Philosophy of Sport

Philosophy of Sport

Question 1.

(A)    Perspectives of cheating and fair play in sport according to Leaman and Delattre

1. Positions of cheating and fair play in sport as argued by Leaman

Leaman says that it is not easy to define cheating in a sport as thought initially and that it is just difficult to specify why such behavior is wrong. He offers the right definition of cheating in a sport as the act through which the conditions for winning that are agreed manifestly or latently change in favor of one side (Dixon, 10).  As a result, the principle of equality of chance that may occur beyond the difference between skills and strategy is violated. However, the problem with this definition from Leaman is, it omits any consideration.

He claims that if a boxer possesses an unlawful substance that can damage the body of another player when applied without his or her knowledge, the boxer has not cheated. This is an act of breaking the rules of the game which the boxer does to his own advantage yet Leaman does not consider this as cheating. (Simon, 45). This act cannot make the boxer be disqualified from his sport and if he or she is penalized or disqualified, then it would be because rules have been broken by those who attend to him or her at the intervals. In a sport, a player will be considered to have cheated if he or she breaks the rules with an intention of not being seen or found out (Dixon 13).

1. Positions of cheating and fair play in a sport as argued by Delattre

Delattre takes a very different position regarding cheating and fair play in a game. He claims that fair play means sticking to the agreed rules of a game and not taking an unfair advantage. It is thus a very basic and moral principle in sporting (Simon et al, 67). Delattre claims that cheating in a sport should not be compared morally with cheating in everyday life. This is because the sport is just a game but not a reflection of our everyday behavior (Dixon, 17). Since players in a sport lie one point at a time, then this will not be considered as cheating but rather an unfair action so as to gain an advantage of the game.

Delattre provides a case of an action committed by Yale players during the second half of their game. When the lighttps://studygroom.com/social-media-platform/hts in the field started becoming dim and the mist began raising from the ground, the players acted contrary to the rules of most games (Dixon, 18). They forced the ball to the yards and the referee announced that they still had one more chance left. Delattre does not consider this as cheating because the team was trying to look for a chance so as to record a victory. According to the author, when an athlete commits a fault in the field and then the audience notices, they are not supposed to speak it out. Delattre says that this is not cheating but rather a way of searching for a win.

(B)    The one with better approach to cheating and fair play between Leaman and Dellatre

I support the approach of Leaman about cheating and fair play. This is because cheating in a sport occurs when a player breaks the rules or acts in an undesirable way for his/ her own advantage in the game. It is not wrong if a player cheats the referee so that he/she can continue playing (Dixon, 28). Leaman says that a player does this so as to safeguard his/her own position. He adds that if a player breaks the rules when sporting or in the field thereby gaining an unfair advantage over the other players, then this player will not have cheated (Simon et al, 70). This is because the player has an intention of gaining a fair advantage in the field as a way of winning the other teams.

(C)     I object Delattre’s argument because it does not conform to the rules of most games. He does not tell that cheating is wrong because it violates the rules of a game or fair play. Also, the problem with Delattre’s argument about cheating and fair play is that he is not clear on what impartiality, equality, and fairness mean in the sporting context (Simon et al, 72). He says that adhering to the rules of a game will depend on the ability of players to define such rules, which I don’t agree with. He also claims that cheating makes a game more interesting but does not mention the consequences that can arise from this act.

Question 4.

(A)    The strongest possible case against the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport according to Sandel and T. Murray.

Thomas H. Murray begins his article by stating that the use of drugs in sporting can give a player a coercive power that can be harmful in the sporting activity (Murray, 4021). He claims that most of Olympic gold medalists and other professional basketball players consume drugs on a regular basis either during their training, performance or even both. Most athletes on the other side use drugs for pleasure and relaxation and with a view to enhancing performance, repercussions notwithstanding. According to Murray, thousands of athletes and doctors have branded drugs as performance-enhancing substances, and this makes most players use them for nonmedical purposes. The author has written that the use of performance-enhancing drugs among athletes has become a recognized problem in sports. He gives an example of a case in the USA that happened in 2007 were several baseball players had used performance-enhancing drugs but failed to perform in the field (Murray, 4022).

Murray says that at the highest level of competitive sports where athletes strain to improve performance already at the limits of human ability, most of them have been tempted to use even more reactive drugs so that they can perform in an extraordinary way (Murray, 4024). Murray is against this practice because he proposes that such drugs can be harmful to the bodies of these athletes. If they use them so as to perform beyond human ability, then they end up wasting their bodies without their realization. This is, however, felt during the time when one gets out of the field (Strauss & Wright, 35). One common example of a sport enhancing drug which is abused by most athletes is the steroid. For example, Murray says that Renate Neufeld took steroid drugs in the 1977 games but failed to perform as per her expectations. Murray, therefore, says that the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports should be prohibited because they cause hallucinations and memory loss.

Michael Sandel writes that we need to reason about how to take care of our bodies. He adds that the main reason why many athletes and other players consume performance-enhancing drugs is that they think they have enough money to buy everything yet they forget that their bodies are the biggest gifts. In addition, Sandel is against the use of performance-enhancing drugs by athletes because such drugs are against the rules of the game. Therefore, natural talents are the ones that should be perfected in the game but not through taking of drugs. Again, some drugs make athletes addicted instead of stimulating their bodies and thus all these should be banned completely. This was argued by Strauss & Wright (78).

On the other hand, however, Norman Fost and Buchannan claim that sports enhancing drugs should be permitted in games because they give the athletes some absolute advantages (Strauss & Wright, 85). Although they say using drugs in sports is a way of cheating, it can make a player perform in an extraordinary way. Fost and Buchannan give an example of Thomas Hicks who won a marathon after receiving an injection of strychnine. They, therefore, claim that every athlete has the freedom while in the field to do anything that will improve his/ her performance. If we deny them performance-enhancing drugs, then we are taking away their freedom and liberty (Murray, 4025).

(B)    The strongest possible case against the use of performance-enhancing drugs

I strongly agree with the arguments of Murray and Sandel regarding the need for a health sporting. If we allow players to take performance-enhancing drugs, then we are teaching them how to break the rules of the sport (Murray, 4027). Also, I agree with Murray and Sandel that performance-enhancing drugs may be harmful to the human body. For example, many have consumed such drugs but later failed to perform in the field. For example, Renate Neufeld did not perform after taking steroid drugs in the 1977 marathons. There should be fairness and equality in the game by ensuring that all athletes are sober before and while performing. Most of them even have collapsed in the field because of taking such drugs (Murray, 4030).

(C)          I am objecting Norman Fost and Buchannan who are claiming that sport enhancing drugs should be permitted. These duals claim that when athletes consume drugs, they can perform in an extraordinary way but what about the effects which might occur in their bodies? Steroid and strychnine are drugs that have been proved to bring negative effects to the bodies of the athletes, and thus should not be taken at all (Strauss & Wright, 122). All sporting managers should impose mandatory drug testing so as to ensure that all players are equal in terms of sobriety.

Question 5.

(A)    The main concerns of D. Murray and Zimbalist about public funding for professional sports facilities.

Murray and Zimbalist argue that public financing for professional sports is a practice that should be questioned yet none of them makes any comment on the permissibility of this practice. They claim that this is a practice that has been taking place for the past two decades and particularly in the United States of America and Canada (Zimbalist, 74). According to Murray and Zimbalist, there have been several debates regarding the acceptability of public financing of stadiums and other areas. This has given rise to disputes because there are still many considerations that should be drawn from the same (Murray, 2023). According to Murray and Zimbalist, what we should ask ourselves is whether there will be any economic benefit to be obtained by governments through financing professional sports facilities.

Murray (2024) says that the decision about whether or not to finance professional sports facilities should be examined from the liberal egalitarian perspective of distributive justice. Murray adds that she does not support financing of sports facilities simply because it does not promote the robust notion of equality to all people in many countries. She writes that the egalitarian perspective of distributive justice was supported by John Rawls who claimed that public funds should not be used to support professional sports because this does not serve the interests of all citizens (Murray, 2025). Although sporting facilities can be used for the special good of the public, Murray claims that this is not a right way of spending public monies. Instead, Murray advises that public money should be used for more essential matters such as security, health, education and public housing because they have a very wide range of social benefit.

Like Murray, Zimbalist is also not supporting the idea of funding professional sports facilities. Zimbalist (77) proposes that, instead of financing, it would be better for the federal government to spend a lot in building new stadiums because they would bring a social benefit when used for longer periods. He claims that most local governments have been issuing federal- tax-exempt bonds that have helped in paying for the construction of stadiums. In this case, Zimbalist claims that instead of states like USA financing sporting stadiums, they should subsidize the construction. In his book “Baseball Economics and Public policy”, Zimbalist claims that subsiding will enable the federal governments to reduce the debt service and thus bringing an economic benefit to all people but not team owners and players (Zimbalist 102).

Zimbalist (108) says that he does not support financing for professional sports facilities because sports facilities are not expected to generate any additional net output in the metropolitan area. Therefore, Zimbalist claims that these sports stadiums cannot be counted on to augment tax collections. Furthermore, Murray and Zimbalist are aware that funding of professional sports facilities is a right way of creating a social benefit as well as a source of country’s income. Again, such stadiums can be used for other function like national celebrations but considering the law of economics, Murray and Zimbalist are advising that it would be better to construct new ones because this will be a good way of utilizing public funds. They add that the purpose of professional sports is to entertain not to raise funds for health care. In this way, Murray and Zimbalist do not support the motion of financing the professional sports (Murray, 2031).

(B)    My thought on public financing for sports facilities.

I don’t think that financing of collegiate sports facilities is permissible. First, I take an example of sports facilities that have been built in Minnesota in the USA and which have not brought any social benefit as expected. Due to this case, I conclude that financing of sports facilities is very costly (Zimbalist, 133). How will it be funded? This is because most of this financing is done using the taxpayer’s money yet this is not the right way to use public funds. I, therefore, advocate for new sports facilities that should not be built using taxpayers money. Instead, the government should play a key role by subsidizing such activities using bonds. This will ensure that the public budget is not strained.

Works Cited

Dixon, Nicholas. “On winning and athletic superiority.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 26.1               (1999): 10-26.

Murray, Andrew J., et al. “Novel ketone diet enhances physical and cognitive performance.” The              FASEB Journal 30.12 (2016): 4021-4032.

R.H. Strauss. J.E. Wright, G.A.M. Finerman, and D.H. Caitlin, “Side Effects of Anabolic Steroid            Hormones in Weight-Trained Male Athletes,” Physician and Sports Medicine, in a press.

Simon, Robert L., Cesar R. Torres, and Peter F. Hager. Fair play: The ethics of sport. Hachette                 UK, 2014.

Zimbalist, Andrew. May the Best Team Win: Baseball Economics and Public Policy. Washington,            D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 2003.