Because sure as boxers will go through their ridiculous macho
pre-fight weigh-in posturing pantomime, sure as weak-ankled Premiership
footballers will roll around in agony as if taken out by a sniper in row J at
the merest nudge from an opponent, sure as Pakistani cricketers will overstep
the mark every time that they overstep the mark, then cyclists will feel that
they have to test the substance testers’ testing abilities. I don’t know what
it is about this particular sport but it seems that, more than any other event,
the winner of a cycling tour isn’t finalised until all the urine’s been
analysed and the court rulings have been overturned several times.
(All of the above is ‘allegedly’ of course.)
It’s terrible the stuff that people put into their bodies to
give them an extra competitive edge, isn’t it?
Isn’t it?
I’m not so sure. Let’s take the hypothetical case of two
athletes – pick any sport you want. Athlete A sticks to a healthy diet of
grilled chicken and fish with plenty of fruit and vegetables, protein shakes
and isotonic drinks to aid recovery. Athlete B regularly eats pizza and chips
and washes them down with eight pints of beer.
Now if all other things are equal then you’d expect Athlete A to come
out on top in their chosen event, but isn’t that just because they both partook
of substances that they knew would alter their performance – one for better,
one for worse? Could it not be argued that eating a protein-packed tuna steak
is no different to taking some other substance that will increase muscle
strength? The Olympic motto is made up of three Latin words: ‘Citius, Altius,
Fortius’, which translates as ‘Faster, Higher, Stronger’. Surely steroids,
stimulants and all the other drugs on the World Anti-Doping Agency’s banned
substance list are designed to make the human body do just that: run faster,
jump higher, be stronger. Isn’t one of the aims of the Olympic movement to test
the limits of human ability? How fast can we go, how high can we jump, how
strong can we be without the aid of physical attachments?
Which brings us to Oscar Pistorius, the incredible South
African ‘Blade Runner’. Sprinting on his carbon fibre prosthetics he is, quite
literally, in a class of his own. But that’s the problem. Oscar wants to be
able to run against all the other kids in the other classes too. He’s not
content with demonstrations and private challenges. Having rightly become a
Paralympic legend, Oscar feels that he should be able to take on the best
able-bodied athletes in the world in regular competitions like the upcoming
London Olympics and has taken his case to court several times. Now I think that
what he’s done with his life is magnificent and his drive and determination put
most other people’s to shame, but if we allow Pistorius to compete against
able-bodied athletes, where do we draw the line? Could we eventually see an old
bloke who works at B&Q winning the weight lifting with the aid of his fork
lift truck? Should shot putters be allowed to take a howitzer into the circle
with them as part of their legal equipment? While he is undoubtedly a supreme physical
specimen, at least some of Oscar’s successes must go down to the technology which
aids his phenomenal natural ability, and this must prevent him from competing
against those whose abilities aren’t also mechanically enhanced.
There are some mighty big questions there and they’ll be
discussed long after this summer of sport is over. One thing’s for sure though.
I won’t win any medals. I’ll be too busy watching it all from the safety of my
sofa with beer and snacks within arm’s reach.
© Shaun Finnie 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment