Answer to Question #230998 in Management for Noman

Question

. In many ways, technology has made all of us more productive. However, ethical
issues do arise in how and when technology is used. Take the sports arena. All kinds of
technologically advanced sports equipment (swimsuits, golf clubs, ski suits, etc.) have
been developed that can sometimes give competitors/players an edge over their
opponents. We saw it in swim meets at the Summer Olympics and on the ski slopes and
ice rinks at the Winter Olympics.
Part 1. What do you think? Is this an ethical use of technology?
Part 2. What if your school (or country) was competing for a championship and couldn’t
afford to outfit athletes in such equipment and it affected your ability to compete? Would

Answer 1

Part one

Ethical considerations surrounding the use of advanced technology in sports

The concept of ethical considerations which is fairness (or unfairness) due to the introduction of advanced technology in sports was what this paper addressed. Dyer, (2015) identified five ethical considerations using the concept of fairness or unfairness in the use of advanced technology in sports as the use of assistive technology in able-bodied sport; Access and parity of sports equipment; the introduction of safety equipment in sport; ‘Re-skilling’s a sport through the use of new technology;

‘De-skilling’ a sport through the use of new technology; Governing body oversight issues, this will form the basis of this paper discourse that equipment in sport re-skilling (ESR’s) may provide an unfair advantage. By either increasing or reducing the energy required doing so or that their design

could be optimized to assist in providing it, three cases will is used here to illustrate the case of Pistorius, Markus Rehm & Casey Martin.

The International Amateurs Athletic Federation (IAAF) commissioned a report in late 2007, the results of the report proposed that the technology provided Pistorius with a mechanical advantage over able bodied athletes of more than 30 %, had a 25 % reduced energy output for maintaining the same speed and possessed inertial benefits due to the reduced mass of the prostheses. (Wolbring & Tynedal 2013; Jones & Wilson 2009); the net result of the report proposed that ESR’s manifest some advantages and Pistorius was subsequently banned by the IAAF to run in able-bodied events. Pistorius himself then commissioned a counter-study (Marcellini, Ferez, Issanchou, De Léséleuc & McNamee 2012) that ultimately demonstrated that whilst he was mechanically different to able-bodied equivalents, he was physiologically similar. His ban was challenged at the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Marcellini, Ferez, Issanchou, De Léséleuc, McNamee 2012; Jones & Wilson 2009; Moses 2009) and was eventually overturned. Pistorius ultimately then competed at both the London 2012 Paralympic and Olympic Games using ESR technology (Wolbring &Tynedal 2013). Rehm is a uni-lateral lower-limb amputee who also wished to compete in able-bodied sport in the long jump event (Baker 2015). The controversy concerned the athlete specifically launching himself by using his prosthesis rather than his biological limb.

The German Athletics Association considered his prosthetic limb an unfair advantage and would not allow him to participate (Baker 2015). Martin was a professional golfer and a registered disabled citizen who suffered from a circulatory disorder in his lower right leg, known as Klippel-Trenaunay-Webber syndrome (Baker 2015)Whilst attempting to qualify for the Professional Golf Association tour, Martin played golf using a powered golf cart. He attempted to use this technology to support his transit between strokes (Burkett et al. 2011) but the PGA attempted to prevent this Golf carts were banned in professional golf at the time as it was felt that such technology would change the nature of the game by reducing the impact of the walk between each hole and provide players using them with an advantage over other golfers. This wasn’t the first time that the specific needs of the disabled were called into question. There were safety concerns regarding the use of wheelchairs at the Boston Marathon which led to them being outlawed in 1975 (Hutzler 2008). Whilst these case studies have generally been legally resolved, there still remains a lack of understanding of the role of prosthetic equipment use in able-bodied sport.

According to Franklin, (2008) the use of modern advanced technologies in sports mean that competitions at the uppermost level is affordable to the leading top athletes due to the potential high cost of specialized sports equipment. In those sport those sports incorporating individuals with a particular disability, there is a variety of methods in which assistance can be given. For example, modifications to buildings can be made to make them wheelchair assessable. Specialized equipment can also be produced and training to sports members can be offered in order to give assistance to those with a disability

Part two

The moral issues identified with innovation use in sport incorporate value of access. Getting to innovation is costly, particularly when discussing physiological testing or biomechanical examination. Indeed, even some gear is expensive, and on the off chance that all contenders can't get to innovation, the opposition is unjustifiable because of disparities in admittance to innovation. Notwithstanding, most wearing rivalries include competitors or clubs who either can or can't manage the cost of innovations. All major wearing contests, for example, NBA, NBL, NFL, AFL, NRL, A-League, EPL, Champions League, and so on have a lot of cash to get to innovation. The equivalent goes for some tip top individual games like golf and tennis. 

In any case, global games rivalries don't have a similar degree of value. Singular competitors from more unfortunate non-industrial nations can't generally bear the cost of similar innovations as competitors from created nations, particularly from nations that place a high worth on sport