In this article, it was stated that a record 5,000 tests for the use of drugs for athletic performance will be taken throughout the 2012 London Olympics. The anti-doping officials are instructing the cleaners and other staff members on how to observe signs of doping. The officials believe that this will be a way of preventing teams from using drugs to enhance their performance during games. The anti-doping members believe that by having the staff watching the athletes, more accurate result will be drawn. The members will be able to clearly discern those who have taken drugs to enhance performance from those who have not. Incidents during the Salt Lake City Olympics caused officials to take action; however these tests are only reliable during a 72 hour of an athlete using the drugTo begin with, by telling these staff members to be on the look-out for drug-use will pose as a problem because their sense perception has immediately been skewed because they may start to see only that. This could lead to even more unsuccessful testing because of the unreliability of the observations. The article didn’t clearly state the proximity or the nature of these observations. When done from afar, how can anyone see anything clearly? Because these staff members have been primed to look for drug use, actions which seem illegal can and will be reported. But just because it seems that way does not mean such actions are occurring. However, when given a closer look, people will be able to discern a syringe and a piece of plastic. But what happens when these actions are taken place off site? Can these spies really be successful and how will they ever know? Because of the diversity amongst these athletes, languages other than English may be spoken. How do these staff members know what these people are talking about? People always find a way to get these drugs on site if they really wanted to.
While it is unsafe and unfair to use drugs to enhance one’s performance, spying on the athletes is a form of intrusion. It was stated that “the chances of catching determined cheats would still be low” even if the anti-doping committee installs new spies. Well if it’s already deemed to be unsuccessful why must they intrude on these athletes’ personal lives? It is unethical to pry into a person’s life for the sake of ‘better testing’. If the tests before were already unsuccessful, how will the new ones be any more different? Spying on people is illegal and certainly could fall into the category of privacy invasion in many situations. These athletes did not sign a consent form and some may be oblivious to the fact that they’re being watched. It is unethical to lurk into a person’s life and report every action. Why are these anti-doping members allowed to dictate what these athletes can and can’t do? If these athletes do use drugs as a way to enhance their performance, people should let them; however, it is not to say that drugs are good, but to say that if these athletes can’t even obey these laws, then they should suffer the consequences. Without learning the negative implications of these drugs, the athletes may continue to use them. These new spies just hinder this process and allow more unsafe ways of obtaining, and using such drugs.
I do not condone the use of drugs as means of athletic performance. However, as the rules become reinforced, people will find new or even ‘underground’ ways to enhance their performance. This could be much harder to track because these staff members aren’t always going to be on the lookout. I believe that people should not have to impose rules for such an action but rather punish users when caught. This relates to a similar situation which occurred in the UK as well. A former intelligence agent was accused of ‘spying’ and was deported. Although actual situation is completely different, the idea of ‘spying’ is still the same. If this agent has been deported for such an action and had caused such an uproar, why is it okay for the anti-doping members to do the same? These actions aren’t ethical because it involves intruding lives and near confidential information. Spying has been deemed illegal in many cases and should not be allowed.
Interesting topic and good analysis but I don’t really see another side in the article arguing against not having spies on doping so this article doesn’t make a great TOK article in my opinion. I really like your point on how sense perception is skewed immediately when they have been ordered to find drug-users as it's one of our limitations in sense perception. From another perspective, I think that even though the cleaning and security staffs are bias against the athletes, the drug tests that they'll be using to test drugs in athletes will provide the objectivity and the truth of whether or not the athletes have been doing drugs or not. This suggests that although humans have subjective nature of sense perception that has some positives and negatives, we tend to use machines and equipments to provide us with objective truths.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your points concerning the ethical issues of spying on the athletes to ensure that they don't dope. However, to counter this idea, consider what else the anti-doping officials can do to prevent unfair advantages in competition. Since it's not always possible to catch those who are doping, the addition of the "spies" may not necessarily point out particular offenders, but if the athletes are simply aware that they are being carefully scrutinized by janitorial staff members, they may be less likely to cheat. The concept of being spied on, and not receiving consent for it in advance reminds me of the CCTV that the UK uses. Even though UK citizens may be unaware of being watched, they are still subjected to the constant monitoring of their actions.
ReplyDelete