport.” Quest,69(1), 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2016.1144517
Kamm, F. M. (2008). Intricate ethics: Rights, responsibilities, and permissable harm.
Oxford University Press.
Karkazis, K., & Fishman, J. R. (2017). Tracking U.S. Professional Athletes: The Ethics
of Biometric Technologies. The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB,17(1),
45-60. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2016.1251633
Kim, D., & Ko, Y. J. (2019). The impact of virtual reality (VR) technology on sport
spectators’ flow experience and satisfaction. Computers in Human Behavior,93,
346-356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.040
Lepri, B., Oliver, N., Letouze, E. F., Pentland, A. P., & Vinck, P. (2018). Fair,
Transparent, and Accountable Algorithmic Decision-making Processes. Springer
Netherlands.https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/122933
Loland, S. (2002). Fair play in sport: A moral norm system. Routledge.
Loland, S. (2018). Morgan, the ‘Gratuitous’ Logic of Sport, and the Art of Self-Imposed
Constraints. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,12(4), 348-360.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2018.1493530
Loquercio, A., Segu, M., & Scaramuzza, D. (2020). A general framework for uncertainty
estimation in deep learning. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters,5(2),
3153-3160.
MacKenzie, D., & Wajcman, J. (1999). The social shaping of technology. Open
university press.
McIntyre, A. (2023). Doctrine of Double Effect. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.),
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023). Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
Mehrabi, N., Morstatter, F., Saxena, N., Lerman, K., & Galstyan, A. (2021). A Survey on
Bias and Fairness in Machine Learning. ACM Computing Surveys,54(6),
115:1-115:35. https://doi.org/10.1145/3457607
Memmert, D., & Roca, A. (2019). Tactical creativity and decision making in sport.
Anticipation and Decision Making in Sport, 201-214.
Michael, K., Abbas, R., Jayashree, P., Bandara, R. J., & Aloudat, A. (2022). Biometrics
and AI bias. IEEE Transactions on Technology and Society,3(1), 2-8.
Miles, H. C., Pop, S. R., Watt, S. J., Lawrence, G. P., & John, N. W. (2012). A review of
virtual environments for training in ball sports. Computers & Graphics,36(6),
714-726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cag.2012.04.007
Nor, N., Sunar, M., & Kapi, A. (2019). A Review of Gamification in Virtual Reality
(VR) Sport. EAI Endorsed Transactions on Creative Technologies,6(21).
https://eudl.eu/doi/10.4108/eai.13-7-2018.163212
176
Owen, N., King, H., & Lamb, M. (2015). Literature Review of Race Driver Fatigue
Measurement in Endurance Motorsport. Procedia Engineering,112, 344-348.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.07.260
Parry, J. (1989). Sport, art and the aesthetic. Sport Science Review,12, 15-20.
Pavitt, J., Braines, D., & Tomsett, R. (2021). Cognitive analysis in sports: Supporting
match analysis and scouting through artificial intelligence. Applied AI Letters,2(1),
e21. https://doi.org/10.1002/ail2.21
Petersen-Wagner, R., & Lee Ludvigsen, J. A. (2022). The video assistant referee (VAR)
as neo-coloniality of power? Fan negative reactions to VAR in the 2018 FIFA Men’s
World Cup. Sport in Society, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/17430437.2022.2070481
Ramkumar, P. N., Luu, B. C., Haeberle, H. S., Karnuta, J. M., Nwachukwu, B. U., &
Williams, R. J. (2022). Sports Medicine and Artificial Intelligence: A Primer. The
American Journal of Sports Medicine,50(4), 1166-1174.
https://doi.org/10.1177/03635465211008648
Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice: Original Edition. Harvard University Press.
https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9z6v
Samuel, R. D., Galily, Y., Filho, E., & Tenenbaum, G. (2020). Implementation of the
Video Assistant Referee (VAR) as a Career Change-Event: The Israeli Premier
League Case Study. Frontiers in Psychology,11, 564855.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.564855
Schlembach, C., Schmidt, S. L., Schreyer, D., & Wunderlich, L. (2022). Forecasting the
Olympic medal distribution - A socioeconomic machine learning model.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change,175, 121314.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121314
Spearman, W. (2018, March 1). Beyond Expected Goals.
Spitz, J., Wagemans, J., Memmert, D., Williams, A. M., & Helsen, W. F. (2021). Video
assistant referees (VAR): The impact of technology on decision making in
association football referees. Journal of Sports Sciences,39(2), 147-153.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2020.1809163
Stats Perform. (2023). Stats Perform at the Sloan Sports Analytics Conference 2023.
https://try.statsperform.com/sloan/
Taborri, J., Keogh, J., Kos, A., Santuz, A., Umek, A., Urbanczyk, C., van der Kruk, E.,
& Rossi, S. (2020). Sport Biomechanics Applications Using Inertial, Force, and
EMG Sensors: A Literature Overview. Applied Bionics and Biomechanics,2020,
2041549. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2041549
Tamir, I., & Bar-eli, M. (2021). The Moral Gatekeeper: Soccer and Technology, the Case
of Video Assistant Referee (VAR). Frontiers in Psychology,11, 613469.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.613469
Tomalin, M., Byrne, B., Concannon, S., Saunders, D., & Ullmann, S. (2021). The
practical ethics of bias reduction in machine translation: Why domain adaptation is
better than data debiasing. Ethics and Information Technology, 1-15.
Wilsdon, J., & Willis, R. (2004). See-through science: Why public engagement needs to
move upstream. Demos.
Zglinski, J. (2022). Rules, Standards, and the Video Assistant Referee in Football. Sport,
Ethics and Philosophy,16(1), 3-19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2020.1857823
177
Chapter 5
The Case of mRNA protein therapy
Introduction
Chapter 5 implements the previously established ethical assessment framework to evaluate a
practical case: the potential use of messenger RNA (mRNA) technology as a novel method
for enhancing sport performance. This application exemplifies the value of the conceptual
model presented in Chapter 3 in highlighting dilemmas and suggesting ethically-principled
integration of technologies to align with Olympic and fair play values. The entire framework
is applied to scrutinize mRNA, a technology that promises transformative therapeutic
benefits, yet potentially disruptive applications to improve performance in sport. Upon
categorizing mRNA modification as being intended for performance improvement, I gauge
its alignment with ideal competition conditions and utilize the Doctrine of Double Effect. I
contend that unrestricted usage fails examinations concerning safety, fairness and societal
responsibility, despite plausible justification existing for measured applications under
principled constraints. This displays how the integrative methodology can direct innovation
along ethical paths without compromising essential humanistic and fair play values inherent
in the Olympic Games. It also acknowledges areas where conceptual refinement can
strengthen this integrative blueprint further, showing that it presents channels through which
sporting ideals might be retained amid rapid technological shifts.
178
History of Gene-doping
Ever since the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s (WADA) Prohibited List in 2003,
gene-doping has been banned in sport. The concept of gene therapy was raised decades ago
with the hope to create new classes of therapeutics that access previously inaccessible
pathways. Gene-doping manipulate cells' genetic material by introducing exogenous
gene-sequences with the aim of enhancing performance in sport. In 2023, WADA in its
Prohibited List International Standard, defines gene-doping as follows:
“M.3 GENE AND CELL DOPING ... The following, with the potential to enhance
sport performance, are prohibited: 1. The use of nucleic acids or nucleic acid
analogues that may alter genome sequences and/or alter gene expression by any
mechanism. This includes but is not limited to gene editing, gene silencing and gene
transfer technologies; 2. The use of normal or genetically modified cells”
(WADA, 2023a).
WADA’s non-exhaustive definition attempts to encompass all genetic manipulation that may
enhance performance in sport, while still allowing some possibility for the use of such
technology for therapeutic purposes. WADA mentions three examples of the use of gene
technology to gain a competitive advantage in sport: gene editing, gene silencing, and gene
transfer technologies. Utilizing these gene-doping techniques, scientists can tweak human
molecular biology to induce beneficial phenotypic sporting responses. For example: EPO
genes can be transferred to non-EPO producing cells to enhance erythropoiesis, or silence
some genes like the Myostatin gene (a muscle regulatory gene) to increase muscle growth.
The potential for abuse in sport is virtually limitless, yet it comes with many risks that may
range from ineffective therapy to severe unintended DNA mutagenesis that is often hard to
predict or fix (Fu et al., 2013). CRISPR-Cas9 is by far the most widely used technique for
gene editing and gene transfer (Pradhan et al., 2020). Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short
Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR), a revolutionary gene editing technique invented by
179
pioneering scientists, Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, who were both awarded
the 2020 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their work on CRISPR-Cas9. A guide RNA is used
that directs the Cas9 protein to a specific gene in the nucleus. Once the gene is identified by
the CRISPR-Cas9 system, the Cas9 protein will cut the gene out of the DNA and ideally
replace the gene with a supplied DNA template (new gene). While such technology holds
huge potential for therapy and enhancement, it is not perfect, it suffers from some downfalls;
it can lead to off-target edits and DNA mutagenesis (unintended changes to DNA sites that
were not targeted) (Fu et al., 2013). Other uses of DNA gene transfer technology includes
in-vitro mass production of recombinant proteins for therapeutic use. Current protein therapy
(e.g., insulin, hGH, etc.) mostly use recombinant protein expression expressed by genetically
modified cells in-vitro (Baneyx, 1999). Up until recently, DNA approaches captured the
majority share of investigations (Pradhan et al., 2020), while limited attention has been given
to a crucial transit molecule that is present in all cells in our bodies and plays an important
role in molecular biology: messenger RNA (mRNA).
mRNA from zero to hero.
mRNA is a key player in protein synthesis in the human cell. It is the information package
that carries the archived information from our DNA to the cell's protein synthesis machinery.
The therapeutic potential of using synthetic mRNA sequences to slip information into the
cell's protein synthesis machinery was obvious from day one (Melton et al., 1984). Synthetic
mRNA can encode for virtually any protein, this includes human or non-human hormones,
growth factors, enzymes, cellular receptors, antibodies, and much more. These proteins are
produced, folded, and undergo post-translational modification by the human cell’s own
machinery - giving those proteins a unique advantage over proteins produced by
180
non-mammalian cell-based recombinant technology (Wurm, 2004). The therapeutic potential
of mRNA was first explored in the 1980s (Melton et al., 1984). While the results were
promising (Wolff et al., 1990), mRNA research didn’t gain much traction compared to DNA
research in the early days. Many challenges faced mRNA therapy: mRNA is relatively
unstable, lacked efficient methods of delivery, triggered excessive immune response, and was
thought to be cytotoxic (Balmayor, 2022). In the last decade, these problems were largely
resolved by several new innovations. For example: the incorporation of modified uridine
nucleotide (Karikó et al., 2005; Karikó et al., 2008), new optimized coding sequences (Thess
et al., 2015), improved purification process that relies on High Performance Liquid
Chromatography (HPLC) (Karikó et al., 2011), and the development of highly efficient
nanotechnology-based delivery materials (Kowalski et al., 2019). Amid the global pandemic
of the COVID-19 virus, mRNA technology had its first major impact on global health - it
went from an intriguing idea to a big hit in the pharmaceutical world overnight. Born out of
the need to create an easy, cheap and rapidly producible vaccine to bring the world out of the
COVID-19 pandemic, scientists used mRNA technology to create a vaccine in a record time.
Pfizer-BioNtech rapidly developed the world’s first mRNA-based - FDA approved
therapeutic (Tanne, 2021). By the end of 2021, billions of doses of mRNA based COVID-19
vaccine have been administered around the World.
The benefits of mRNA vs. other forms of gene therapy and conventional
pharmaceuticals.
The production of mRNA is relatively easier, faster, and cost-effective compared to the
conventional methods of biotechnologically produced proteins. It’s mainly produced at a
large-scale by in vitro transcription (IVT) (Sahin et al., 2014). mRNA has advantages over
other forms of nucleic acid-based therapy as it doesn’t affect the host’s DNA nor enter the
181
cell’s nucleus, thus resulting in very low risk of DNA mutations. mRNA therapy is efficient,
and its immunogenicity can now be tuned as needed to accommodate multiple functions:
protein therapy, vaccine therapy and others (Sahin et al., 2014; Weng et al., 2020). With a
multitude of protein-based substances that are already abused and banned by WADA in sport,
the introduction of mRNA technology only aggravates the situation. mRNA technology has
the ability to induce the production of proteins by the human cell’s own machinery that may
be indistinguishable from the body’s endogenous proteins. The possibility of abuse of such
technology for performance enhancement in sport is significant.
The feasibility of using mRNA technology to enhance performance in
sport.
WADA’s Prohibited List bans the use of many protein substances from sport (e.g. EPO,
IGF-1, etc.). Since mRNA technology can virtually encode for any protein molecule, it can
potentially be used to induce the body's production of any of performance enhancing
proteins. WADA’s Prohibited List doesn’t specifically mention mRNA technology as a
possible prohibited technology. Also, mRNA technology doesn't seem to comfortably fit into
section M3 of the Prohibited List: "The use of nucleic acids or nucleic acid analogues that
may alter genome sequences and/ or alter gene expression by any mechanism. This includes
but is not limited to gene editing, gene silencing and gene transfer technologies” (WADAa,
2023). Facing potential abuse of such technology, antidoping scientists might be intrigued to
explore the feasibility of such technology as a doping agent in sport.
Two independent studies successfully used Erythropoietin (EPO) encoding nucleoside
modified mRNA for protein therapy in mice (Karikó et al., 2012; Kormann et al., 2011).
Thess et al. (2015) have performed a similar study using unmodified EPO mRNA
182
encapsulated in Solid lipid nanoparticles (LNPs) on larger animals. They have found that
EPO mRNA therapy was comparable to recombinant EPO currently being used to treat
humans.
“In healthy volunteers as well as anemic patients with chronic kidney disease, a dose
of recombinant erythropoietin of about 600 IU/kg (which appears to be among the
highest usually applied in clinical settings) led to maximum serum EPO levels of
about 1,000 mIU/ml (equivalent to around 8,400 pg/ml) and an increase of the
percentage of reticulocytes of about 2. These values are very much in line with those
we obtained in nonhuman primates following intravenous administration of a
reasonable dose of mRNA encapsulated in LNPs designed for hepatic delivery of
nucleic acid therapeutics”
(Thess et al., 2015)
In the same study by Thess et al. (2015), the animals were challenged with a 10-fold dose of
EPO encoded mRNA to induce possible inflammatory side-effects. Proinflammatory
cytokines were measured six hours after the first mRNA treatment and showed no elevation
in response to mRNA therapy, the same results continued after six administrations and for
three weeks. These results demonstrate that EPO encoded mRNA protein therapy might be
effective and safe in humans.
In another study (DeRosa et al., 2016), the pharmacokinetic profile of EPO produced by
intravenous mRNA-loaded lipidoid nanoparticles was examined. Scientists have found that
their mice subjects “upon treatment with a 1.0-mg kg−1 dose of EPO mRNA-encapsulated
LNPs, ~11 μg of hEPO protein per ml of serum can be produced. This is several orders of
magnitude (>125 000-fold) over the normal human physiological level of EPO (average
normal levels reported to be 31.5-150 pg ml−1, average ~90 pg ml−1)” (DeRosa et al.,
2016). Supraphysiological levels of serum EPO continued after 7 days of a single intravenous
injection, and hematocrit (Hct) levels increased by an average 20% in 2 weeks. In the same
study, the pharmacokinetic profile of EPO produced by mRNA-loaded lipidoid nanoparticles
183
in cynomolgus monkeys showed “striking similarity to what was observed in mice” with
much smaller dose of 0.050 mg/kg resulting in serum EPO protein levels of ~9000 pg/ml (6 h
time point), an almost 100-fold increase in their normal physiological levels. The success of
EPO encoded mRNA protein therapy in large animals like non-human primates, demonstrate
the potentiality of mRNA to be used in the systemic delivery of many
performance-enhancing substances in humans.
mRNA technology is also being explored for the use of local injury repair and tissue
regeneration (Balmayor, 2022). For example: Bone morphogenetic protein 2 (BMP-2) is a
protein that has been shown to accelerate bone production and is used to accelerate bone
repair (Geiger, 2003). In a recent study, BMP-2 encoded mRNA was delivered locally to
critical-sized femoral osteotomies in rats (De La Vega et al., 2022). The therapy resulted in
the local production of BMP-2 and the healing of all mice who received more than 25ug of
BMP-2 mRNA without forming the callus that is usually seen with recombinant BMP-2 use
(De La Vega et al., 2022). mRNA technology has also been explored as a novel replacement
to passive antibody therapy (not generated by the immune system) in all main fields:
antitoxins, infectious diseases, and oncology (Schlake et al., 2019). This technique can
generate antibodies that can enhance performance, e.g., myostatin specific antibodies have
been shown to enhance muscle strength in animal models (Muramatsu et al., 2021).
Case study: A hypothetical model for an mRNA printing system:
Consider the case of an advanced technology known as "mRNA Printer". This remarkable
innovation has the ability to produce virtually any human or non-human protein or antibody
on demand. With time, not only it became more cost-effective but also gained global
184
accessibility. This hypothetical mRNA printer is already making waves in sporting circles
with teams and athletes starting to experiment with it. Now picture this: an international
sports governing body under the umbrella of Olympic authority finds itself needing to make
an ethical judgment about this new technology’s permissibility; particularly its use by healthy
athletes aiming at performance enhancement via administering specific mRNA sequences.
There are stories circling that many within athletic circles are drawn toward using such
mRNA technologies because they exhibit a safer risk profile when compared to other
bio-pharmaceutical enhancements.
Hardware:
●Automated system that synthesizes mRNA strands by combining the four RNA
nucleotide bases (adenine, uracil, guanine, cytosine) according to programmed
sequences.
●Contains large reservoirs of the four nucleotides (similar to ink cartridges in ink-jet
printers).
●Using those four nucleotides, this printer is virtually able to print mRNA sequences of
any human and non-human protein.
●Uses microfluidics and nanotechnology to rapidly assemble trillions of mRNA copies
in parallel.
●Has capabilities for chemical modifications of mRNA to avoid immune system
provocation.
●Couples directly to automated nanoparticle or lipid encapsulation equipment for
delivery preparation.
Software:
●Database containing the sequences for all known human proteins, including enzymes
and antibodies.
●Advanced AI algorithms for mRNA sequence optimization and protein folding
predictions.
●User interface allows searching and selecting desired proteins/antibodies to print.
●Adjustable parameters to modify immunogenicity and circulating half-life.
185
●Options for varied delivery mechanisms (systemic, local, slow release, targeted cell
types).
Operator:
●With a few clicks, the operator selects a protein from the database.
●Operators can customize sequence and injection/formulation properties as needed.
●Within minutes, obtain optimized ready-to-inject mRNA sequence for inducing
chosen protein expression.
Assessing the Ethical Viability of mRNA Technology Doping as a Safer
Alternative to Gene Doping in Sports: A Governing Body's Perspective
In this part of the thesis, I will position mRNA-based performance enhancement within the
taxonomic structure outlined in Chapter 3. It is positioned as a technology intended to
improve performance. Though not to be ignored is the feasibility of deploying mRNA
technology for restorative means such as vaccines or therapeutics, this chapter will focus and
hinge predominantly on the capacity to augment performance. I aim to shed light on how
integration of mRNA technology converges with, or deviates from, previously defined
parameters constitutive of an ideal Olympic Contest; these were elaborated upon in Chapter
2. The objective being pursued here is to provide insights into emergent ethical friction
points closely affiliated with integration of such technology in Olympic sports. The analysis
will proceed with an evaluation rooted in the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE). Appraising
mRNA technology for performance improvement using both consequences-based ethics
approaches mixed with intent-focused examination lenses, captures a nuanced perspective
when analyzing complex questions surrounding assimilation and application of such a new
technology.
186
Fig 5.1 : Shows the flowchart of the ethical framework developed in Chapter 3.
Evaluating mRNA intended to improve performance against the
Conditions of the Ideal Olympic Contest:
1) Non-Discrimination and Fair Equal Opportunity for Performance: Does the
technology promote fair equal opportunity for all athletes to perform, regardless
of their backgrounds or circumstances?
A primary concern is that mRNA technology could amplify existing genetic disparities
between competitors (Tamburrini, 2007). Innate variations in genes related to athletic traits
(e.g. ACTN3 variants for power/sprinting) already confer inherent physiological differences
that transgress the ideal of equal opportunity (Eynon et al., 2013). mRNA therapies might
circumvent such genetic "lotteries" by enabling athletes to artificially stimulate cells to
mass-produce advantageous proteins regardless of their DNA. For instance, a sprinter
genetically predisposed to lower anaerobic enzyme levels could use mRNA to increase
187
production beyond innate capacities. The specialized nature of mRNA therapies raises
potential fairness concerns regarding athlete access. mRNA doping could be prohibitively
expensive, restricting opportunities only to wealthier athletes in richer nations (Dimeo &
Møller, 2018). Those priced out of access face discrimination from disproportionate
opportunities available to competitors who can fund new techno-doping. However, parallels
exist with other pioneering pharmaceuticals, suggesting costs could rapidly decline
post-exclusivity, becoming more egalitarian. Further, advantages in scalability and cheaper
raw material costs enhance mRNA’s prospects for affordability compared to conventional
biologics (Webb et al., 2022). While initial access may be limited, broader dissemination of
new therapeutic innovations appears probable long-term. If supply grew adequate, then price
would become a lesser barrier to fairness. But until that equalization, financial inequities
could enable unfair early adopter advantages.
Another concern is that mRNA usage for performance enhancement (In a world where
mRNA enhancement is prohibited) could enable undetectable cheating (at least till detection
methods are developed) that discriminates against rule-abiding athletes. Conventional
anti-doping tests may fail to distinguish naturally occurring endogenous proteins from those
induced by mRNA as these mRNA can be customized to human protein sequences.11 This
kind of advantage might be tougher to detect and distinguish from endogenous proteins. Such
“invisible” doping provides unfair opportunities only to dishonest athletes willing to utilize
stealthier techniques less accessible to or rejected by those adhering to rules. However,
anti-doping authorities are developing more advanced detection methods to address emerging
pharmaceutical techniques like mRNA, as WADA’s 2023 round for research funds highlights
11 There is no data on the detectability of mRNA enhancement in sport. This is a hypothetical assumption.
188
mRNA detection as a priority (WADA, 2023). A further ethical issue is that mRNA’s advent
could increase pressures on athletes to partake in unwanted practices. The prisoner’s dilemma
presented by new enhancing technologies highlights how competitors may feel coerced to
adopt new enhancements simply to keep pace if rivals do so (Lavin, 1987). Even competitors
personally opposed to mRNA enhancement might feel compelled to use it to avoid
disadvantage, despite health or moral objections. This perceived coercion to conform can
unfairly discriminate against those wishing to compete clean, but concerned mRNA abusers
could dominate.
2) Preserving Sporting Excellence: Does the technology enhance or diminish the
display of athletes' skill or ability in the sport?
Preserving sporting excellence is a key ethical principle in competitive sport. It upholds that
athletic performance should be based on talent and effort, not influenced by extraneous
factors (Butcher & Schneider, 1998). From an internalist perspective focused on excellence,
initial objections arise regarding mRNA technology used to enhance performance. Inducing
cells to generate high levels of normally restricted proteins like EPO create performance
changes unrelated to talent or training effort. This arguably disrupts the internal logic of sport
where participants voluntarily develop skills under constraints that define each sport (Loland,
2018a). Unconstrained use of technology to boost selected capabilities, also risks shifting
focus away from the multidimensional values that constitute human sporting excellence
(Devine, 2022). However, some may argue that mRNA therapies align with displaying
sporting excellence (Savulescu et al., 2004). mRNAs are transitory and do not alter genetics,
thereby avoiding serious harm that comes with genetic alterations. The Harm-reduction
discussions explored in Chapter 1, could see mRNA technology as a safer acceptable
alternative to common more riskier forms of doping.
189
The use of mRNA technology to stimulate protein production might be misaligned with the
philosophy of sporting excellence, as it enables shortcuts - circumventing athletes' talented,
effort and dedication to develop skills through natural and innate biological plasticity and
adaptation in response training (Loland and Hoppeler, 2012; Loland, 2018b). Unregulated
use of mRNA technology threatens to shift focus towards inflated outputs for select
dimensions of performance, rather than celebrating diverse expressions of human potential
realized through effort. Some medical applications may be justified but non-medically
indicated mRNA use undermines the display of sporting excellence. Some scholars may also
worry about impacts on authentic human agency. Sandel (2007) argues enhancement
technology that artificially inflates capabilities risks weakening admiration for talent and
effort in achievement. Over-reliance on mRNA risks undermining athletes' sense of
responsibility for skill development through practice (Loland, 2018a). This threatens deeper
social values around celebrating diverse human potential and agency. More nuanced debate
weighing medical benefits against ethical risks in context is still required. But the internal
logic of sport provides grounds for strong caution regarding non-medically indicated use of
mRNA technology absent compelling evidence of safety and alignment with sporting values.
3) Adherence to Safety and Harm Prevention: Does the technology prioritize the
safety and wellbeing of the athletes?
mRNA-based enhancement could confer an unfair advantage and risks undermining values
of fair play in sport. It poses uncertain safety risks that require careful evaluation. A
theoretical circumstance wherein mRNA is engineered to produce proteins that essentially
heighten critical athletic traits. This can range from amplifying muscle development, oxygen
190
transportation capacity, stamina or other coveted physical qualities. To achieve delivery into
target tissues effectively, this customized-mRNA would be enveloped within lipid
nanoparticles (LNP) for efficient administration.A study by Vlatkovic (2021) explores
therapeutic mRNA modifications techniques that attempt to evade immune activation, e.g,
employing nucleosides like N1-methyl-pseudouridine. However, despite these innovative
strategies to circumvent our bodily defenses, we must address an inevitable predicament:
residual stimulation of innate immunity following exposure to components of both mRNA
and LNP is probable.
A major concern is that repeat dosing of LNP-mRNA could trigger serious cytokine release
storms or infusion reactions. Both the mRNA and LNP coatings interact with pattern
recognition receptors like toll-like receptors to induce inflammatory cytokines (Vlatkovic,
2021). Sudden surges in cytokines like interleukin-6 and tumor necrosis factor can lead to
dangerous symptoms including fever, low blood pressure, breathing difficulty, and organ
failure in rare cases (Vlatkovic, 2021). Milder symptoms with slower infusion might involve
flu-like symptoms (Vlatkovic, 2021), an unacceptable risk for elective enhancement use, that
may be acceptable for disease treatment. Another expected risk is that individuals receiving
repeated LNP-mRNA could develop anti-drug antibodies and experience accelerated blood
clearance of the mRNA payload (Vlatkovic, 2021). Especially with PEGylated LNPs,
anti-PEG antibodies form over time and bind to subsequent doses, marking the nanoparticles
for rapid removal by phagocytes and lowering therapeutic effects. This could necessitate
constantly increasing doses to maintain enhancement, leading to higher antibody levels and
infusion reactions in a vicious cycle. Frequent dosing may be impractical and the window for
safe repeat dosing could be quite limited compared to single course treatment.
191
Toxicity to the liver and other organs is a potential concern if attempting to use LNP-mRNA
therapy long-term for performance gains. Cationic lipid components of LNPs interact with
cells to facilitate delivery, but this can also disturb membranes and may activate cell death
pathways (Nogueira et al., 2020). Hepatotoxicity markers are assessed in animal studies but
long-term effects in humans remain uncertain. For a healthy athlete without disease, even
small added risks would be unacceptable. Compared to well-studied traditional doping
methods like anabolic steroids, the toxicity profiles of repeated LNP-mRNA administration
are less defined.
Our current ability to predict LNP-mRNA therapy risks in healthy subjects is limited by the
lack of data from clinical trials in non-patient populations. Most of the information available
is for disease treatment and preclinical animal testing. But immune status, dosing levels, risk
tolerance, and toxicity, may differ greatly in illness versus enhancement use. We cannot yet
confidently generalize safety data from mRNA therapies in development to hypothetical
healthy athletic users. Strategies like incremental dosing, and waiting periods between doses,
can manage some safety risks if mRNA modification is pursued for enhancement. But levels
effective for clinically meaningful performance gains may be inherently unsafe for repeated
elective use in healthy subjects. Risks like allergy and severe inflammatory response could
occur even at low doses.
Using LNP-mRNA protein replacement therapy to enhance sport performance poses
uncertain, but likely severe, risks that cannot currently be well quantified or managed. Safety
profiling lags behind efficacy data in this rapidly evolving field. Core side effects involve
cytokine release, anti-drug antibodies, organ toxicities, and genetic doping potential. These
could manifest as anything from transient to permanent, mild to life-threatening in athletes.
192
More research is needed to define probability and severity across diverse subjects. Until then,
non-medical uses should be prohibited due to substantial unknown risks to which athletes
cannot reasonably consent. Any performance gains from mRNA modification may come at
too high a cost from both safety and ethical perspectives.
4) Meritocracy in Distribution of Advantages: Does the technology distribute
advantage based on merit, primarily athletic performance?
The potential application of mRNA methods for performance improvement in sport raises
moral dilemmas concerning tenets of merit-driven competition. The introduction of mRNA
technology as a tool for boosting performance could yield not only imbalanced, but also
random, advantages unrelated to effort or skill (Loland, 2002). Such a situation risks
undermining rightful compensation for effort or skill . Boundaries defined by meritocratic
principles remain essential to guarantee that advances provided by mRNA treatments
enhance, as opposed to erode, the ideal Olympic Contest.
Competitive sports purportedly aim to compare participants based primarily on developed
talents, dedication, strategic decisions and effort exerted within standardized rules and just
ethos (Loland, 2002). This concept of just reward for skill and labor aligns with the principle
of meritocracy, a central tenet of fair competition (Loland & Hoppeler, 2012). For instance,
illicitly utilizing mRNA techniques to boost endogenous erythropoietin (EPO) levels would
provide a profound edge in endurance events by expanding oxygen carrying capacity (Thess
et al., 2015). But such capability enhancement stems from exogenous scientific intervention
rather than an athlete's own effort. The distorting capacity of unconstrained mRNA doping is
illustrated by Thess et al.'s (2015) study showing serum EPO levels over many times the
normal physiological ranges in animal models after mRNA treatment. Advantages of this
193
magnitude categorically differ from outcomes of permissible training. Parallels exist with
earlier performance enhancements like anabolic steroids that augment strength or stimulants
increasing alertness - effects unrelated to merit. But mRNA doping poses greater risks owing
to customizable versatility. Scientists can potentially encode mRNA to produce any
imaginable illicit substance from EPO to growth hormone at supraphysiological doses. This
heightens the scale of attainable non-merit advantage. Without careful regulation, mRNA
sequences used for performance enhancement can be viewed as performance distorters.
5) Justice in Rule Enforcement: Does the technology ensure fairness in the
enforcement of rules and punishment of violations?
A pressing ethical dilemma centers upon the potential use of illegal mRNA doping, which
could facilitate undetectable doping, thus contravening rule enforcement and justice in sport.
The World Anti-Doping Agency's (WADA) centers its approach on detecting prohibited
substance use, thus upholding rules and fair play norms (WADA, 2021). New technologies
like mRNA may enable undetectable doping, evading standard testing (Nafziger, 2005).
WADA bans many endogenous substances like erythropoietin (EPO) or growth hormone
when administered exogenously for performance enhancement (WADA, 2023). Verifying
illicit usage may involve demonstrating exogenous or the alien nature of a substance to the
athlete's body. Administering temporarily expressed mRNA sequences to endogenously
induce supraphysiological protein production could potentially generate proteins
indistinguishable from endogenous ones. This already poses immense technical challenges
with traditional biochemical doping (Thevis et al., 2019). By enabling invisible violations,
mRNA doping could severely obstruct rule enforcement. Even perception of undetectable
cheating can undermine justice by eroding athletes' trust in institutional safeguards for
194
integrity (Overbye, 2016). Another concern is that anti-doping protocols largely depend on
explicit prohibition of named substances. But constantly amending lists to specify every
imaginable mRNA encoded molecular entity, surpasses practical feasibility. mRNA's
customizable versatility means scientists could theoretically encode novel muscle-building,
oxygen-boosting, or metabolism-enhancing proteins evading broad bans. Current
enforcement frameworks struggle with such adaptability. Reactive prohibition often lags
behind biotech innovation (Miah, 2005).
6) Goal Realization Promoting Harmonious Development of Humankind: Does the
technology align with the broader goals of promoting human development and
fostering a spirit of friendship and solidarity?
Competitive sports occupy a paradoxical role both showcasing the heights of physical
potential yet also frequently inciting divisiveness and questionable ethics (Loland, 2018a).
However, the founding Olympic Charter envisions sports as instruments for unity, and mutual
betterment, upholding ideals like "social responsibility and respect for universal fundamental
ethical principles" (IOC, 2021, p. 8). This aspirational view of sports as ennobling human
capacities for cooperation, despite contestation, warrants ongoing advocacy. Fulfilling the
competitive environments' potential requires continually aligning practices with ethical goals
for fellowship and human growth. Unfortunately, employing emerging technologies like
mRNA, absent purposeful steering risks, amplify sports' glaring inequities and disconnection
from humanistic ends. Unconstrained mRNA doping enabling supra-human performance
levels could convert sports into bio-engineered spectacles diminishing athletes into
instruments evaluated on narrow metrics (Miah, 2005). Contestants choosing engineered
capacity, over cultivating skill and character, contradict the Charter's aims for sports to
develop "peaceful society [and] preservation of human dignity" (IOC, 2021, p. 8).
195
Celebrating achievements emerging from tech-enabled shortcuts, rather than dedicated effort,
also erodes meaning. Normalizing relentless competition over human bonds neglects sports'
role in "promoting a peaceful society" through "solidarity and fair play" (IOC, 2021, p.8).
While competitive zeal is expected, unchecked practices undermining mutual growth require
ethical course correction.
A profound concern is that employing mRNA technology, without compassionate
constraints, risks dehumanizing sports participation (Hoberman, 1992). The sheer scale of
attainable augmented capacities using mRNA techniques threatens to reduce athletes into
instruments valued only for measurable outputs. For instance, encoding mRNA to massively
elevate muscle growth or oxygen delivery creates paradigms where success hinges primarily
on access to biotechnology, rather than cultivation of character. Humans become reduced to
programmed machines designed for narrow performance gains. But as the Charter
recognizes, sports should develop the "whole person" by integrating "body, will and mind"
(IOC, 2021, p.8). Obsessive optimization of single traits devalues multifaceted humanity.
Related ethical issues arise from normalizing relentless competition grounded in self-interest
rather than fellowship. The Charter envisions sports as avenues for "friendship, solidarity
and fair play" (IOC, 2020, p. 11). However, elevation of individual glory, stoked through
unconstrained technological advantage, breeds isolation and antipathy between rivals.
Pressures for victory at all costs encourage exploitation of any opportunity without regard for
shared dignity. Ends-justify-means mentalities violate sports' potential to build community.
Competitors are first, and foremost, partners in a meaningful practice (Loland, 2018a).
Without camaraderie in challenge, contests decay into zero-sum transactions. Technological
integration must reinforce bonds between sportspeople, not amplify divisions.
196
Employing performance technologies should aim at more than efficiency and measurable
results. Excellence of character matters alongside quantifiable achievement. Governance
founded on cooperation, and collective growth, can orient competitive environments towards
human development rather than self-interest. For instance, allowing exemptions for mRNA
applications, like injury recovery aids rewards diligent effort over passive advantage. And
supporting equitable access cultivates solidarity. Treating competitions as opportunities for
mutual achievement fosters an athlete’s holistic flourishing across physical, ethical and
social dimensions. Realizing such aspirations certainly presents difficulties given sports’
hyper-competitive realities. But the Charter's vision of using sports to develop "ethical and
moral standards" and "social responsibility" (IOC, 2021, p.8) merits ongoing advocacy. With
care and wisdom, virtue ethics frameworks could help strengthen sport’s role in cooperative
human growth (Loland, 2002). Premising rules on shared just ethos like sportspersonship,
dignity, and mutual betterment, places ethics before capitulation to transactional pressures.
Collective deliberation engages diverse voices, preventing narrow agendas from capturing
governance (Lopez Frias, 2019). Procedural transparency and participatory decision-making
uphold ethics and resist corrupting forces. With vigilant institutions and principled,
compassionate policies, centered on human development, competitive sports can largely
fulfill their monumental potential as schools for character.
7) Striving for Excellence through Maximum Performance: Does the technology
encourage athletes to strive for their maximum performance? (e.g.Can it aid or
undermine motivating the athlete’s motivation to play to win?)
A foundational motive for involvement across competitive pursuits is determining one's
relative superiority through comparison of developed talents, strategic decisions and effort
exerted, within fair systems (Loland, 2002). Employing performance aids does not
197
fundamentally alter this aim to succeed based on preparation and execution of game plans or
training regimens. For instance, utilizing prohibited mRNA techniques to enable muscle
augmentation does not directly impact athletes' fundamental desire to train rigorously, make
tactical decisions and perform determinedly. The motivation remains, outpacing rivals
through commitment and grit. mRNA merely provides extraneous means unrelated to
competitive motivations focused on excelling through preparation and performance. Of
course, unprecedented amplification of capacities from mRNA enhancement may transform
conceptions of what peak performance entails. New extremes of engineered strength, speed
or endurance redefine competitive aims (Miah, 2005). This could reshape motivations by
escalating expectations for augmentation. However, competitiveness, and the drive to play to
win, persist regardless of absolute performance levels. The will to triumph through cultivated
skill endures despite enhancement. Regulations constraining mRNA doping could contain
negative impacts on motivations. With reasonable limits, desires for victory through hard
work remain, even if tools enabling expression of talent evolve.
8) Preservation of Uncertainty Outcomes: Does the technology preserve the
uncertainty of outcomes, thereby maintaining the excitement and
competitiveness of the sport?
A salient concern is that mRNA doping (and other doping practices) could undermine key
features of competitive environments such as suspense and unpredictability of outcomes.
However, prudent governance approaches may allow leveraging mRNA's advantages while
preserving uncertainty fundamental to meaningful contests. Competitive pursuits ostensibly
aim to determine relative superiority between closely matched rivals striving to perform at
their peak capabilities (Kretchmar, 1975). Outcomes remaining in doubt until the decisive
moments helps sustain spectator excitement and participant exertions. However,
198
unconstrained mRNA doping, enabling supra-physiological capacities, could diminish
uncertainty by conferring overwhelming advantage unrelated to cultivated skill. Lopsided
dominance through engineered performance counters evenly contested, unpredictable
matchups that characterize meaningful competition. Predictable outcomes drain sporting
events of experiential richness for all involved. Excitement decays when results become
foregone conclusions rather than uncertain until the end. While some disparities in advantage
are inevitable, excessive amplification of imbalances through mRNA doping strips away
unpredictability fundamental to compelling contests. Constraints narrowly tailoring
applications to offset disabilities, without conferring runaway advantage, can help uphold
uncertainty.
Of course, spectator experience remains subjective, not solely dependent on objective
certainty of outcomes. Possibility of surprise endures even when contests feature heavily
favored competitors. Underdog tales retain appeal (Christiansen and Møller, 2016) . The
admiration may remain for extraordinary efforts against the odds. mRNA applications could
objectively widen gaps between favorites and longshots. Results could stay uncertain so long
as other factors are unaltered. It can be argued that performance enhancing substances may
impact the delicate balance of uncertainty of outcome, specifically with unequal access or
undeclared practices. While there is merit to such claims, it is crucial to acknowledge that the
enhancement of performance resides in a complex intersection of many variables; biological,
psychological, socio-cultural and economic variables all weigh heavily. mRNA applications
could exacerbate disparities only as much as they're allowed by regulatory frameworks and
ethical norms in sport. Thus, rather than a main driver of outcomes, mRNA technologies
intended for performance improvement should be viewed as potential catalysts for change -
199
stirring dialogue about fairness and integrity in sports. Just as underdogs can triumph against
odds, so too must sporting authorities strive to ensure a level playing field despite emerging
forms of performance enhancement.
Table 5.1: Summary of intended good effects.
Condition
Potential Good Effect
Non-Discrimination and
Fair Equal Opportunity
for Performance
●mRNA therapies could provide more options to compensate
for genetic limitations and offset natural physiological
disparities between athletes, potentially leveling the playing
field.
Preserving Sporting
Excellence
●By inducing temporary effects, mRNA avoids permanent
genetic alterations, upholding natural human capacities
more than other enhancement methods.
Adherence to Safety and
Harm Prevention
●mRNA protein therapy might be safer than other genetic
alterations.
Meritocracy in
Distribution of
Advantages
●If access to mRNA technology becomes widespread, it
could disseminate advantages more broadly rather than
conferring benefits only to wealthy elites.
Justice in Rule
Enforcement
●Advancements in detection technologies inspired by
mRNA's emergence could strengthen anti-doping efforts
and preserve rule compliance overall.
Goal Realization
Promoting Harmonious
Development of
Humankind
●Celebrating expanded extremes of engineered human
performance could inspire public imagination and scientific
advancement.
Striving for Excellence
through Maximum
Performance
●Access to mRNA enhancement provides more tools for
competitors motivated to maximize performance through
any available means.
Preservation of
Uncertainty Outcomes
●With prudent constraints, integration of mRNA performance
aids could occur without overly disrupting competitive
uncertainty.
Table 5.2: Summary of unintended bad effects.
200
Condition for Ideal
Olympic Contest
Potential Negative Effect
Non-Discrimination and
Fair Equal Opportunity
for Performance
●Early adopter advantages prior to widespread dissemination
could discriminate against athletes without access to new
mRNA therapies.
●Undetectable methods accessible only to some athletes
undermine equal opportunities.
Preserving Sporting
Excellence
●Inducing physiological processes circumvents development
of skill through talent and effort (Loland, 2018a).
●Shifts focus away from multifaceted human potential
developed through effort (Sandel, 2007).
●Risks reducing athletes to passive beneficiaries of
technology rather than agents cultivating talent (Sandel,
2007).
Adherence to Safety and
Harm Prevention
●Experimental technology with uncertain safety profile.
●Uncertainties around repeated mRNA dosing risks like
cytokine release storms and organ toxicity in healthy
populations (Vlatkovic, 2021).
●Long-term impacts require extensive further study before
deeming safe for elective enhancement use.
Meritocracy in
Distribution of
Advantages
●Enables supra-physiological protein production conferring
profound advantage unrelated to sporting excellence.
●Arbitrary access inequalities based on wealth distribution
undermine meritocracy (Loland & Hoppeler, 2012).
Justice in Rule
Enforcement
●Could enable undetectable doping obstructing enforcement
and eroding integrity (Nafziger, 2005).
●Perceptions of unchecked cheating alone damage trust in
justice of competitions (Overbye, 2016).
Goal Realization
Promoting Human
Development
●Reduction of athletes to bio-engineered instruments
undermines moral, social, and personal growth aims in
Olympic Charter (IOC, 2020).
●Celebrating engineered capacity over character development
contradicts humanistic principles.
Striving for Excellence
Through Maximum
Performance
●Doesn’t affect athletes' motivations to play to win.
Preservation of
Uncertainty of Outcomes
●Amplification of capacities may diminish uncertainty
fundamental to exciting competition when outcomes become
predictable.
201
Applying Doctrine of Double Effect from the perspective of Governing
bodies to mRNA enhancement.
According to the Doctrine of Double effect (DDE), an action is permissible if it fulfills four
conditions:
●The action (in this case, the introduction or use of the technology) must be
morally good or at least indifferent.
●The agent (the person or organization introducing or using the technology)
must intend the good effect (the intended purpose of the technology) and not
the bad effect (any negative impacts).
●The good effect does not arise from the bad effect.
●A proportionately serious reason for permitting the bad effect.
(McIntyre, 2023).
1) The action of the agent (governing body) must be morally good or at least
indifferent
The DDE first requires assessing whether the action itself is morally good or neutral
irrespective of consequences (McIntyre, 2023). Fundamentally, mRNA technology aims to
facilitate human protein production, which is a biologically neutral process (i.e not inherently
evil). Therapeutic contexts demonstrate mRNA’s profound potential for good by preventing
diseases and treating medical conditions. However, the moral calculus shifts when mRNA is
intentionally deployed in healthy athletes solely for performance gains exceeding normal
species capacities. There are arguments to be made that integration of this technology
threatens the integrity of athletic achievements grounded in skill and effort (Loland 2002;
Loland, 2018b). Therefore, the act of allowing mRNA technology specifically to surpass
natural limits might challenge foundational Olympic ideals of celebrating realized human
potential (IOC, 2021).
202
2) The agent must intend the good effect, not the bad
The DDE next evaluates whether the agent intends the action's good effects and not the bad
effects (McIntyre, 2023). Here, the “agent” refers to sports regulators who may permit
mRNA use. Their intended good outcome would be enabling safer performance
improvements compared to risks of gene doping. However, this discounts significant
unintended effects. These include potential health hazards from repeated mRNA
administration being unproven in healthy populations, unfairness due to inequitable access,
coercive pressures to adopt unvetted enhancements (Lavin, 1987), and de-skilling of sports
skills (Miah, 2005). Even proper intentions cannot negate these foreseeable consequences.
Therefore, unintended negative impacts appear substantial despite aiming for safety.
3) The good effect cannot directly arise from the bad
This DDE criterion requires that the intended good outcome not arise directly from the bad
(McIntyre, 2023). Here, the potential good effects of improved performance, safer
enhancement, and fairness from offsetting genetic differences, are indeed independent
phenomena not directly born from harms like health risks or access inequities. However,
realizing benefits depends on widespread dissemination, which advantages early adopters
initially until costs decrease. Therefore, independence exists theoretically but advantages for
wealthier athletes could persist for some time, undermining fairness goals.
4) Proportionality: intended goods must sufficiently outweigh unintended harms
The final DDE criterion requires assessing whether there are proportionately serious reasons
for permitting the foreseeable negative effects of an action (McIntyre, 2023). While mRNA
technology theoretically enables safer performance enhancement and offsetting genetic
differences, significant ethical risks remain concerning its integration in sports. Evaluating
203
proportionality requires weighing intended benefits against potential harms across the eight
dimensions constituting an ideal Olympic contest:
●Regarding non-discrimination and fair equal opportunity, mRNA could help
compensate for genetic limitations. However, benefits currently favor wealthier
nations and athletes until costs decrease, conflicting with equal access (Miah, 2005).
●Concerning sporting excellence, mRNA risks reducing achievements to biochemical
outputs rather than human effort (Sandel, 2007). Artificially inflating capacities also
warps conceptions of excellence.
●For safety and harm prevention, long-term impacts of repeated mRNA dosing in
healthy athletes remain uncertain (Vlatkovic, 2021). Also coercive pressures to adopt
unvetted experimental enhancements exist (Lavin, 1987). Elective enhancement risks
likely exceed those tolerable for medical treatment.
●Regarding meritocratic distribution, mRNA enables capability amplification unrelated
to developed talent and innate biological adaptive plasticity of athletes’ bodies
(Loland & Hoppeler, 2012). Advantages unrelated to the actual inequality in athletic
performance undermine fair play (Loland, 2002).
●For justice in enforcement, undetectable designer mRNA doping could obstruct
integrity checks.
●In terms of human development goals, excessive focus on results over character
cultivation conflicts with the Olympics’ values (IOC, 2021).
●Concerning motivation for maximum performance, It can be argued that mRNA
enhancement might help the athletes always perform at a near their best, but this
argument is weak, since the key here is ‘playing to win’ regardless of physical state.
204
●Finally, the uncertainty of outcome might not be impacted, specifically with an equal
access scenario.
The unrestricted use of mRNA technology to improve performance, engenders many
conditions of the ideal Olympic contest that currently overshadow its potential gains. While
it can be argued that it might provide a safe alternative to other more risky forms of doping,
and that it may provide equal opportunities for athletes; however, unknown health risks
paired with threats to authenticity, pose significant concerns. Further, enforcing this point is
the risk of contravening several other principles, these factors hint at an imbalance where
detrimental impacts seem greater than benefits. The benefits of mRNA technology intended
to improve performance don’t present a proportionately serious reason for permitting the bad
effect.
Conclusion
With the advent of mRNA-based interventions, coveted physical traits in athletes, such as
enhanced muscle growth, augmented metabolic capacity, and improved oxygen carrying
capacity, can now be potentially manipulated. This occurs via cellular exposure to specific
instructions via mRNA sequences which provoke a specific protein production that can have
a favourable physiological function in sport. A thorough analysis reveals that utilizing
mRNA technology for enhancement comes with risks that outweigh any potential benefits
based on established criteria outlined in Chapter 2 and 3. Both an intention
based/consequentialist assessment using the Doctrine of Double Effect, and a deontological
evaluation considering conditions for the ideal Olympic Contest, strongly indicate that
mRNA performance enhancement fails to meet key ethical principles, such as safety,
205
fairness, integrity, human excellence and social responsibility. The potential advantages of
increased capacities, and a potential safer alternative to gene doping, do not provide enough
moral justification for the numerous foreseeable harms, including health risks, unfair
competition practices, and undermining the deeper values that sports represent. Upon
examination it appears that the use of enhancement in sports goes against the core values we
hold dear.
However, there are scenarios where acceptable applications of mRNA can be considered
within responsible boundaries. For example, if the techniques are aimed at restoring
functions rather than exceeding the plasticity of innate abilities, and implemented
transparently under medical supervision, they may warrant further discussion. Further, as
mRNA technology plays an important role in preventive medicine through vaccines, it holds
undeniable positive potential. However, any utilization must address challenges related to
health concerns, fairness, and other conditions for the ideal Olympic Contest. The presence
of risks and uncertainties places a burden on justifying its use.
In conclusion, based on my ethical assessment tools and considering both capabilities and
ethical implications at unrestricted utilization of mRNA technology for performance
enhancement fails to meet fundamental moral criteria regarding participant safety, fair
competition practices maintaining motivational integrity, and social responsibility. The usage
of mRNA techniques in sport, without constraints, carries risks that outweigh speculative
benefits. Therefore, It remains ethically necessary to prohibit their use beyond regulated
preventive applications in order to preserve the philosophical essence of the ideal Olympic
Contest. However it is crucial to adopt governance approaches that combine caution,
206
evidence gathering, and moral deliberation. This will allow us to gradually integrate
techniques into sports while still upholding important sporting values. We must renew our
commitment to the principles outlined here especially as sociotechnical forces continue to
push the boundaries of achievement. By being diligent and wise in our regulations we can
responsibly expand the possibilities for excellence in sports while also resisting
dehumanization. However it is essential that technological integration in sport be guided by
the ideals of the competition rather than the other way around. Through vigilance we can
ensure that sports maintain their uplifting purposes while making progress in a prudently
governed manner.
Limitations
As an early-stage technology, we are still gathering evidence. Many unknown factors persist
regarding mRNA techniques' - its technical capabilities are yet to be fully tested, safety
concerns persist, and production scalability specific to the case of sport performance
enhancement remains uncertain. Theoretical implementation for enhancing sports
performance is dependent on assumptions and extrapolations prone to misalignment with
future actualities. Therefore, comprehensive examination including multi-disciplinary
collaboration among specialists from philosophy, biomedical science, ethics, as well as sports
technology fields, becomes paramount in discerning this technology's place and influence
within our societies.
Reference List
Balmayor, E. R. (2022). Synthetic mRNA - emerging new class of drug for tissue
regeneration. Current Opinion in Biotechnology,74, 8-14.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2021.10.015
Baneyx, F. (1999). Recombinant protein expression in Escherichia coli. Current Opinion
in Biotechnology,10(5), 411-421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0958-1669(99)00003-8
207
Butcher, R., & Schneider, A. (1998). Fair play as respect for the game. Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport,25(1), 1-22.
Christiansen, A. V., & Møller, R. B. (2016). Who is more skilful? Doping and its
implication on the validity, morality and significance of the sporting test.
Performance Enhancement & Health,4(3-4), 123-129.
De La Vega, R. E., Van Griensven, M., Zhang, W., Coenen, M. J., Nagelli, C. V., Panos,
J. A., Peniche Silva, C. J., Geiger, J., Plank, C., Evans, C. H., & Balmayor, E. R.
(2022). Efficient healing of large osseous segmental defects using optimized
chemically modified messenger RNA encoding BMP-2. Science Advances,8(7),
eabl6242. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abl6242
DeRosa, F., Guild, B., Karve, S., Smith, L., Love, K., Dorkin, J. R., Kauffman, K. J.,
Zhang, J., Yahalom, B., Anderson, D. G., & Heartlein, M. W. (2016). Therapeutic
efficacy in a hemophilia B model using a biosynthetic mRNA liver depot system.
Gene Therapy,23(10), 699-707. https://doi.org/10.1038/gt.2016.46
Devine, J. W. (2011). Doping is a threat to sporting excellence. British Journal of Sports
Medicine,45(8), 637-639.
Devine, J. W. (2022). Elements of excellence. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,49(2),
195-211.
Dimeo, P., & Møller, V. (2018). The anti-doping crisis in sport: Causes, consequences,
solutions. Routledge.
Eynon, N., Hanson, E. D., Lucia, A., Houweling, P. J., Garton, F., North, K. N., &
Bishop, D. J. (2013). Genes for elite power and sprint performance: ACTN3 leads
the way. Sports Medicine (Auckland, N.Z.),43(9), 803-817.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-013-0059-4
Fu, Y., Foden, J. A., Khayter, C., Maeder, M. L., Reyon, D., Joung, J. K., & Sander, J. D.
(2013). High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases
in human cells. Nature Biotechnology,31(9), 822-826.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2623
Geiger, M. (2003). Collagen sponges for bone regeneration with rhBMP-2. Advanced
Drug Delivery Reviews,55(12), 1613-1629.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addr.2003.08.010
Hoberman, J. M. (1992). Mortal engines: The science of performance and the
dehumanization of sport. (No Title).
IOC. (2021). Olympic Charter. International Olympic Committee.
https://olympics.com/ioc/olympic-charter
Karikó, K., Buckstein, M., Ni, H., & Weissman, D. (2005). Suppression of RNA
Recognition by Toll-like Receptors: The Impact of Nucleoside Modification and the
Evolutionary Origin of RNA. Immunity,23(2), 165-175.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.immuni.2005.06.008
Karikó, K., Muramatsu, H., Keller, J. M., & Weissman, D. (2012). Increased
Erythropoiesis in Mice Injected With Submicrogram Quantities of
Pseudouridine-containing mRNA Encoding Erythropoietin. Molecular Therapy,
20(5), 948-953. https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2012.7
Karikó, K., Muramatsu, H., Ludwig, J., & Weissman, D. (2011). Generating the optimal
mRNA for therapy: HPLC purification eliminates immune activation and improves
translation of nucleoside-modified, protein-encoding mRNA. Nucleic Acids
Research,39(21), e142-e142. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr695
208
Karikó, K., Muramatsu, H., Welsh, F. A., Ludwig, J., Kato, H., Akira, S., & Weissman,
D. (2008). Incorporation of Pseudouridine Into mRNA Yields Superior
Nonimmunogenic Vector With Increased Translational Capacity and Biological
Stability. Molecular Therapy,16(11), 1833-1840.
https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2008.200
Kormann, M. S. D., Hasenpusch, G., Aneja, M. K., Nica, G., Flemmer, A. W.,
Herber-Jonat, S., Huppmann, M., Mays, L. E., Illenyi, M., Schams, A., Griese, M.,
Bittmann, I., Handgretinger, R., Hartl, D., Rosenecker, J., & Rudolph, C. (2011).
Expression of therapeutic proteins after delivery of chemically modified mRNA in
mice. Nature Biotechnology,29(2), 154-157. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1733
Kowalski, P. S., Rudra, A., Miao, L., & Anderson, D. G. (2019). Delivering the
Messenger: Advances in Technologies for Therapeutic mRNA Delivery. Molecular
Therapy,27(4), 710-728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.02.012
Kretchmar, R. S. (1975). From Test to Contest: An Analysis of Two Kinds of
Counterpoint in Sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport,2(1), 23-30.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1975.10654094
Lavin, M. (1987). Sports and Drugs: Are the Current Bans Justified? Journal of the
Philosophy of Sport,14(1), 34-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/00948705.1987.9714449
Loland, S. (2002). Fair play in sport: A moral norm system. Psychology Press.
Loland, S. (2018a). Morgan, the ‘Gratuitous’ Logic of Sport, and the Art of
Self-Imposed Constraints. Sport, Ethics and Philosophy,12(4), 348-360.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17511321.2018.1493530
Loland, S. (2018b). Performance-enhancing drugs, sport, and the ideal of natural athletic
performance. The American Journal of Bioethics,18(6), 8-15.
Loland, S., & Hoppeler, H. (2012). Justifying anti-doping: The fair opportunity principle
and the biology of performance enhancement. European Journal of Sport Science,
12(4), 347-353. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2011.566374
Lopez Frias, F. J. (2019). Unnatural Technology in a “Natural” Practice? Human Nature
and Performance-Enhancing Technology in Sport. Philosophies,4(3), Article 3.
https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies4030035
McIntyre, A. (2023). Doctrine of Double Effect. In E. N. Zalta & U. Nodelman (Eds.),
The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2023). Metaphysics Research Lab,
Stanford University.
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2023/entries/double-effect/
Melton, D. A., Krieg, P. A., Rebagliati, M. R., Maniatis, T., Zinn, K., & Green, M. R.
(1984). Efficient in vitro synthesis of biologically active RNA and RNA
hybridization probes from plasmids containing a bacteriophage SP6 promoter.
Nucleic Acids Research,12(18), 7035-7056. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/12.18.7035
Miah, A. (2005). From anti-doping to a ‘performance policy’ sport technology, being
human, and doing ethics. Eur J Sport Sci,5.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390500077285
Muramatsu, H., Kuramochi, T., Katada, H., Ueyama, A., Ruike, Y., Ohmine, K.,
Shida-Kawazoe, M., Miyano-Nishizawa, R., Shimizu, Y., Okuda, M., Hori, Y.,
Hayashi, M., Haraya, K., Ban, N., Nonaka, T., Honda, M., Kitamura, H., Hattori,
K., Kitazawa, T., … Nezu, J. (2021). Novel myostatin-specific antibody enhances
muscle strength in muscle disease models. Scientific Reports,11(1), 2160.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81669-8
209
Nafziger, J. A. (2005). Circumstantial Evidence of Doping: BALCO and Beyond. Marq.
Sports L. Rev.,16, 45.
Nogueira, S. S., Schlegel, A., Maxeiner, K., Weber, B., Barz, M., Schroer, M. A.,
Blanchet, C. E., Svergun, D. I., Ramishetti, S., Peer, D., Langguth, P., Sahin, U., &
Haas, H. (2020). Polysarcosine-Functionalized Lipid Nanoparticles for Therapeutic
mRNA Delivery. ACS Applied Nano Materials,3(11), 10634-10645.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsanm.0c01834
Overbye, M. (2016). Doping control in sport: An investigation of how elite athletes
perceive and trust the functioning of the doping testing system in their sport. Sport
Management Review,19(1), 6-22.
Pradhan, A., Kalin, T. V., & Kalinichenko, V. V. (2020). Genome Editing for Rare
Diseases. Current Stem Cell Reports,6(3), 41-51.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40778-020-00175-1
Sahin, U., Karikó, K., & Türeci, Ö. (2014). mRNA-based therapeutics-Developing a
new class of drugs. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery,13(10), 759-780.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd4278
Sandel, M. J. (2007). The case against perfection: Ethics in the age of genetic
engineering. Harvard university press.
Savulescu, J. (2004). Why we should allow performance enhancing drugs in sport.
British Journal of Sports Medicine,38(6), 666-670.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2003.005249
Schlake, T., Thran, M., Fiedler, K., Heidenreich, R., Petsch, B., & Fotin-Mleczek, M.
(2019). mRNA: A Novel Avenue to Antibody Therapy? Molecular Therapy,27(4),
773-784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2019.03.002
Tamburrini, C. M. (2007). What’s wrong with genetic inequality? The impact of genetic
technology on elite sports and society. Sports, Ethics and Philosophy,1(2),
229-238.
Tanne, J. H. (2021). Covid-19: FDA approves Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine in record time.
BMJ, n2096. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2096
Thess, A., Grund, S., Mui, B. L., Hope, M. J., Baumhof, P., Fotin-Mleczek, M., &
Schlake, T. (2015). Sequence-engineered mRNA Without Chemical Nucleoside
Modifications Enables an Effective Protein Therapy in Large Animals. Molecular
Therapy,23(9), 1456-1464. https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2015.103
Thevis, M., Walpurgis, K., & Thomas, A. (2019). Analytical approaches in human sports
drug testing: Recent advances, challenges, and solutions. Analytical Chemistry,
92(1), 506-523.
Vlatkovic, I. (2021). Non-Immunotherapy Application of LNP-mRNA: Maximizing
Efficacy and Safety. Biomedicines,9(5), Article 5.
https://doi.org/10.3390/biomedicines9050530
WADA. (2021). World Anti-Doping Code. World Anti Doping Agency.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/world-anti-doping-program/world-anti-dop
ing-code
WADA. (2023a). The Prohibited List. World Anti Doping Agency.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list
WADA. (2023b, February 15). WADA invites applications for research projects on the
development of gene doping detection methods. World Anti Doping Agency.
https://www.wada-ama.org/en/news/wada-invites-applications-research-projects-de
velopment-gene-doping-detection-methods
210
Webb, C., Ip, S., Bathula, N. V., Popova, P., Soriano, S. K. V., Ly, H. H., Eryilmaz, B.,
Nguyen Huu, V. A., Broadhead, R., Rabel, M., Villamagna, I., Abraham, S., Raeesi,
V., Thomas, A., Clarke, S., Ramsay, E. C., Perrie, Y., & Blakney, A. K. (2022).
Current Status and Future Perspectives on MRNA Drug Manufacturing. Molecular
Pharmaceutics,19(4), 1047-1058.
https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.2c00010
Weng, Y., Li, C., Yang, T., Hu, B., Zhang, M., Guo, S., Xiao, H., Liang, X.-J., & Huang,
Y. (2020). The challenge and prospect of mRNA therapeutics landscape.
Biotechnology Advances,40, 107534.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2020.107534
Wolff, J. A., Malone, R. W., Williams, P., Chong, W., Acsadi, G., Jani, A., & Felgner, P.
L. (1990). Direct Gene Transfer into Mouse Muscle in Vivo. Science,247(4949),
1465-1468. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1690918
Wurm, F. M. (2004). Production of recombinant protein therapeutics in cultivated
mammalian cells. Nature Biotechnology,22(11), 1393-1398.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1026
211
Conclusion
This thesis undertook the task of constructing an accessible, structured, and principled ethical
framework to guide the integration of emerging technologies within Olympic sports. Through
critical analysis of conceptual literature, synthesizing ethical perspectives, formulating
categorical classification, merging philosophies and demonstrating practical application, the
research generated both theoretical and practical contributions to the underdeveloped domain
of sports technology governance. The foundational analysis in Chapter 1, reviewed
philosophical and policy frameworks regulating performance enhancement technologies like
doping in Olympic sport. A conceptual lens illuminated reactive shortcomings in
predominant anti-doping models, which lack proactive foresight, rely on contested internalist
concepts like “spirit of sport”, and enforce blanket bans absent substantive, accessible, and
transparent moral reasoning (Obasa & Borry, 2019; Waddington et al., 2013). The reliance on
rhetorical appeals versus accessible justification creates ambiguity leaving regulators
ill-equipped as Technology advances.
Having identified conceptual gaps in regulatory performance enhancement approaches,
Chapter 2 undertook groundwork establishing parameters for envisioning the ideal Olympic
contest. Engaging seminal literature on concepts like sportsmanship, fair play and Olympism,
crystallized essential conditions for a benchmark; the Ideal Olympic Contest. Distilled
principles like equality, safety, excellence, meritocracy, justice, human development,
maximum performance, and unpredictability, outlined value touchstones for assessing
technologies. Building on this conceptual foundation, Chapter 3 constructed an integrative
ethical framework fusing Feenberg's critical theory of technology with applied ethics tools.
Feenberg’s (1991) balanced view highlighted technologies’ embedded values demanding
212
ethical review. Complementarily, the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) supplied
intention-focused and consequentialist principles for weighing intended benefits against
potential harms (McIntyre, 2023). This fusion facilitated a technology taxonomy based on
‘intention’, then layered ethical analysis of specific cases against the condition of the Ideal
Olympic contest and then weighing intentions and foreseeable impact using DDE. Together
these methodological components enabled multilayered scrutiny of values propagation and
proportionality when integrating innovations. Chapters 4 and 5 validate this framework
through hypothetical cases of an AI coaching assistant and mRNA therapy technology.
This thesis comprehensively addresses known limitations in sports technology oversight by
proposing a dynamic set of conceptual tools for comprehensive ethical appraisal and
informed decision-making. The framework developed strategically employs contextual
classification, along with the weighing of intention against impact and proportionality
discernment to foster inclusive decisions that align with both fair play values as well as those
surrounding Olympic practices. Through deep exploration of established literature, leading
separate conclusions into actionable protocols ensures regulators are equipped with the
knowledge needed to guide ever-evolving integration of emerging technologies in sport
events successfully. The thesis significantly contributes both theoretical concepts and
practical applications identified from areas where existing reactive mechanisms have been
inadequate hence necessitating proactive participatory models rooted in ethics protocol. The
robust concept architecture put forth acts as stepping stones enabling evolution within
sporting practice while respecting mutual cooperation aiming at overall human progress.
213
Limitations
While I have provided limitations sections for each chapter independently, recognizing that
each philosophical approach and case have their own limitations, here I can express some
holistic limitations that might not have been covered in the previous chapter. Despite the
comprehensive attempt made in this work, there are areas that can be improved or broadened
to ensure a richer and more efficient framework. A potential drawback lies in our
categorization of technology which could risk loss of context-specific details associated with
each technological tool under review; hence careful analysis tailored for individual cases is
necessary. It is also important to take into account variations unique to different sports may
further improve this model's efficiency. The proportionality portion of the analysis can still
provide a tailored approach to different sports - by prioritizing the principles that are more
specific to each sport during analysis. The integration of empirical insights from multiple
stakeholder perspectives on emerging technologies impacting lived experiences within sport
will also bolster the study’s foundational base. While acknowledging IOC's existing role not
extending to enforcing ‘technical rules’ across all Olympic sporting disciplines, drawing
attention towards fundamental notions common throughout - provides an important avenue
through which ethical considerations come into picture during regulatory formation. The
concept of fair play and the Fundamental Principles of Olympism, are both key tenets of the
Olympic Charter, and extend to all International Federations (IFs) who are members of the
Olympic Movement, and are obliged to abide by its Charter (IOC, 2020, p.53).
214
Practical Recommendations
●Sporting regulators should adopt structured ethics protocols for reviewing
technologies against established criteria. Doctrine of Double Effect-style tools could
be translated into standardized assessment procedures.
●Regulations should be reframed beyond reactive prohibition towards proactive
shaping of technologies through anticipatory governance (Guston, 2014). Scenario
analysis and forecasting of potential risks and benefits would enable prudent
integration.
●Incorporating ethics checkpoints at multiple stages of technology development would
maximize opportunities for constructive steering and avoidance of self-serving biases
through power imbalance (Wilsdon & Willis, 2004; Feenberg, 2005). Early-phase
perspectives prevent entrenchment of inadvertent biases.
●Transparency regarding evidence, reasoning and stakeholder participation in formal
ethics reviews would boost perceived legitimacy and fairness of decisions.
●Regulators must recognize technologies as value-laden systems requiring ongoing
evaluation, not inert tools subject to one-time rulings (MacKenzie & Wajcman, 1999).
As sociotechnical environments evolve, revisiting assessments against ethical criteria
is imperative. No single authoritative decree suffices amid changing contexts.
●Fostering a compassionate ethical climate focused on mutual growth over punishment
remains vital. Restorative approaches seek understanding and reconciliation through
open dialogue when values diverge. Integrating ethics reviews within a spirit of
cooperative human development would uphold Olympism’s vision of sports as
ennobling human potentials for excellence, effort and friendship.
