In his recent (8/12/08) New York TIMES article titled "Let the Games Be Doped," John Tierney argues that we should let athletes take any drugs -- or use any artificial means they want -- in athletic contests. I was going to write a letter to the TIMES, but got lazy and/or busy. Now, in today's "Science" section, there are two particularly anemic letters criticizing Tierney's perspective. So I'm provoked to write.
Of course, there are obvious questions. If all artificial means are OK, why can't Olympic swimmers use flippers? or why not weapons? Take THAT, Michael Phelps!
But that's not my point (see also my Valentine's Day card on EconoSpeak this year at http://econospeak.blogspot.com/2008/02/next-steroids.html). Tierney comes at the issue from a "libertarian" angle, arguing essentially that it's up to the individual to decide on whether or not the costs of steroids (or whatever) outweigh benefits. The problem is (as is often ignored by so-called "libertarians") there are external costs. In this case, athlete A imposes costs on athlete B without the latter's consent.
In plainer prose, if athlete A uses steroids, that gives him a competitive advantage. So, if athlete B wants to win, she has to take them too (or compensate for her disadvantage in some other way). With a bunch of athletes in the same event, it's unlikely that the relative rankings will change a lot due to steroid use. The external costs would push them all to use steroids -- and they'll all end up pretty much where they started. Since steroids have bad side-effects, it's a kind of self-destructive competition.
Robert Frank and Philip Cook call for an "arms control" agreement in this situation. All of the athletes in an event are prevented from using steroids, then we prevent the self-destructive competition. That's what anti-doping rules are all about.
Further, the Olympics involve what Frank and Cook call a "winner-take-all" competition (in their book THE WINNER-TAKE-ALL SOCIETY). That means that if someone wins a gold medal (in a TV-popular event) it means big bucks, along with a lot of non-financial rewards. But if you win "only" a silver or a bronze medal, the rewards are nil. This creates a massive incentive to engage in self-destructive competition.
What to do? We could split athletics into two completely separate "tracks." On the one hand, there would be dope-free track, where athletes must voluntarily participate in drug tests. On the other, there would be the "Tierney track," where all artificial means are allowed. Saturday Night Live had a skit about Tierney's idea a long time ago, back when Dennis Miller was funny (see http://www.hulu.com/watch/4090/saturday-night-live-weekend-update-all-drug-olympics).
My guess is that the drug-free track would have much greater prestige. In terms of "libertarian" notions, I'd bet that it would pass the "market test" with flying colors. The Tierney track would go the way of the late unlamented XFL.
Note that I am not against new technology (cyborgs in athletic events, etc.) Go for it: if you want to abuse your body, it's your right as an American! (Why not heroin?) Nor am I saying that Big Brother should dictate to all athletes. But there should be a minimal-technology or "clean" track in athletics. If people don't want to participate, they don't have to.
On top of that, some effort should be made to get rid of the "winner-take-all" element. For example, take the money out of sports. This is less likely to happen. But I think we can all do something as individuals: shun "big league" sports and watch "minor league" or amateurs ones. Here in L.A., forget the Kings and watch the Long Beach Ice Dogs. Even better, instead of watching sports, participate in them. Among other things, it's actually good for one's health. And feel free to use advanced technology, like a Wii.
-- Jim Devine
14 comments:
I'm commenting on my own blog, hoping that blogger will e-mail me any responses others have to it.
Never mind flippers, how about a speedboat?
Isn't it also the case that such decisions may have to be made at a young age? I hate to come across all "won't someone think of the children!?!", but do the proponents of permitting doping also want under 18s to have to make such decisions if they are to try to stay competitive? Given that some means of doping are potentially lethal even in the short term (e.g. blood doping), I think this poses a massive problem.
Even taking the position that such a decision could not be made until an athlete turns, say, 18 runs into problems. I don't know about how long it takes for modern drugs to be most effective, but athletes in the former East Germany had to undergo doping year-round in order to be at peak performance: would a 19-year-old with only one year of doping behind him, therefore, not be at a disadvantage against a 23-year-old with 5 years of doping?
One thing I struggle with is justifying my repugnance at doping in athletic competitions. Proponents of laissez-faire doping policies argue that this is irrational and hypocritical, and I have to concede the point. Their argument hinges on the assumption that the performance-enhancing drugs used by athletes do not have risky side-effects (indeed, they'd argue that participation in the sport incurs greater risk than the drugs). They would also point out that we are OK with artificial performance-enhancement in other contexts. When American swimmers attribute their victory to streamlined bathing suits, we don't care; when high school kids consume caffeine the night before an academic competition we don't care either.
How can we justify this situation but then close the door on performance-enhancing drugs in athletics? I can't see how.
JKlugman,
you left out an important word "some" (between "the" and "performance-enhancing"). If some ARE dangerous (but perhaps more effective) then don't we need to have an effective testing regime anyway. Not to mention the demonstation effect on amateuer and junior competitions and what they may mean in a less controlled, less professional environment.
But I think Jim Devine has a good point with the general issue of winner-take-all logic. We need to come to terms with it because it is very destructive and very wasteful. I'm not too sure, however, that I know what the solution is (apart from having more regional competitions). I know I always preferred team sports such as football (soccer) to athletics because in athletics you are always very much aware that most people are losers, and some people have no chance of winning. In a football match you win on average half the time (or rather lose less than half the time).
And yes, Jim Devine, I often wonder about (G)Libertarians and externalities. What gives there? Sometimes they pay lip service to them, but when push comes to shove they always ignore them. Is it a methodological problem (i.e. the ideology encourages that sort of thinking) or a personality issue?
Dan writes: >... do the proponents of permitting doping also want under 18s to have to make such decisions if they are to try to stay competitive? Given that some means of doping are potentially lethal ... I think this poses a massive problem.... <
good point. Not all decisions by athletes are voluntary. I can imagine a lot of parents who treat their kids as athletic meal-tickets would encourage them to abuse substances.
jklugman writes: >One thing I struggle with is justifying my repugnance at doping in athletic competitions. Proponents of laissez-faire doping policies argue that this is irrational and hypocritical, and I have to concede the point. Their argument hinges on the assumption that the performance-enhancing drugs used by athletes do not have risky side-effects (indeed, they'd argue that participation in the sport incurs greater risk than the drugs). They would also point out that we are OK with artificial performance-enhancement in other contexts. When American swimmers attribute their victory to streamlined bathing suits, we don't care; when high school kids consume caffeine the night before an academic competition we don't care either. How can we justify this situation but then close the door on performance-enhancing drugs in athletics? I can't see how. <
The self-styled libertarians don't argue that steroids (etc.) don't have negative side-effects. Rather, their point is that it's only for _the athlete_ to decide if the risk exceeds the return or not. My point was (and is) that each athlete in a competition is imposing costs on others without their consent: if I use steroids and you don't, you're more likely to lose. Thus, if you (and your sponsors, your country, and your parents) want you to have a half chance of winning, you're pushed to use them too.
Reason writes: >... I think Jim Devine has a good point with the general issue of winner-take-all logic. ... I know I always preferred team sports such as football (soccer) to athletics because in athletics you are always very much aware that most people are losers, and some people have no chance of winning. In a football match you win on average half the time (or rather lose less than half the time).<
I'm glad that you agree with my point. And I agree with your point, so I hope you're glad too. ;-)
Reason continues: >... I often wonder about (G)Libertarians and externalities. What gives there? Sometimes they pay lip service to them, but when push comes to shove they always ignore them. Is it a methodological problem ... or a personality issue? <
I think there's a difference between the pure libertarian theory (in which air pollution counts as trespassing on our lungs, for example) and the libertarianism that gets mouthed by politicians, backed by big money, and put into practice. One problem is that the pure theory is so utopian (unrealistic) that it could never be put into practice. But libertarian principles sound good, so a lot of politicians (Thatcher, Reagan, Bush, etc.) can abuse them and use them for political gain, at the same time that the moneyed class can use them to defend their economic interests.
-- Jim
OMG - Dennis Miller did once have a couple of funny lines. But then he had the SNL crew writing those for him.
Since the winner take all aspect is mainly due to advertising, maybe we should just ban all commercial advertisement
to "progrowthliberal":
I liked when Miller sang "I'm being followed by a big Muslim," making fun of Yusuf Islam (a.k.a. Cat Stevens, a.k.a. Steven Demetre Georgiou). It was totally unfair and was a precursor of Miller's dreadful current career, but it was well dome.
BillCinSD said:> Since the winner take all aspect is mainly due to advertising, maybe we should just ban all commercial advertisement<
good idea in any event, but part of the problem with the Olympics is old-fashioned nationalism.
-- Jim
The question that come to the fore when presented with an ideological editorial from John Tierney is, why on Earth would anyone take John Tierney seriously? Read back a bit and one quickly come to the conclusion that rather than journalist, John Tierney is best described by the term "fop." His attitude is repugnant and the content of his editorial contributions is vacuous. The piece in question is the perfect example of the limits of Tierney's journalistic abilities.
Jack writes: >The question that come to the fore ... is, why on Earth would anyone take John Tierney seriously?<
unfortunately, the New York TIMES, which is popularly regarded as one of the the most respectable sources of knowledge in the U.S. takes him seriously. And he's no longer on the op-ed page. He's now in the science section, with nothing labelling his ravings as "opinions."
Also, some on the left are concerned with the "libertarian" questions he asks sometimes.
Jim
That is a problem of the so-called left. Those who take the NY Times seriously need to recognize that it is only a better journal than is the NY Post. Tierney's contributions are generally loaded with opinions, and thosee come from someone who, though well educated, has no expertise in the subject matter. If the thrust of his commentary appears to be libertarian that is only because that perspective will create the most noise at the moment. Tierney should move onn to full time employment as an author of fiction.
Jack said: >... If the thrust of [Tierney's] commentary appears to be libertarian that is only because that perspective will create the most noise at the moment. <
I think I was consistent in putting the word "libertarian" in quotation marks when referring to Tierney's opinions. It's not about real liberty, which must be combined with democracy, but about the freedom of those who own a lot of resources to take advantage of those without.
Still, "libertarian" opposition to unnecessary restrictions on individual actions seems relevant.
-- Jim
Several comments note that the current "games" put too much emphasis on a winner take all result to the competition. I don't have an opinion on this issue, but will point out that the Olympic Games have always put the emphasis on the win rather than just the competition. This tradition goes way back to ancient Greece when the winners were exalted by the crowd and the publilc in general.
The issue regarding doping in any form of athletic competition simply refers to the potential for harm and the unfair advantage aspect accrued by those willilng to take the risk of the harm. Were to draw the line in regards to "unfair" or dangerous preperation for competition is the thorny issue that has vexed all forms of competition. Boxing doesn't allow the competitors to use weighted gloves. Horses are not permitted to be doped. The list is long in regards to what might be called artificial enhancements to individual performance.
The current Olympics has moved far away from the modern concept of amateur competition. NBA all stars compete in what had been looked upon as a non-professional
contest. What's that all about? Frankly, the current games have so many quasi athletic events as to be over burdened with trivia as sport. Beach volley ball?? In bikini bathinig suits? The women look pretty good, but why are the men dressed to the hilt for the same activity? Maybe the Olympic Games as we now see them are irrelevent to athletic ideals. I didn't catch the ribbon twirling event. The one in which pretty young girls do some form of gymnastics while swirling long ribbons about. Had that event been canceled, and if not where can I see the reruns?
Another thought which came about as I wondered, What has this issue to do with an economics blog? THe answer is quite simple and defines the Olympic Games for what they truly are. As the great economist Mel Brooks, in the character of Yogurt, had said, "Merchandising! Merchandising! Where the real money from the movie is made."
The athletes are little more than the hired help. The real winners are the producers of the games.
Post a Comment