Topics – Is technology cheating or progress? Does the governing body of sports admit such technological advances as part of the new era of sports competition, or does the governing body need to implement clear regulation for technological doping?
The most important part of the project is making a solid claim on the topic and supporting the claim with evidence. Pick either one (PPT or a 3-page essay).
Create a 3-page essay (below is an example):
1) The introduction
– Background (historical overview of technological advances in sports and why such advances have become controversial)
– Identifies supporting arguments (present a position statement between agree or disagree).
2) Provide the evidence
– The reasons why you agree or disagree with the statement.
– Use evidence from evidence from previously published studies or news articles in your own writing.
3) Conclusion
– Provide a summary and highlights of your idea.
* The minimum page, the APA style (i.e., double-spaced on standard-sized paper, 12pt., Times New Roman font).
Grading Rubric
Excellent Above average Average Below average
PowerPoint is visually appealing and labeled; includes a position statement, or Content in the paper covers the topic in-depth with details and examples; includes a position statement. 10
Information on the slide (paper) is readable, organized, and appropriate
Slides (paper) are readable with no spelling or grammatical errors
Content demonstrates research and critical insight into the topic
Content provides new ideas and makes significant contributions
Citations and references are correctly inserted
Technological doping refers to gaining a competitive advantage using sports equipment. The World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) prohibits technologies if they are performance-enhancing or against the sport’s spirit.
“There is a thin line between technological advancements and technological doping in sports. ‘Advancement’ is a natural phenomenon, but its utilization to gain an unfair advantage is what converts it into ‘doping’. In the absence of any defined Rules, there exists an opportunity for some to find ways to gain that advantage over others by technological means. Further, the price and availability of such hi-tech equipment and gears would for sure deprive many able but financially weak athletes. Another point to ponder is– whether such technology dilutes human effort and has a decisive effect on the performance or whether it would create some sort of unrealistic targets and records.” (Singh, 2021).
(2) Blade Runner
– Case of Oscar Pistorius
“Oscar Pistorius’s dramatic life story has moved the world. An 11 month old South African boy whose both feet were amputated due to a congenital defect, goes on to compete in both, Olympic Games and Paralympic Games before being charged with murder. He had wished to compete against able-bodied athletes using two prosthetic legs in both the Beijing Olympic and Paralympic events. His prosthesis used an ESR (Energy storage and return) mechanism which comprised of carbon fiber blades that compressed and extended under load, therefore, worked like a spring.
The IAAF had commissioned a report in 2007 on the ESR mechanism and claimed that it was an unfair technology as it provided Pistorius an unfair 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 prosthesis. On the basis of this report, the IAAF banned Pistorius from taking part in able-bodied Olympic events. However, in a separate report commissioned by Oscar Pistorius, he proved before the CAS that while he was mechanically different, he remained physiologically similar to other athletes.
The CAS had to determine whether the use of such prosthesis was in contravention to rule 144.2 (e) of the IAAF technical rules which is read as– “Use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels, or any other element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a device.” Interestingly, the CAS analysed what constituted a spring and held that even the human leg was a spring. The CAS was not convinced that the ESR prosthesis provided Pistorius with an overall net advantage over the other athletes and hence over-turned the decision of the IAAF and subsequently allowed Pistorius to compete in able-bodied events.” (Singh, 2021)
– Case of Markus Rehm
“It was a similar case to that of Pistorius. Markus is an amputee who wished to compete in the able-bodied sport in the long jump event in the 2016 Rio Olympics. The main issue, in this case, was that he was using his prosthetic leg to jump rather than his biological leg. The German Athletics Association considered his prosthetic limb an unfair advantage and did not allow him to participate. He did not appeal to the CAS and currently is a record holder in the Paralympic long jump event.” (Singh, 2021)
– Watch this video:

Default image


Articles: 86544

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.