Why the doping problem is here to stay

Why the doping problem is here to stay

DopingSamples.jpg

Yesterday’s doping news from the Australian Crime Commission raises three crucial questions for the world of sport.

First, why do athletes dope? Second, how prevalent is doping in elite and recreational sport. Finally, how far beyond sport does performance enhancement extend? You might have noticed a new acronym in their report – PIED – Performance and Imaging Enhancing Drugs. This is not the first time it has been used in anti-doping jargon, but it is a crucial signal to the broader culture of performance enhancement that confronts elite sport. Back in 2006, the American Academy of Pediatrics made clear that to just pursue elite athletes is not going to address the wider culture of doping in society and it is this part that the sport’s world still does not understand.

 

People dope because they want to win. They want to win because it brings rewards. Rewards increase one’s social status and capacity to live a good life. This is one version of what’s happening. Another is that athletes dope because they want to push their bodies even further and reach new limits. In this version, the reward is having transcended what others have achieved before, going beyond what we thought to have been humanly possible, and securing one’s place in history as a result.

 

One of the crucial omissions to yesterday’s news was precisely how prevalent doping is in elite sports. Admittedly, nobody knows, but they did say the report revealed it is more common than we were led to believe. Some figures on that claim are crucial, as is a better way of figuring out what’s really going on. It’s not easy to do, but the answer would dramatically shape the policy response, and so it should.

 

However, the really big problem facing elite sports is that they don’t operate in isolation from the rest of society, no matter what they might like to think. Certainly, in sports you can commit acts of violence that would be criminal outside of it, but I’m talking about the broader culture of performance enhancement that surrounds us in daily life. Whether it is a cup of coffee in the morning – or a few cups – or steroids, the so-called problem of performance enhancement in sport will never be solved without a shift in our values. However, I’m not sure that we need to change. We just need to protect people more effectively from taking excessive risks. Anti-doping goes well beyond this.

 

Being the best that has ever been is an aspiration that underpins people’s lives, especially when they are young and this can drive the desire to win at all costs.  This may be an argument to get rid of elite competitive sport specifically or to remove competition from society more generally, but WADA won’t do that all on its own. In any case, it would distinguish this kind of dangerous competition from healthy competition. I suspect you cannot have one without the other.

 

 

My take on Lance Armstrong in Wired Magazine

My take on Lance Armstrong in Wired Magazine

wired_logo.gif

A couple of weeks ago, I talked about a new, radical article on Lance Armstrong. That article never made it to print, at least not yet. A number of news outlets looked at it, many editors said they loved it, but just couldn't run it. So, instead, I wrote another one and sent it to Wired who immediately accepted it. Here it is. The sentiment is similar to draft one, but the tone, method and overall style is very different. The other one may be published elsewhere, one day. Until then, only a select few who asked for it have read it.

TEDx Warwick

TEDx Warwick

TEDxWarwick.jpg

On Saturday 9th March, I'll give a talk as part of TEDx Warwick. This will be the second time I've spoken at Warwick, the first being at the Virtual Futures event in 2011. My laptop broke on the way there and I ended up giving a somewhat retro talk using one of the latest pieces of software out there. It looked like this.

I've not yet decided how I want to focus the talk this year, but I want to bring together bioethics, bioart, biopolitics, biotechnology, citizen science, and social media to consider how we need to advance a compassionate, yet aggressively innovative, assault on our knowledge economy. Alternatively, I might just use it to explore a term I've been developing recently along the lines of 'viral cities'. This might work well since the theme is 'building bridges'. I want to build them with DNA infused data. Now there's a nice title.

My secret article on Lance Armstrong

My secret article on Lance Armstrong

8076486536_1a8361864f_z.jpg

I've been tweeting recently that I have written a radical new piece about Lance Armstrong. A few people are still helping me find the right home for it, but here's an opportunity to read it before it's published. If you'd like to receive it, then please do the following.

1. Use your Twitter account to tweet 'I'm about to read @andymiah on #LanceArmstrong'

2. Email me at email@andymiah.net with 'Lance Armstrong' in the subject header.

3. Once you've read it, please don't share the contents. If you like it, or hate it, then you are certainly encouraged to say so publicly, but I don't want to kill the publication by its contents being shared before it's out, so I'd be grateful if you kept the secret.

I really hope you enjoy the piece.

Best wishes,

Andy

PS. the wristband broke in 2005. It was clearly trying to tell me something :)

So Long, Lance. Next, 21st-Century Doping.

So Long, Lance. Next, 21st-Century Doping.

New-York-Times-Logo.png

This is the title of an article published in the New York Times on 20 January, 2013, written by the Atlantic's David Ewing Duncan. It responds to the recent confession of Lance Armstrong about doping, quoting me in the process. Worth a read. He concludes by inviting readers to consider which they would prefer to watch, enhanced sport where all are doping, or clean sport where we are always in doubt?

The A to Z of Social Media for Academia

The A to Z of Social Media for Academia

8325240887_416fca82f9_z.jpg