Inside Our Unhealthy Obsession With Superhuman, Drug-Free Athletes

Another day, another doping scandal

Lance Armstrong at Tour Down Under Stage 6 in Adelaide, Australia. Image via Flickr user Paul Coster (cc)

The 2016 games in Rio may be behind us, but an Olympic doping scandal lingers in the public imagination. On Wednesday, news broke that several gold-winning Chinese weightlifters failed performance-enhancing drug (PED) retests from the 2008 Beijing games, intensifying our longstanding obsession with “clean” athletes.

It wasn’t even the first such instance this summer. In June, Russian tennis star Maria Sharapova tested positive for meldonium, a drug that increases blood flow so more oxygen can be carried to muscle tissue. The Russian government was accused of sponsoring a state-run doping scheme that gave Russian athletes an unfair advantage at the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. And as punishment for their nation’s prior drug scandals, Russia’s Paralympic athletes have been banned from this year’s games by the International Olympics Committee.

Although some studies have shown that public opinion on allowing athletes to dope is divided (some think it could increase entertainment value), most sporting authorities maintain that athletes should not dope. It’s an emotional topic, one that threatens the relationship between athletes and their fans. People worldwide felt a sense of extreme betrayal and disappointment when the extent of Lance Armstrong’s doping was finally revealed. Studies have shown how even an allegation of use can severely damage an athlete’s reputation. Meanwhile, we spend an extraordinary amount of energy on finding new ways to test for PEDs and studying the effect of doping on public attitudes towards sports.

[quote position="right" is_quote="true"]Drugs like Ritalin and Adderall are prescribed to (or used illegally by) students who want to improve their focus. Yet there’s no drug-testing in place for students.[/quote]

But what’s really behind our obsession with “clean” athletes and “clean” sports? Perhaps it’s more about us—and our relationship with technology—than the athletes themselves.

It’s totally normal for athletes to enhance their performance through technology.

What if sports officials just accepted PEDs as simply another “technology” that enhances the game—an advance no different from equipment upgrades that improve an athlete’s ability, like replacing wooden tennis rackets with graphite.

After all, tennis now allows “hawkeye” technology to determine if a ball is in or out, no longer relying on the fallible eyesight of multiple linesmen and the umpire. FIFA has finally agreed to use goal-line technology to bolster the abilities of referees, who are often put in the position of judging whether a soccer goal has been scored from half a field away.

From a wider societal perspective, we use technology in virtually every aspect of our lives. GPS helps us get from one destination to the next, while we use the internet to order food and arrange dates.

Even non-athletes improve their bodies and minds through gadgets, surgery, and drugs.

Of course, none of these technological advances are entering our bodies. Nor do they (on the surface, at least) have the potential to negatively influence our health.

Researchers believe that high doses of PEDs over sustained periods of time adversely affect athletes' health. However, it’s unethical to conduct controlled studies in case they do harm to the athlete, so we can glean information only through observation. In other words, we think PEDs are harmful, but we don’t know for sure. Legalizing PEDs would allow the proper authorities to make recommendations for safe dosages and prevent health risks. But this is unlikely to happen because of society’s extraordinary investment in “clean” sports.

We now live in a world in which it’s increasingly acceptable to use cosmetic surgery to improve one’s looks and advance a career. See the Kardashians, whose “natural” endowments have been enhanced by modern medicine. This enhancement isn’t illegal, although it’s been shown to have negative and lasting physical and emotional side effects. Drugs like Ritalin and Adderall are prescribed to (or used illegally by) students who want to improve their focus. Yet there’s no drug-testing in place for students.

[quote position="left" is_quote="true"]It’s athletes who bear the burden of displaying essential human characteristics: vulnerability, grit, the courage to … transcend adversity.[/quote]

Sports officials enhance their job performance using technology that makes them efficient and fair. And if beauty or concentration is no longer the result of lucky genes, why does athletic prowess have to be? For anti-PED stalwarts, the answer is quite simple: Athletes have to be human.

Are athletes the last domino in a post-human world?

In a time when technology has become an integral part of the lives of billions of people, it’s athletes who bear the burden of displaying essential human characteristics: vulnerability, grit, the courage to confront challenges and the ability to “dig deep,” reaching beyond one’s physical and mental limits to transcend adversity.

Yes, athletes are superhumans who possess rare physical gifts. But the emphasis is on the human. And perhaps athletes must exhibit distinctively human qualities so that they can help us believe that we are still better than machines.

Ironically, modern technology has helped us overcome many existential threats, whether it’s refrigeration to preserve food or clean water that prevents waterborne disease. But it’s also made us more insecure about our own significance and has caused about one-third of the population to feel some level of technophobia, or “abnormal fear or anxiety about the effects of advanced technology.” The level of dependence on technology is such that researchers have documented phenomena like “smartphone separation anxiety.”

Image via YouTube screenshot

As the news broke about Maria Sharapova’s doping admission, another headline announced a major accomplishment for artificial intelligence: Google’s AlphaGo went head to head against the human champion, Lee Sedol, in the complicated Chinese game of Go—and won resoundingly. The subtext: a machine might be able to beat humans at being human.

These attitudes towards technology are reflected in popular culture. Hit shows like the British-American series Humans convey contemporary anxieties about technology. Featuring “synths”—robots that are almost indistinguishable from humans—the show explores a fear that has been successfully mined by sci-fi writers for decades: When technology replicates our fundamental abilities, what does it mean to be human? Do we simply become the Wizard of Oz’s rusty Tin Man in search of a human heart?

[quote position="right" is_quote="true"]Perhaps we need to believe that, at least when it comes to sports, there’s a level playing field out there somewhere.[/quote]

In art, our core human characteristics—intangibles like altruism, love, empathy—have become symbolic of what it truly means to be human. Spielberg’s AI Artificial Intelligence, Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, Pixar’s Wall-E: These films endure because they explore what it means to have a human heart. And, maybe even more than our athletes’ impressive feats, we cherish them because they display heart (along with extraordinary willpower).

If athletes succumb to widespread usage of PEDs, our fundamental conception of ourselves as human becomes tarnished. Republican nominee Donald Trump loves to tell us that “the game” is rigged against us. So perhaps we need to believe that, at least when it comes to sports, there’s a level playing field out there somewhere.

via Honor Africans / Twitter

The problem with American Sign Language (ASL) is that over 500,000 people in the U.S. use it, but the country has over 330 million people.

So for those with hearing loss, the chances of coming into contact with someone who uses the language are rare. Especially outside of the deaf community.

Keep Reading Show less

Looking back, the year 1995 seems like such an innocent time. America was in the midst of its longest streak of peace and prosperity. September 11, 2001 was six years away, and the internet didn't seem like much more than a passing fad.

Twenty-four years ago, 18 million U.S. homes had modem-equipped computers, 7 million more than the year before. Most logged in through America Online where they got their email or communicated with random strangers in chat rooms.

According to a Pew Research study that year, only 32% of those who go online say they would miss it "a lot" if no longer available.

Imagine what those poll numbers would look like if the question was asked today.

RELATED: Bill and Melinda Gates had a surprising answer when asked about a 70 percent tax on the wealthiest Americans

"Few see online activities as essential to them, and no single online feature, with the exception of E-Mail, is used with any regularity," the Pew article said. "Consumers have yet to begin purchasing goods and services online, and there is little indication that online news features are changing traditional news consumption patterns."

"Late Night" host David Letterman had Microsoft founder and, at that time the richest man in the world, on his show for an interview in '95 to discuss the "the big new thing."

During the interview Letterman chided Gates about the usefulness of the new technology, comparing it to radio and tape recorders.

Gates seems excited by the internet because it will soon allow people to listen to a baseball game on their computer. To which Letterman smugly replies, "Does radio ring a bell?" to laughter from the crowd.

But Gates presses Letterman saying that the new technology allows you to listen to the game "whenever you want," to which Letterman responds, "Do tape recorders ring a bell?"

Gates then tells Letterman he can keep up with the latest in his favorite hobbies such as cigar smoking or race cars through the internet. Letterman shuts him down saying that he reads about his interests in magazines.

RELATED: Bill Gates has five books he thinks you should read this summer.

The discussion ends with the two laughing over meeting like-minded people in "troubled loner chat room on the internet."

The clip brings to mind a 1994 segment on "The Today Show" where host Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric have a similar discussion.

"What is internet anyway?" an exasperated Gumball asks. "What do you write to it like mail?"

"It's a computer billboard but it's nationwide and it's several universities all joined together and it's getting bigger and bigger all the time," a producer explains from off-stage.

Photo by Li-An Lim on Unsplash

The future generations will have to live on this Earth for years to come, and, not surprisingly, they're very concerned about the fate of our planet. We've seen a rise in youth activists, such as Greta Thunberg, who are raising awareness for climate change. A recent survey indicates that those efforts are working, as more and more Americans (especially young Americans) feel concerned about climate change.

A new CBS News poll found that 70% of Americans between 18 and 29 feel climate change is a crisis or a serious problem, while 58% of Americans over the age of 65 share those beliefs. Additionally, younger generations are more likely to feel like it's their personal responsibility to address climate change, as well as think that transitioning to 100% renewable energy is viable. Overall, 25% of Americans feel that climate change is a "crisis," and 35% feel it is a "serious problem." 10% of Americans said they think climate change is a minor problem, and 16% of Americans feel it is not a problem that worries them.

The poll found that concern for the environment isn't a partisan issue – or at least when it comes to younger generations. Two-thirds of Republicans under the age of 45 feel that addressing climate change is their duty, sentiments shared by only 38% of Republicans over the age of 45.

Keep Reading Show less
The Planet