Staying firm

It is amazing the difference a fully inflated tire has on the quality of the bike ride. Life is inheritantly arduous and we must navigate to the best of our ability; but why make life harder than it aIready is?
A bicycle ride on a solid, firm surface (like asphalt) tests our stamina and strength. When the tires are fully inflated that ride is made less difficult, even smooth at times. There is an abudance of instruction designed to keep our bikes in the best possible condition to provide the highest enjoyment. The easiest thing we can do to maintain the high quality of our bicycles is to ensure the tires are fully inflated. Under-inflated tires cause the bicycle to work against more friction as there is more tie in contact with the ground. What that means is we must work harder to propel ourselves forward on our journey. As a result we exhaust ourselves quicker and/or earlier and shorten our destination ending up not where we want to be. Something so simple as inflating our tires improves the quality of our ride dramatically; the difference is noticeable.
As with the bicycle, life comes with instructions (written or verbal counsel from the Lord or His servants). But the best instructions are worthless to us if we do not take the time to read and study them. To keep the friction with life to a minimum we must inflate our spiritual tires and keep them firm daily. Failure to do so can make life seem extremely difficult, almost as if we are fighting against everything. The days seem long and tiring. Our efforts seem futile as we struggle to go even partway on our journey. And we end up in a place we didn’t want to be.
I know it is the design of our Creator that life be enjoyable, that we learn and grow and be happy. I know that to do this we must be and maintain spiritually firm to provide the trials and friction points of life as few points of contact with us as possible. Yes, we will still struggle but the stronger the effort we put in the greater the happiness we will have. So why make the struggle any harder then it has to be. Best to maximize our strength with a fim soul, fully inflated on the Lord’s instructions, and teach our joyous destination with happiness and an appreciation for the ride.

Obstacles and Preparation

When riding along you have to wary of obstacles that can ruin your ride. But, if you spot the obstacle ahead of time you can steer around it. There is, however, one thing to remember about being on a bike; your front wheel may steer around it but you still have to worry about the wheel you cannot see, the rear one. I know that there have been times where I spotted a large rock, pothole, debris, etc., and swerved my front wheel in time to miss the obstacle only to forget that I needed to swerve larger to avoid my rear wheel from hitting the object of misfortune causing me experience … misfortune. Sometimes the misfortune would appear as a punctured tube, and anyone who has ever changed the tube out of a rear wheel while out for a ride knows what pain that is. Still, experienced cyclists know the value of carrying a patch kit with you, and a pump. Such preparations are nearly invaluable to cyclists and prevent minor accidents from becoming major catastrophes. Think about it. Have been on a bike ride where you ran over something, or hit a rock or something like that, and punctured the tube? Without a way to repair the problem yourself you are forced to either call someone to come pick you up–which can be rather embarrassing–or drag the bike all the way home–which is embarrassing and exhausting.

            The lesson I learned–after swerving to miss a nasty rock with my front wheel only to run over it with my rear–is the need to be ready for obstacles in our life. Satan comes after us with rocks and potholes and whatever else he can to ruin our lives. Sometimes we see the obstacles he places in our way, and successfully surpass, at least the first time. Now, philosophy and behavioral science will tell you once you’ve done something satisfactorily once, it’s likely to be easier the next time, but that is not always the case–as I’m sure anyone of us can attest to. No, even though we successfully overcame the obstacle the first time, that same obstacle can still present a danger to us if we drop our guard or puff ourselves up in pride believing ourselves immune to that tactic. And, for whatever reason, we run right into that obstacle that was defeated before causing us spiritual, emotional, possibly even physical pain. Still, if we are prepared, the sudden halting of our celestial progress will be brief. So, what is our spiritual patch kit? Reading the scriptures, meditating on those words and their meaning for our lives, is one very important tool much like a tire lever. Being familiar with the words of God given to His children through prophets will help us remember why we failed and identify where we are weak. Combine regular scripture feasting with daily communion with Heavenly Father we are able to patch our lives back up. Prayer is not only important to help prevent us from falling into hazardous situations, but remembering to pray for forgiveness–sincerely–and continuing to pray, for help to conquer new and old obstacles, and gratitude for the situation being within our limits (no matter how hard it may seem, you are able to handle it). Both prayer and scripture study, the patch and tire lever, are important to heal our lives and get us back on track to live with God in His kingdom.

However, if we are unprepared, ignorant about how to be prepared, or believing that we would never allow ourselves to be in such a situation, what could have been a minor interruption turns into a big deal. Best case scenario, we are unprepared to deal with the situation but we do know what will be required to fix the problem. Unpreparedness can result from skipping our prayers or not taking the time to truly ingest the scriptures. In such cases, we suffer internally, feeling guilty for committing such a stupid mistake and knowing what should have been done, The repentance process is much longer as we have to drag ourselves back to the true path from which we had let ourselves stray. Yet, if our problem is not knowing how to be prepared, we are in deeper trouble. Why? Because there is help almost everywhere. You just have to the courage to ask. Being a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I cannot claim I did not know how to prepare for the obstacles of life. If I regularly attend church services, and actively participate in learning, then there is no excuse for me to be unprepared; except that I may be hypocritical, acting one way at Church and another while not at Church. The consequences of such behavior are more impactful than the simply unprepared. When stopped by an obstacle in our hypocritical lives we are brought real low. We have to really humble ourselves, asking for help, admitting our failure to be true–to God, to ourselves, and to others. The journey home and the reparations are more difficult and may require help by one having authority and responsibility to help the children of God. For those of us in the last category of unpreparedness, prideful of our ability to prevent such situations, that it we would never fall to such temptation, have the hardest struggle of all. The impediment strikes us hardest. We find the obstacle surprising and are even more surprised when we fall on account of that obstacle. Forcibly humbled, we may have to rely on outside help just to get back to start let alone to repair the damage and get back on the trail. Nevertheless, it is always possible to repent and get back on the road to eternal happiness.

With life, like a bike ride, obstacles are sometimes unavoidable. Sometimes, but not always. Sometimes we can successfully navigate the pitfalls of life, the rocks the adversary throws in our path, if we are vigilant. But we cannot see or avoid all the trials in life, for the trials do make us stronger. With the proper preparations any obstacle can be just a minor annoyance. Preparations can even help us in the event of huge impediments to our lives. I know the importance of regularly praying, talking with Father in Heaven, even when I have hit a spiritual pothole forcing me to stop. I know how important it is to daily feast upon the words of Christ and how I feel when I “forget” or postpone such spiritual nourishment. When I neglect either of these vital yet simple measures I feel incomplete, like something is missing even when my days are full. Just like I try to never bike without a patch kit, I try to never let a day go by without praying or studying the scriptures. But, like a bike ride, sometimes you hit an obstacle, and sometimes you don’t.  DON’T. But if you do, be prepared.

The reason behind updating this blog.

I have been riding my bicycle for many years, sometimes I’m plugged into music, often I am not. But lately I have been thinking more about how much time I have to think without too much distraction while biking. It is amazing how much runs through your head when the mind is freed from concentrating on the task at hand. Not to say I don’t pay attention to what I am doing or where I am going, that would be suicidal because I travel predominantly in the streets as a commuter. What I mean is the mind is familiar with the movements the body needs to perform and regulates less focus to those parts. It is like when you take the same route home (for those of you driving) over and over again, the brain kind of memorizes the movement patterns sending the necessary signals to the necessary muscles at the necessary times. Sometimes, after you pull into your driveway or alongside your home, you realize your home, and you don’t really “remember” all the turns and stops that you normally take to get there. Yes, that is a bit scary, but fortunately our brains are still receiving information from our eyes (that is if your eyes are on the road like they should be) and will alert the body if anything not part of the routine happens. We sometimes call this “second nature.”

Well, for me, bicycling is second nature. I do it without much conscious thought. Because of that, my mind wanders and I start to think of many, many things. Recently, I have been thinking about something a great mentor often did. Art Meacham, Bro. Meacham to me, kept a bicycle journal to record inspirational thoughts that came to him as he was riding his bicycle (he rides for recreation). Brother Meacham was my Institute of Religion instructor at the Institute of Religion Fullerton (located across from Cal State Fullerton between Hope University and State College) and often joked about “favoring” students who used bicycle or bicycling examples in answering questions about the gospel of Jesus Christ. He occasionally would compare a gospel principle to a part on a bicycle. Anyways, after his retirement his lessons still stick with me, especially the bicycling metaphors. As a result I am creating my own “bicycle journal” to record the inspirational thoughts that come to me whilst bicycling. Since my mind is more open when bicycling than any other time (except sleep) then it makes sense for the Lord to help me understand His gospel at such times. I am receptive, I am like a new inner-tube waiting to be inflated with principles of truth.

The entries may not be as consistent as my previous philosophy ones from when I was in that class, but they will come. This is my way of recording the thoughts that come to me and if anyone else finds them useful, then I am doubly rewarded, for I am not doing this to be noticed by anyone, but to simply remind myself what I am learning. Thank you and happy trails.

Sports as the National Identity

As the semester rolls on, I have looked at many of the philosophical debates involved in the sports world, but each one of the aspects at which I investigated looked at sports as a whole, or at least without respect for national/political boundaries.  Yet, there remains the topic that ties sports to a specific nation, nations that identify themselves by the sports they play.  What makes this topic of interest to me is how we often label certain sports as belonging to a certain nation; what we generically call a “national past-time.”  Among my long, laborious readings I gained a better understanding of the role of sports in society.  Although there are many who debate whether sports should play any role in society, let alone an central role, I believe that the question that should be debated is why so many nations identify themselves or want to be identified by the sports they play?

One article read, though had much difficulty in understanding, was by William Morgan entitled “Sport in the Larger Scheme of Things.”  Overall, Morgan wanted to lay out how sports would be an integral part of an ideal society, but that some sports are more important, or better for society, than others.  The ones that Morgan believes should be most supported and encouraged are the sports that foster and develop traits that build and strengthen the society, whatever those may be.  Morgan’s article was filled with his attempt to describe the perfect community and how that perfect community should operate.  Briefly he mentions how sports should be regulated by this perfect community and how only some sports should be allowed so as not to take away from other essential elements of the community.  It is difficult for me to formulate an opinion based off Morgan’s article due to my own shortcomings in understanding the ideas he presented.  His proposals for an ideal society with ideal programs, to me, hinge on a principle not currently associated with politics; honesty.  It requires those in positions to effect change to be honest with those they represent as well as honest to themselves.  They must decide what is best for the community and not for their wallets.

Peter Arnold wrote an article which looks at sports as a fundamental part of a democratic nation.  This is similar to Morgan’s position in that it places sports as a key part of society, both of which tends to be democratic in nature.  For Arnold, sport is one half of education that is essential for a democratic nation.  Education must include learning the theoretical and the practical, and Arnold proposes that sport is an aspect of practical knowledge, the learning of skills that apply the theoretical, that cover what the theoretical can only

Sports can be used to teach important values that can positively affect a community, or nation.

suppose.  I find this definition of education very enlightening as it covers both aspects of learning that is essential for life, not just a democratic nation.  Although Arnold suggests that democracy is required for a liberating education I think it is possible that an education, in both the theoretical and the practical, can be liberating leading to a democratic reform.  The role sports can play in this revolutionary thinking can be found in the values taught in sports.  Learning a sport is more than just the movements necessary to play well, but also involves learning fair play, rules, strategy, etc.

A reason I believe that this education, the physical or practical, can lead to a change in national politics is part by what Morgan wrote about in another one of his articles entitled “Sports and the Making of National Identities: A Moral View.”  Morgan explains that many nations, whether former colonies or super powers, sports have come to be used as a way of identifying that a nation is independent and wanting to be accepted by the international community.  Countries that used to be colonies of dominating empires have taken the sports they were taught and the principles associated with it to make their situations better, generally.  Some people claim that the smaller countries, developing their identity, cannot claim sports like baseball, basketball, cricket, or rugby as their national sport because these sports are either of England or the United States and these smaller countries need to develop their indigenous sports as their national identities.  Morgan rebuffs this notion with the example of Japan taking up baseball, developing proficiency in the sport, and making it a part their own identity.

Like Morgan’s Japan example, I remember watching a video of Trobinidad natives playing their own version of cricket.  The west Indonesian island was a former British colony and when they conquered the land and people the British introduced cricket as a means of subverting their warring tendencies.  However, the natives did not like all the rules the British had for the game and started to develop their own rules for the game.  For the most part the body of the game remained the same; the major differences being how the players interact with each other before and after the game, as well as each time a batter or runner gets out.  Anyways, the “sophisticated” British didn’t quite understand this crude cricket game but to the natives it became the way they identified themselves as Trobinidadians, and not as British colonist.  As a large and powerful nation, America uses many sports to identify itself in the world.  The same can be said of England and other large countries.  We also tend to identify specific sports to specific countries; runners from Ghana or Nigeria, gymnasts from Russia or China, hockey from Canada, etc.

The question of why nations identify themselves by their sports, regardless of the origin of those sports, may be a difficult puzzle to solve.  Yet, I believe one reason is because sports tend to transcend boundaries, break language barriers, and connect people who otherwise have nothing else in common.  When speaking with someone of another tongue, and not being able to understand anything of each other, when a sport, say world football (soccer to Americans), is introduced, words are spoken and understood better as they associate with a gesture or movement that is familiar to both people.  Then, words become less important as the spirit of the sport envelopes those involved making intentions known and fostering a feeling of camaraderie.  It is a special moment when you can communicate with another person who speaks a foreign language and know that your communication is successful, and it comes about because of the universality of sport.  Who knows how many other reasons there are for this question but the fact remains, sports and national identity are linked together.

College Sports: Preparation for Life or for Pro Sports

Elite collegiate sports have been criticized and undermined frequently in current times; often to the point of some sports being removed from the schools.  The critics come from all sides; the media, the other professors, even the “student-athletes” themselves have cause to complain.  I agree that the focus of collegiate sports is to centered on winning and making money, for everyone but the athletes.  It appears to me that college sports are often seen as the stepping stone for professional sports, even if that is not the case.  But I can hardly be blamed for this perception since the media coverage and intensity of the games themselves provide adequate substance for my claims.

Prior to five days ago, I had two notions about college sports: 1) What does it matter if college sports are basically the minor leagues of professional sports; and 2) elite collegiate sports should have nothing to do with college campuses, especially if they are basically the minor leagues for professional sports.  Well, I have come to realize the error in this way of thinking, and the funny thing is that this is not a result of ignorance—since I believed myself educated in the matter of sports—but a matter of one-sided thinking.  I’d never thought of it from the athlete’s perspective nor with the true purpose of higher education in mind.  After a little bit of education, some of which was a little heavy handed in its opinions, I think more wholly on the issue.  I still feel that there is a problem with elite collegiate sports, but now the question boils down to the purpose of collegiate athletics: to prepare, educate students factual and physical knowledge that will aid them in their future endeavours in life; or to train and prepare them for the possibility of a professional career in sports.

Reading an article by Myles Brand, “The Role and Value of Intercollegiate Athletics,” I came to understand that the life of a “student-athlete” is not dissimilar from the student

Music students lead an educational career similar to that of student athletes.

studying any performing art (music, art, band, choral, etc.).  Both have grueling schedules that require hours of practicing their skill, showcasing their talent in front of an audience—which attendees often pay to attend—or competing against one another for top spots in their sections.  Both types of students often choose their schools based on the programs they want to enter into, and among both groups a transition into a professional career performing their talent is not the purpose of the majority of the students.  However, a stigma associated with student-athletes is that they don’t learn the history of the sport they play nor anything else except how to play and how to win.  This is compared to the music majors, for example, that have to learn the history behind the pieces they will sing, the impact these pieces have on society, the genre they belong to and how they are classified into such genres (just to name a few).

Brand suggested coaches actually be teachers, instructing such information about their sport to the students who want to play the sport.  Brand believes this will foster a deeper commitment to the love of the game and help curb the glutenous appetite for winning, especially at all costs.  I know such classes like the history of sports are offered, albeit not always required for Kinesiology majors, but like Brand suggests, making such classes required in order to play sports and making them accredited courses would do two things: 1) help student-athletes accumulate credits to help them graduate (and being of a subject they obviously have an interest in would increase the likelihood of them passing without any problems); and 2) would serve doubly for coaches in that they will have to be educated themselves and would warrant the exorbitant pay many college sport coaches already receive.  Brand was not the only philosopher to note the similarity in these two types of students.  Robert Simon in a chapter entitled “Sports on Campus: Intercollegiate Sports and Their Critics” made similar observations.  Yet, no one complains or champions the efforts of the students of the performance arts.

Simon expounds more on the purpose of institutions of higher learning and how athletics fit into that purpose.  For those the fear that college for the athlete is more difficult than actually being on the field underestimate the the values and skills that sports teach that can easily translate into making a greater student.  Critical thinking through self evaluation and concentration despite external pressures, even the ability to find creative solutions to their problems.  Simon was extensive in covering both sides of the issue and still come up with how sports can benefit universities and campus life.  Both Brand and Simon realize that college sports have been problematic in the past—and the present—but know that if intercollegiate sports are more integrated with academia, instead of being outcasts or shunned, many of these problems can be resolved.  The purpose of any college/university, despite what any mission statement may say, is to advance the knowledge of its students, to help them think critically about all sides of an issue, and to be better citizens and better people that can make the world a better place to live in. Sports can be beneficial in accomplishing these purposes, at the very least as helpful as the performing arts.

The student-athlete; he is a student first and foremost or is it all about athletics?

The rather over-use of the term “student-athlete” should be taken more literally and not be used to withhold benefits from the students who work hard to accomplish mastery of athletic ability.  The Atlanta Magazine article “The Shame of College Sports,” by Taylor Branch, takes a hard look at the abuse of this term and the people it harms.  Branch goes so far to say that student-athletes are basically slaves to their schools and the NCAA which governs collegiate sports through brutish tactics.  Yes, “student-athletes” can receive no compensation whatsoever for their efforts while the university (in particular the athletic department) and the NCAA receive all the benefits that would go to anyone else in a similar situation.  But to go as far as to call them slaves is a bit much for me.  Scapegoats, sacrificial lambs, those who receive all, or nearly all, the blame for when so many are involved in misdeeds, they are.  But, if the students who want to be athletes don’t want to suffer these indignities they should work hard at excelling in some other educational pursuit causing a rapid decline in the available beasts of burdens to exploit.

I know this may seem unfair for those in the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum, having less resources available to make a pursuit in something other than the most popular sports, but it can be done because it does happen.  Not every Black kid who graduates high school becomes a football player or basketball player.  These sports tend to have the highest proportion of Black athletes but that doesn’t mean that is all they can accomplish, it is just a statistic.  Branch’s article also mentions the purpose of universities and colleges but his opinion is how their purpose seems to be preparing athletes for major league sports as oppose to receiving a decent education and bettering the students who in turn better their community.  The point Branch seems to make is quite similar to both Brand and Simon in that colleges and universities need to re-evaluate the purpose for having sports a part of their campus identity.  Is their purpose to prostitute eager and willing athletes to bring “honor” and “prestige” to their name or is it to provide a well-rounded education to students who want to engage in competitive athletics.  Branch fears it is the former, and blames—in part—the NCAA for their role in treating “student-athletes” like pawns in their game to be manipulated however they like, in accordance to the wishes of the various schools.

So I ask the question: Why do institutions of higher learning have athletic programs?  Are they expecting students to voluntarily give up their liberties, to become mindless robots whose only goal is win and bring popularity to the school?  Do they attempt to educate athletes about how sports impact society, both positively and negatively, and how the lessons learned on the field can translate into the classroom and eventually to their future career?  Is it just a way to drain off excess energy of tense students?  The study of Kinesiology has had a tumultuous history.  It has had to overcome the stigma that anyone interested in physical skills, in sports or exercise, was a “jock,” essentially a walking talking over muscled ignoramus who couldn’t cut it as a professional athlete or a serious scholar. Sadly, the revealings of many “student-athletes” being able to pass their classes only by teachers forgiving grades, or other students taking tests for them, or worse yet grade alterations at the highest level; hurts much of the effort that has been taken to eliminate the “jock” stereotype.  We see this stereotype played out in movies, on television, littered throughout the media, even today.  As a student who loves sports, studies Kinesiology, but does not engage in sports at the intercollegiate level, it is difficult not to take offense.  But the students are not the only guilty party.  Branch colorfully demonstrated that student-athletes are mere puppets for their coaches, for the universities, for the NCAA, which clearly indicates there is plenty of blame to go around.

All three authors mention how America is the only country in the world, a world filled with many prestigious universities, that actually has sports as part of the school.  Everywhere else there are clubs that provide the proving ground for all those who want to be professional athletes.  They don’t tell their young men and women, “Hey, if you want to play  sports professionally someday then you have to go to an approved university to attempt an education you probably don’t want and might not even be able to obtain without tons of

Video games of college athletes brings the athlete $0.00 because NCAA says so.

help, oh and you won’t be compensated for any revenue you bring in if you prove successful or if you happen to be injured and unable to do anything the rest of your life.”  Only in America is this possible.  To make matters worse, not everyone who joins the college team does so with hopes of making it to the pros, but they still have to suffer as if they did.  What would it take to send both the professional leagues, the NCAA, the media (because they are just as culpable as the rest of them), and the universities themselves all to understand that college life is not about making money (because hardly any college student actually has any money), it is not about becoming famous, it is about learning, about “higher” learning.  What lesson do we want taught: life sucks, deal with it; or life is hard, make it better?

How can this be solved?  Removing the prestigious sports (football, basketball, baseball) from college campus may be harsh but it could be the wake-up call everyone needs.  Each of the authors admit that sports rarely contribute much income to the school.  Often they cost more money then they make.  But, maybe instead of cutting out sports completely, let’s make serious cuts to the spending on these sports or cover these costs by integrating academic classes with the sport, like history, societal impact, etc.  Rein back the pressure to beat the rivals, to demonstrate superiority, for athletics do not determine a school’s success.  Revive the spirit of fun in the games, of “friendly competition,” which would also make the schedule less hectic for the student who participates in athletics.  Encourage, or bully if necessary, the major leagues to create minor leagues for those who want to be professional athletes and back away from demanding participation in collegiate sports (supervised by the NCAA).  We know college is not for everyone.  Scholarships for athletic students are perfectly acceptable, as long as it is clear that they are excellent students who happen to be good at sports, and not excellent athletes who might not educationally merit college admission.

Why does the university want intercollegiate athletics?

I see the benefit of keeping intercollegiate sports when I notice all the different lessons taught by having teams.  Students who are studying athletic training, sports medicine, physical therapy  coaching techniques, strength and conditioning, and the list keeps going. These students benefit by having somewhere to put their book learning into practice.    Overall it all boils down to the purpose of intercollegiate sports: Is it to aid the student in preparing for life after school, or is it to bring fame and glory to the school while preparing the athlete for a professional career?

Women, Sports, & Equality

Since the formation of sports, there seems to have always been a segregation of men and women.  As for the reasons why it was so in the past, who can say for sure.  Maybe it was ignorance, lack of scientific discovery, or simply to mold men and women into specific gender roles.  But that is in the past, all the understanding in the world won’t help change what already took place.  So why bring it up?  Because there exist this same segregation today.  We certainly cannot claim ignorance due to the lack of scientific knowledge of the anatomy and physiology, because we understand the body a thousand times better than, say, the 1920’s.  Maybe it is the perpetuation of gender specific roles, as claimed by some.  Why does it matter, anyways?  Who cares if men and women compete in separate sports or if women compete at all in anything remotely athletic?  Everyone should be concerned with this problem.

The way we can know there is a problem, besides the occasional protester, is the Educational Amendment in 1972 and there is a section, Title IX, that deals specifically with gender segregation.  According to the Department of Labor’s website, the title states:

No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. <http://www.dol.gov/oasam/regs/statutes/titleix.htm#.ULLVUYfhodc>

First thing that should be noted is that this amendment deals with institutions of learning, schools, which leaves professional, club, and private sport organizations exempt.  Nevertheless, Title IX makes it clear that there exist a separation between men and women in sports.  Considering we, society, have evolved to ban slavery, treating everyone as humans and not as property.  Society is progressing in its attempt to treat women as equal citizens, but where it falls short is in the realm of sports.

Perhaps it is as Bruce Kidd suggests in his article “The Men’s Cultural Centre: Sports and the Dynamic of Women’s Oppression/ Men’s Regression.”  Kidd believes there are numerous reasons why women are discouraged from engaging in sports, but they all boil down to fear: fear that it would make women too masculine; fear it would deprive men of being aggressive; fear that it is a threat to male masculinity; fear of change.  All this could be true, but it could also be true of only a few men, stuck in their errant ways.  Despite the plethora of reasons behind the limitation of sports for women the question that should be addressed is whether or not women and men should participate in sports together?  Truly, it is a loaded question because if you answer yes then you run into problems and if you say no you run into problems.  So what is the answer?

I found Leslie Francis’s article “Title IX: Equality for Women’s Sports?” useful in forming my opinion.  Ultimately, Francis argues that there are sports and can be played with both sexes together, but there are a few sports that cannot be played fairly with the two sexes together, they must be segregated (men’s team and women’s team).  Those sports that cannot be played fairly if men and women were on the same team were called “vanity sports” and most often were designed to favor the biological traits inherit in men, such as football, basketball, and baseball.  For Francis, the debate centered on whether schools should even have “vanity sports” (which, if eliminated, could alleviate many problems schools face with carrying out Title IX).  I believe that women should be integrated with men in some sports, and the best place for this happen would be at school, especially high school and college/university.

A high school in Maryland, just 15 miles north of Washington D.C. have a co-ed volleyball team that demonstrates how schools can have successful sport programs where boys and girls can compete together instead of apart.

In some sports, women and men can compete together and has proven successful, like mixed doubles in tennis.  When then would it be a problem to do this with other sports that are more gender neutral in terms of its biological demands.  Growing up, my sister played soccer.  She was really good, and better than many boys her age and even some older.  This doesn’t mean she should play for the boys’ team, because of the physical contact that often occurs in the sport.  If she was slide tackled by a boy, a boy who could be twice her size, she would be seriously injured.  But, if my sister played volleyball instead of soccer, and she became so good she could out-play all of the girls, and even some of the boys, why she shouldn’t be allowed to compete with the boys.  Volleyball is not a sport where the contestants come in physical contact with one another, nor does it favor men’s physique.  It would be an excellent sport to have co-ed teams.

Jan Boxill in her article, “Title IX and Gender Equity,” argues a similar point.  She believes that as long as women sports are restricted in obtaining all the opportunities men sports have, then women who should play on men’s team.  Personally, I think that her argument applies to certain sports, for certainly not all would be acceptable.  But, she continues with an example,similar to the one I just used about my sister.  If a woman becomes so adept at her sport that she is far superior to any other female, in that sport, then in order for her to be challenged she should compete against, or with, males.  She paralleled this to a “cruiser weight” boxer who has defeated all in his class and seeks to challenge his ability against a heavy weight boxer.  Although I understand the point Boxill makes, this method should not be applied to all sports.

Women boxing women, that is fair. Women boxing men, not so fair.

There are female version of sports that are typically considered male, or masculine, sports.  Generally, these are the more physical, violent sports such as football, hockey, boxing (and other one on one fighting sports), basketball, and baseball (yes I know baseball is not really a violent sport but it does require physical contact of players).  I understand that there are women who compete in these sports, against other women, that have come close or have reached the peak level of skill.  But, because these sports are very physically oriented, women cannot compete fairly against men.  Yes, these women could most likely defeat many of the male opponents, but because of biology, a male will be physically superior in that sport.

Even if you ignored the biology, you still have to deal with the moral complications.  Not every male athlete is a complete jerk nor every female athlete the ultimate tough women.  There will be men who will refuse to compete against a woman because of moral standards.  It doesn’t have to be hitting, like what is require in football and boxing, but even accidental touching of the woman’s body, in particular the more distinguishing features that identify male and female, would be enough to cause a male athlete to hold back.  There are simply sports that men and women cannot compete in together.

This doesn’t mean that we can invent sports that can be co-ed, especially for schools.  Obviously, little kid soccer and tee-ball have progressed enough to include boys and girls, since at that age it is more about the spirit of fun and cooperation than winning.  For teenagers, flag football is an adequate sport to institutionalize as co-ed since there is no tackling which takes away the fear of injury or inappropriate touching.  Even Frisbee football can be played with men and women together.  There are a myriad of possibilities that are only as limited as the imagination.  If basketball can be invented to keep athletes busy during the winter season, certainly we can come up with something that gives males and females an equal challenge.

A great example of sports that can successfully integrate both males and females.

We are a smart species, seeking to bring about peace and harmony with each other.  We have already made attempts at equalizing humans, at treating everyone the same, it is about time sports evolves too, especially at places where education is the primary focus.  Places where we expect people to better themselves with knowledge and the implementation of that knowledge.

The Art of Sport

There is some controversy about whether sport can be properly described as an art.  Some, like David Best, believe that sport cannot be described as an art form.  He claims it can have aesthetic appearances but it will forever be separate from art.  On the other hand, there are people like J.M. Boxill who believe that sport can be an art form and that the critics who say otherwise are limiting their arguments to prove their point.  Where do I stand?  After some education in this matter, I agree with Boxill and her conclusion that sport can be an art form.  Boxill points out that the main arguments against sport being artistic are either incorrect or misused and demonstrates how.  Overall, “sport is the single most available means of self-expression for both men and women,” Boxill stated in her article “Beauty, Sport, and Gender,” and I agree.

One of the most popular arguments against sport as an art form is that the athlete is more concerned about his or her skill, or technical efficiency, than about whether they look good performing that movement, which they believe to be essential to art.  Right away, this argument is limiting how much skill an athlete possesses.  I say this because those athletes who are higher skilled than others worry less about the technical aspect of their movement, having mastered a high level of skill already, and start to alter their pattern to be more appealing, or distracting in the case of confusing an opponent.  Boxill calls this new technique the development of a personal style, or the athlete’s “signature.”  For example, basketball players who master the skills necessary to play the game efficiently

Artistry in motion.

start to add something more.  Maybe they attempt a “slam-dunk” or maybe a “sky-hook” but whatever the move is, the aim has moved past technical efficiency and more towards making their game more beautiful.

It is not unusual to hear of professional athletes developing a signature move in, perhaps, every sport.  In hockey, Wayne Gretzky came up with the from-behind-the-net pass while Alexander Ovechkin was famous for his open-ice slap shot.  For basketball, who can forget Kareem Abdul Jabar’s classic sky-hook or Michael Jordan’s fade-away shot. My personal favorite is the bicycle kick, the signature move of Pelé.  I have plenty of memories of kids trying to imitate that move, as well as the others.  Obviously, we couldn’t do it, we hadn’t mastered the technical skills of soccer or basketball and therefore didn’t have the ability to add an artistic move.  That is the what Boxill is getting at with this argument.  Up to a

Mastery over technical efficiency shifts the focus to developing artistic “signature” movements.

certain degree the athlete is focused on technical efficiency, as well he or she should be, but once that athlete has progressed as far as they can go in their technical efficiency then they start adding artistic maneuvers to accent or showcase their talent.  So the focus shifts from the technical to the artistic.

Still, the critics argue that sports cannot be like art because of the strong competitive drive to win that overshadows any focus on beauty.  This is one of those arguments that suggest the critics either misunderstand sport or are purposely misinterpreting sport to suit their argument.  Yes, the drive to win is a part of sport; to deny that is to be ignorant.  But it is also a part of every competition.  Not only that, but the aim to win is not the only motivation.  The “win at all costs” mentality is generally thought of as a frame of thought that should be avoided.  That is why there are such things as graceful losers; players or teams that accept their defeat because the game was played so well.  Coaches and athletes alike sometimes choose to lose in a well-played competition than to win with a lousy performance.  As Boxill puts it, “Where the well-played game is stressed, victory takes a back seat.  Where winning at all costs is stressed, the well-played game is secondary.”

To further illustrate her point, Boxill creates an example using college football.  She chooses to use UCLA and USC for her example.  The two teams are facing each other and the score is 21-18, UCLA leading.  USC is in possession of the ball on UCLA’s 35-yard-line and there is only 30 seconds left on the clock in the fourth quarter.  Basically, there are two options for USC: go for the tie with a field goal, or go for the win with a touchdown.  With this hypothetical situation, some coaches would take the tie to avoid the loss, while others would attempt to win even if they lose.  The point that Boxill is trying to make is that a well-played game is pleasing aesthetically and that is more preferred than winning at all cost.  This in no way detracts from the level of skill it takes to make these games possible.  On the contrary, it is often believed that the more aesthetic the movement the more skilled the athlete.

The third most popular argument against sport being artistic is that beauty is not the sole aim in any sporting event, even if it is one of the aims of the athlete.  This, in my view, seems like a waste of breath.  Of course beauty is not the sole aim of an athletic competition, nor is it the sole aim of an artist.  Even when someone says they created something just because they wanted something beautiful, if asked why the real reason for

Beauty does not have to be the sole aim in order for sports to be an art form.

the creation is given.  So why critics would use this argument to separate sport from art makes no sense to me.  Boxill agrees, albeit in a more technical manner.  She comments how even artists want to convey a message by appealing to our emotions.  Sports may have beautiful components but no one ever said that beauty has to be its sole aim in order to be considered an art form.  Boxill said it better by saying, “beauty is not the only aim in itself but also a means to achieve some other aim.”  In art, that other aim is often self-expression, and in sports it is victory.

Although Boxill’s article includes one more argument against paralleling art and sport, I actually agree with the argument to the extent that athletes make no conscious effort to make a statement about the human condition while engaged in sport.  Boxill’s counter-argument deals with sports and the rules that were created to represent the human condition.  To me, Boxill missed the main point of the argument which is that the athletes themselves make no conscious attempt to make a statement about the human condition.  By participating in sports whose rules were designed to reflect the human condition, in my opinion, the athletes are unconsciously making a statement by simply playing the game.  The argument would have less weight if it included ancient sports where the players and the game were often religious ceremonies as much, if not more so, as they were games.  Even in modern times, the only athlete coming close to making a conscious statement about the human condition would be Ron Artest who plays basketball for the NBA and in 2011 legally changed his name to Metta Worldpeace.  He said he wanted to unite children around the world, but his actions on the court do not reflect his beliefs nor his desire for world peace.

Nevertheless, I still agree with Boxill that sport can be considered a form of art.  Obviously, before an athlete can incorporate the aesthetic into their repertoire they must master the skills necessary for technical efficiency.  Once the athlete has master the technical his aim shifts to the artistic, to develop his signature.  At any level, however, sports is not only about winning.  Yes, winning is important, but it is not and should not be the sole focus of a sporting competition.  There are athletes and coaches who believe that it is more

Who can deny such movements as artistic and that the athlete’s intention was beauty.

important to have a well-played game even if they lose than to win with poor performance.  Also, just because sport doesn’t make beauty its primary purpose doesn’t exclude it from being an art form.  Even the arts themselves don’t make beauty priority number one.  Generally, there is some other message the artist wishes to convey.  Thus it is more like sport after all.  Finally, even though athletes make no conscious attempt to make a statement about the human condition in their athletics, doesn’t mean that the sport itself isn’t doing it for them.  Not every artist is trying to make a statement about the human condition with their art work.  Yes, some do, but some does not equate to all, nor is it a requirement of art.  Since it is not a requirement of art, sport can still be considered an art form without its athletes conforming to this description.

Let’s face it, sport is an art.  The athletes are renowned for their prowess, oftentimes world-renowned, like a painter for his paintings.  We have museums dedicated to celebrating sports and the different signatures are lauded and remembered, again similar to the way we display works of art considered most impressive.  Like art, the beauty comes after the individual obtains a certain level of skill.  How many times have we called a particular execution of skill beautiful?  Did the athlete intend to make his skill beautiful?  I’d say yes, especially more so today than the earlier days of sport.  Currently, with the advancement of technology, sports is available to nearly everyone everywhere.  Cameras attempt to capture every movement.  Why?  Because we demand it.  We think of sports as being, beside exhilarating, beautiful.  We marvel at how football players twist and turn, jump and dive, even intercept.  How soccer players float in the air as they wait for a ball to head, or better, bicycle kick.  Not to mention the flying basketball players and how they seem to defy the laws of physics with their artistic maneuvers. Can we deceive ourselves into thinking that such beauty was accidental or unintentional?  To do so belittles the superior skill of the athletes.  They work hard to perform at more than the best technical level, but also the most beautiful level they can accomplish and it is only right to call what they do art.

Sports, Winning at all Costs, and Performance Enhancements

Over the course of the past couple of months I have been learning about the nature of play, sports and games.  Recently, the topic of conduct in sports has been broached from various angles.  Whether it be how the athlete behaves while engaged in sports or how he prepares himself for competition, it all boils down to purpose.  What is the purpose for engaging in a sporting competition?  Is it fame, money, prestige, a way to prove your better than everyone else?  Could it be simply to play, have fun, exercise, blow off steam, build friendships?  While in the midst of the competition motives tend to be clearer for we base our opinions on how the athlete interacts with the other players and with the sport itself.  But, what about in training for the competition, or during the breaks while the game is going on, is motive as clear when no one is watching?

Some sports enthusiasts would claim that sports are best played by people of equal talent or skill.  That everyone should be on the same level, so to speak.  However, in the first chapter, “Sport, Drugs, and Society,” of his book (A History of Drug Use in Sport: 1876-1976: Beyond Good and Evil) Paul Dimeo explains that the notion of a level playing field is one that is relatively modern, as of the 1970’s.  What is more likely is that performance enhancements have been involved in sports since its youth.  If that is the case, should there be any ban of performance enhancers for players at all?  Should officials take a cue from history and try a hands off approach, to allow the players to use whatever they want to obtain the results they want?  Assuming Dimeo is right, that sports and ways to enhance performance do go hand in hand, I still claim that officials should make the effort to ban substances (whether they be supplements or technology) that provide the athletes with supposed superior abilities at their own risk of health.

Why?  It is not that sports needs to be restored to its former glory, for as Dimeo outlines there isn’t much to restore.  However, I believe that in each of the athletes, support teams, and spectators, the original spirit that sparked the creation of these games in the first place needs to be reestablished and nurtured.  Sports, it would seem, are too focused on winning at all costs, which means taking, using, inventing whatever technique that will give them the edge over competition so that they win.  Yes, I know this does not describe every athlete nor everyone who is remotely competitive, but it does seem to be the message that comes across from at least professional athletes.  If everyone involved in sports, either on the field or off, would focus more on having fun then sports would be more fun.  If the contest of skills focuses more on what can be obtained without any pharmaceutical or much (some are beneficial while others are too much) technological enhancements, sports would mean more; to the payers, coaches, even the spectators.

Dimeo clearly illustrates a sad relationship between sports, the limits of the body, and the limits of science.  Every time a new substance is found to improve a person’s performance above that which a person can obtain on their own (with rigorous training), sporting officials try to limit its use with tests.  Science intervenes and tries to come up–or keep up, in some cases–with ways around the tests or “better” products that are not tested.  Soon, those products are banned or limited so athletes and scientist again come up with ways around that limitation.  It is a vicious cycle that Dimeo outlines, and it is in need of being broken.  True, many supplements currently banned stem from beneficial medical research for the infirm and ailing.   I understand, in part thanks to Rodger Gardner and his essay “On Performance-Enhancing Substances and the Unfair Advantage Argument,” that many of these substances are not “evil” in and of themselves, for they actually do a lot of good for those in need.  The harm comes from addictions, using more than what is medically appropriate, from greed, where a healthy person sees the benefit it gives the weak and supposes it should make him even better, from the desire to win at all cost.

Gardner makes a compelling case when he illustrates how difficult it is to maintain the position that using such substances constitutes an unfair advantage when the officials fail to delineate clearly between acceptable and unacceptable performance enhancers.  Advantages are gained in a variety of ways.  It could be natural genetic endowment or simply trying a new technique.  Gardner says such advantages are categorized as fair and are generally accepted by the public.  What is unfair is someone who tries to compensate for or boost their own limitations with pharmaceutical or technological help.  Examples of

Having been taught the split-finger technique, Sutter perfected it making his fastballs almost impossible to hit during the 1970’s when he was with the Chicago Cubs.

both are readily available, especially in baseball.  Gardner uses two accounts of baseball pitchers who develop a new pitch that drops before reaching the batter.  One pitcher, Bruce Sutter, accomplished this by splitting his fingers and placing them on the seams of the ball.  The other, Gaylord Perry, around the same time as Sutter, accomplished his feat by applying some kind of lubricant; in other words, a spit-ball.  Although Gardner claims it is the method in obtaining the advantage that categorizes whether it is fair, which is sensible and measurable, I believe motive plays a role as well.

Pitchers often have a repertoire of pitches to prevent hitters from knowing which pitch they will throw.  That is logical.  I would argue that Sutter wanted to be a better pitcher, improve his own skill by learning and adapting a new way of throwing a fastball.  Much to the excitement of his team and the fans, this technique worked for him.  He didn’t need any exogenic or endogenic aids to help him accomplish this feat.  Perry, on the other hand, was less concerned about improving his pitching skills, then about striking out the batters. Ironic, I know, but that what it seemed like.  He was caught on multiple occasions for applying some kind of lubricant to the balls to increase their speed by decreasing their friction as they fly through the air.  He admitted that his favorite pitch was when he would load up on rosin so that when he threw the ball and white puff of smoke would come off it.  His purpose was to confuse and irritate the batters.  He wasn’t interested in bettering himself or the sport.  Maybe he doubted his skill, but whatever the reason, he felt he needed to use something to “enhance” his performance.  Still, the question remains, what about those that use steroids (for example) to improve their skills?  Surely that is in keeping with the spirit of the sport?

Again, I would call into question the motives behind taking the steroids.  Dimeo has helped me understand that the depressing relationship of drugs and athletes are so intertwined it is difficult to discriminate one from the other.  What I am saying is so many athletes are already taking steroids (for example) that those who are entering the sport believe they have to too, just to keep up.  It is unintelligent to argue that steroids are bad.  In general, steroids are good, especially the ones the body naturally produces to keep us running in prime condition.  Like many other substances, steroids was originally used to help those with a physically deteriorated condition.  And like other substances, it too was adopted for athletes to enhance their natural ability.  It wasn’t like steroids instantly gave the user huge muscles and strength.  Steroids don’t work like that.  It help foster muscle growth by decreasing recovery time after a workout, among other things.  This allows the user to train even more, even harder.  Training isn’t considered a performance enhancers, and steroids are helping the user train harder.  So, if everything was peachy keen, then why is there still this lingering doubt that there is something wrong with steroids.  It could be the side-effects, but those are all reversible when steroids are no longer taken.  One problem is overdosing,but too much of anything will kill you.  Still, the average steroid user intakes, according to Dimeo, “significantly higher and riskier doses.”

For me the doubt stems from why performance enhancers are used in the first place.  It could be because athletes (or competitors) believe that such methods are the only ones that produce the results they want.  Why do they want to be the biggest, fastest, strongest?  To be the richest, most famous, most lauded person around; to be better than everyone else.  And in order to accomplish this goal, they need to surpass what the body is capable of doing on its own.  I cannot help but wonder what the body’s true potential really is.  It is hard to tell when it is pumped full of substances–human, animal, or synthetic–that attempt to improve the body.  Not counting a healthy, balanced diet and rigorous training, everything else is a cover-up, a quick fix.  It is like using the option of last resort, as the option of first resort.  The rumor is that the next step is genetic manipulation, enhancing abilities on a cellular level.  And why shouldn’t athletes be allowed to take advantage of something the public already does.  Students take pills to help them study, businessmen and women resort to energy drinks to stay awake at work or work longer, even the military permit the use of stimulants for their soldiers.  If everyone else seems to be okay with performance enhancers–the military often being the testing ground for new “enhancers,” reports Dimeo–why not remove the restriction placed on athletes.  Why should they be treated any different from the rest of the world?

I can only speculate as to why there are differences between the world of sports and life outside of sports.  But I do know sporting games were not created as means of testing scientific prowess with the best performance enhancer, pharmaceutical or technological.  Sports provided us a way to have friendly competitions, test our physical prowess, and to do so in an organized manner.  Someone once told me that sports used to be about a guy (or a team) and his coach, and sometimes there were no coaches.  Nowadays, though, you have the athlete (or athletes) and a whole team of professionals to ensure he stays in peak condition.  When did sports, when did life, become all about winning at all costs?  D. Stanley Eitzen wrote “The Dark Side of Competition,” which I commented about two blogs ago, and proposed doing away with competitive sports in schools, among other things.  It was said that it is not feasible to eliminate competition from our society because it is ingrained in almost everything we do.  I agree that as a society we are overly concerned with being “on top” and that leads many to make poor choices.  But, enabling athletes the use of performance enhancers does not improve sports.  As many of put it, athletes would just find another way to unfairly gain an advantage.

The first man to sail over the high jump backwards, Dick Fosbury became the best at his sport through practice, determination, and ingenuity. He did not need to take any substance to make him run faster or jump higher, he did it all on his own.

I think more people, especially athletes who inadvertently inspire so many, should approach their limitations like Dick Fosbury.  As a high-schooler, he failed many times to make the high jump, doing it by all known methods.  Using an older method he started accomplishing more and more jumps.  Before finishing high-school he had improved his method of jumping so much that he was not only clearing the bar, he was clearing records.  By the time of his collegiate career he perfected his backward “flop” over the high jump.  Many teased him for his unorthodox method of jumping.  Even his approach was different from the typical high jumper, for as the bar became higher he would jump further and further from the bar to accomplish the height he needed.  His skill propelled him ahead of everyone else and landed him on the US Olympic team for the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City.  There, his “flop” as it was called, became known to the world.  Not only did he clear each and every jump to the finals, he cleared them on the first try.  The next competitor, fellow American Ed Caruthers cleared the final jump on his second try, with the more common “scissor” technique.  The Soviets placed third failing to clear the bar in finals.  But Fosbury wasn’t done yet.  The bar was raised one more time, to height previously unachieved, and he cleared it on his third attempt with the now famous–and standard–Fosbury Flop.

I tell this story because it is an example of someone who knew he had limitations but also knew he was a good high jumper.  He became the best high jumper because he developed a technique that allowed him to clear the bar.  It was different but well within the rules that stipulated how to jump up and clear the bar in whatever manner you can.  He didn’t to take anything, he certainly didn’t have any technological help, but he clearly demonstrated what the human body is capable of doing.  Today, his “flop” is the standard way of clearing the bar in all high jump events.  It is even named after him.  Such is an example of maximizing your potential both physically and mentally, without exogenic or endogenic aids.  If you are unable to do your best without use of some kind of aid, maybe you should switch sports.

Performance Enhancements: Steroids, etc.

I have been doing much talking of sportsmanship, fair play, even competitive feelings so it shouldn’t come as a complete surprise that I now discuss performance enhancement techniques, in particular the use of us steroids.  Unlike the previous topics, I have no experience dealing with this issue.  Nevertheless, it is a pervasive issue that is ever so present in sporting competition nowadays.  Before reading a couple of articles about steroids, I had an over-simplistic stance; don’t use them.  However, I have come to understand there are medical reasons for taking them, and when it comes to taking them to make yourself better than everyone else at your sport my view hasn’t changed but I have come to understand the position of why many think it should be more widespread and acceptable.

The point I intend to make here may appear naive or idealistic, but it is my opinion.  Using steroids, when you are perfectly healthy to begin with, should be banned and the enforcement of the policy stronger.  I will mention the arguments of those who believe there is nothing wrong with wanting to wanting to better yourself chemically, technologically.  I admit that my position is primarily a morally one, as I strive to live my life by my moral convictions, but I will not base my entire opinion on morals.  With help from the article “Drugs, Genes, and Enhancing Performance in Sport” by Robert Simon, I will infuse some rational, logical arguments as well.

Vials of HCG (Human chorionic gonadotropin), and Bacteriostatic water, left, 2 vials of Stanozolo, center, and testosterone (cypionate: enanthate: propionate) right, are displayed with white clompiphenene and green anastrozole pills

Reading Simon’s article, I was exposed for the first time to arguments supporting the use of performance enhancing drugs.  I think my previously uneducated negative stance about such aids was a result of the label “drugs.”  Hearing the use of the word “drugs” I would automatically think ” drugs bad” and refuse to learn or listen to anything more about it.  But that was then.  Now that I have grown and I am more educated, I know it is important to understand all points of view even if you already have your opinion.  So, studying this new topic, performance enhancement, I have learned that there is more than just “drugs” that are considered as methods of performance enhancement.  This is important because it is one of the causes that supporters of steroids rally behind.  If sports uses the latest technological tools for an athlete to use, then how are steroids any different.  There is also the argument that techniques like “blood doping” and special diets are constantly used as well and so should steroids.  The problem each side finds themselves in is that for every argument they make for their side, the opposition finds a counter argument against it.

Why might that be?  I think it is because this issue is heavily based in ethics and morals.  Take, for example, the argument that steroids are no worse than injecting yourself with your own blood to increase the amount of oxygen contained therein.  Some view this as the same thing.  One is using your own blood while the other is a synthesized byproduct of testosterone, a hormone naturally found in the body and a major contributor to strength increase.  The problem with using blood doping as a comparison is that it too, like steroids, are currently prohibited from use.  You run into the same problem when you compare steroids and high-tech swimsuits.  The “shark suits” were used in the 2008 Summer Olympics and even leading up to the swimming events there was much controversy.  Despite the records that were shattered and set in those Olympics, shortly thereafter they were banned from elite competition.  Sure there are other techniques that were adopted into the wide world of sports like steel golf clubs and lowered pitcher mounds, but it is accepted these proved to make the sport better and more fair.

One argument in particular is perhaps the most blurry.  Everyone can agree that sports is about displaying the athletes natural talent honed to near perfection through rigorous training.  There are those that argue that this should be an “all natural” process, but, as Simon points out, that is a very vague description.  Steroids are derived from testosterone which found “naturally” in the body.  Also, there is the argument that steroids don’t magically give the user superpowers, it requires hard-work and training, and steroids speed up the amount time it takes for the muscles to heal decreasing the amount of down-time between workouts producing a more effective work-out thereby making a stronger athlete.  When worded like that it seems like steroids are like aspirin that relieves a headache or an antihistamine that clears up the effects of allergies.  It seems less like an enhancement any more than thermal underwear in cold weather.  That is unless you’re secretly wearing thermal underwear while everyone else is wearing normal underwear.  That’s right, you get the benefit of staying warm while the others have to deal with the weather the hard way.

It is arguably the most expressive way of demonstrating the win at all costs mentality, using steroids.

According to Simon, this is a major contributing factor as to why steroids, and other performance enhancements, are prohibited from competitions; they are selfish and thereby unethical.  The players that resort to steroids do so gain an unfair advantage over their competitors.  If steroids were widely accepted and everyone used them then the point of using them disappears.  Players no longer have the advantage as everyone would be on equal footing.  Such is the theory with the Tour de France.  The outcry is mostly from the spectators, as top competitors are accused with blood doping or using steroids.  The other cyclist aren’t concerned with these accusations, being that they all are guilty of these offenses.  The cyclists are more upset that their fellow competitors are denying their use so vehemently.  With the rampant use of performance enhancement aids they actually become less performance enhancing as everyone is once again on the same playing field.  So, then, what is the point in taking these aids if everyone is taking them.  They might as well not take the aids, the result is same, unless all you are concerned with are records, but even then you are being selfish.

Despite claims that it is no less natural than strange diets, no worse than technological

Just say no to drugs.

equipment, and a method of improving an athlete’s ability, the use of performance enhancement aids like steroids there is no denying that athletes are trying to gain an unfair advantage over everyone else.  Even if you ignore the possibly health risks, the sense of accountability that everyone should have, and the limited availability of the aids, if they are trying to out-perform their competitors at all costs they have lost the vision of the purpose of playing sports.  Not only is it unethical, to me, it is morally wrong to take any means necessary to win.

Competition: More harm than good?

Moving along the lines of sportsmanship is the discussion about competition.  I’ll be honest, I have been on the proverbial fence about this topic.  Having grown up in a large family, many of whom were athletically gifted, I learned early on the pervasiveness of competition.  I knew around the age of young adulthood that competition was one of the main reasons that kept me from participating in sports.  I felt that the competitive attitudes of the players were too aggressive.  I guess, even then, I knew sports should be centered around play with a, as Suits would say, “mutual quest for excellence.”  Regardless of my feelings of many sports being too aggressively competitive, I thought competition was still important.  As a matured, those thoughts became contradictory and confusing.  How can something that often inspires the worst in people be necessary for society?

Well, recently I have read some articles that have shed some light on the topic, for me.  It turns out my confusion comes from my understanding of the role of competition not only in sports but in society as a whole.  An article by D. Stanley Eitzen, “The Dark Side of Competition,” helped me clear up some of my confusion.  Competition is not the same as motivation, they are not synonymous, but I had been using them like they were.  Competition does motivate us to achieve our goal but the benefits of competition are far outweighed by its negative consequences.  In the end, Eitzen suggests a reduction of competition in such places as where it is most destructive offering the reward of individualistic achievement as a better solution.  I intend to discuss how competition has affected my life, how competition is dissolving other lives, and I will conclude with why competition needs to be reformed and a few tips on that can be accomplished.

At this age, the kids are more interested in kicking the ball than winning the game. It isn’t until they are taught that winning is more important that sports become less fun.

As a child, playing soccer for some youth league, I learned there was more competitive nature among my coaches, or the other teams’ coaches, then there was among us kids.  When my dad was my coach for a season, I learned how competitive he was, and it was frightening.  I contrast those experiences, which were not all that fun to begin with (how can anyone have fun with some crazy adult yelling at them from the sidelines), with the times I would play a game of soccer at recess.  Sure, we kept score, but no one really cared about that during the game.  We were having fun, enjoying the freedom of not being cooped in a classroom, and the freedom of having some crazy adult yelling at you to change the way you play.  It was fun!  The competitiveness entered in, for the most part, after the game.  Someone had kept score and used that score to prove their superiority. But, for the most part, we understood that it was only in soccer, and by the next day we would have generally forgotten anyways.  Eitzen mentions that competitiveness is ingrained in us as early as when we were infants and that is because of the competitive nature in society.   Many people tend to believe they have to be better than someone else at something to feel successful.  They make life a competition, and by default, pass such notions on to their children.

Eitzen, isolating the overly competitive drive to America because of its capitalistic economy, uses the example of the all American recreation of Cub Scouts and the Pinewood Derby as an example of exposing children to the zero-sum situation of

This was one of my cars from my Cub Scout years, as well as a space ship that was also made of wood, albeit hollow, and was just another competition to that truthfully had little to do with skill meaning it was more about fun than who can twist the rubber-band enough times to make their ship fly down the line faster. It was more of a science lesson than a serious competition.

competition.  Being a Cub Scout and having participated in many Pinewood Derbies (plus I had two older brothers go before me and my parents were often the den mother and troop leader) I can say, at least for the younger boys, winning is only half as important to them compared to their parents.  For them, the primary concern is, “Does my car look cool?”  That was one of the greatest things about the derbies, we could bring in the cars our parents helped us make (or did completely for us in some cases, but is neither here nor there) and show it to our friends.  We would compare them to one another and admire one another’s design.  Yes, we wanted the fastest car too, but we were there to have fun.  The prize was a ribbon, and everyone got a ribbon just for participating, so it was not a big deal.  When the prize became a trophy, and as we got older, the competitiveness became much more prevalent in these events, but was still outmatched by the parents, especially the fathers.  So, maybe the Pinewood Derby isn’t the best example to use, but it certainly outlines the parents competitiveness which they, either directly or indirectly, instill in their offspring.  It is such a problem that the rules and regulations outlined for the derby have to be enforced by non-troop officials.  Things like weight and material used are inspected carefully before each car is allowed to be entered in.  It’s when cheaters are caught that the fun stops, for that cub scout.

Fortunately, Cub Scouts is less competitive than Eitzen makes it seem, but in no way is his point diminished.  Contests held by elementary schools single out one child to raise above his or her peers.  No where is it worse than in spelling bees.  Having little to no experience in that realm I bring up perhaps the second most competitive event every school goes through; the science fair.  Do you remember some of the projects you submitted?  Perhaps, at the lower level, where everyone is growing a lima bean in cup of dirt, the competition is minimal.  Again, here everyone gets a ribbon, whether you placed or not, but as you get older you understand just a little bit more of that drive to match or out match your peers.  In fifth or sixth grade, I sought to at least place, to “prove” myself against my peers.  Partnering up with my best friend we put our heads together and came up with some experiment that we thought could be a winner.  I don’t remember all the details of the experiment (although I could probably find it if I had a day or so to go digging for it) but it had to do with carrot peels in sweet water and salty water.  Needless to say, it wasn’t ground breaking, nor did we win any award, so naturally we felt inadequate about ourselves and our abilities.  Other contests encourage the same results, whether it be who can sell the most candies, or gift wrap, in the class or who can jump rope the longest in the whole school, or who is the most athletic in the entire district, such activities place pressure on children professionals can barely withstand.  When the parent buys all the candies so their kid can “win,” what does that teach the kid?

Competition is the trigger for the “win at all cost” mentality pervasive in our country.  Such mentality was another of Eitzen’s negative consequences.  Truthfully, most of his negative consequences were subdivisions of one main point, competition creates more harm than its potential to be beneficial.  The feeling of being a “loser” simply because you didn’t place first is detrimental to impressionable youth.  Replacing moral values with the singular purpose to always win, “no matter what,” is a recipe for disaster, and not just for the individual, but for all society.  What happens to people like this, people who do whatever it takes to be the best?  They tend to be the high school or college student who turns to drugs, at first as a “study aid” but quickly becomes an addiction.  They tend to be the athlete, or coach, who decides to use steroids to be bigger, stronger, faster, or to purposely violate the rules of the game just to gain the advantage (and the purposeful violation may not be trivial, it could be to injury another player).  You can see where I am going with this.  But what happens to these people if they place second, or are just the behind the best?  What do they do?  Eitzen used the extreme example of a runner who ran off a bridge.  Second place might as well be last place to them.  I remember when I was kid, and I still here nowadays, a little limerick that we recited.  I’m paraphrasing here, but went something like this; “First the best, second is next, third the turd.”  Soon, we came up with all sorts of similar rhymes to justify our position as the best.  Eventually, first was no longer good enough; “Zero the hero, first the worst, second is next, and third the turd.”  Poor third place, never got any love.

When all you think about, strive for, is being better than those around you, you lose track of an element just as essential as competition; cooperation.  Parents want children to “get along” with one another so they often invent games to encourage such behavior.  We live in a society that some people claim is ruled by the “almighty dollar” and peopled with subjects who will do anything to get paid.  With such an attitude rampant among our society, children are expected to behave likewise in order to gain any advantage in life.  High school sports have become so tied to the school’s identity that supervisory boards are willing to cut any program that does not contribute to creating better athletes, with the ironic exception of physical education.  Arts, science, music, even cursive handwriting are forced to take cuts before sports teams, especially if those teams are successfully defeating other schools.  Eitzen talked about high school rivalries and how they are another symptom of the sickness caused by overly competitive administrators and students.

What can be done to “cure” this sickness?  Well, there is no vaccine or magic pill that will make everyone be less competitive, but there are some things we should do to minimize the danger competition poses.  For far too long competition has been associated with destroying opposition, sometimes by any means necessary.  Also, since there is too much fear in finishing anything but first, many contests can be against an ideal standard as oppose to one another, suggest Eitzen.  Another one of his suggestions is to eliminate sports in schools, and I’m assuming he means high school and below.  I have mixed feelings about this suggestion.  On one hand, eliminating sports at school helps eliminate the segregational tendencies of athletes to associate only with other athletes and the feeling of superiority they tend to project over their classmates.  Also, this will force teachers to hold all students to the same standards and not make exceptions for athletes who must maintain a certain GPA.  In the case of teachers who do uphold the position of one standard for all students (exceptions can be made for the developmentally or physically challenged) but feel pressure coming from coaches, principal or vice principal to make such exceptions for those students.  Similarly, it allows the students to focus on academic pursuits that otherwise they wouldn’t have time for.  It would help the budget crisis with many high schools and middle schools if there wasn’t multiple sport teams needing support.  Physical education teachers would have more motivation to teach students about the importance of being active instead of letting the students have free-time to play whatever games they want.  This may be conjecture on my part, for I cannot predict the outcome if team sports were dropped from schools, but I believe this is entirely plausible.

The only misgiving I have about such a proposition is the eliminations of athletic scholarships for colleges and universities.  For some teens, that is the only way they can escape their meager circumstances.  Now I know athletic scholarships are not the only ones offered, and scholarships are not the only way to receive money for advancing their education, so the more I think about it the misgiving shrinks to almost nothing.  Will this automatically fix our society’s problem with competition, but it is a start.  Eitzen recommends replacing the way we reward people for their accomplishments. Instead of forcing people, children in particular, of competing against each other, resulting in one winner and many losers, we can reward them according to their accomplishment of excellence.  Take the science fair for example.  If we award one project for ingenuity, another can be notorized for the success of the project, and so on, then the emphasis is less on trying to beat the other students but to be their best to merit an award.  Again, I know this is not a “cure” for students will still try to compare their accomplishments to one another, but I am not advocating for the elimination of competition.  It is a natural component of sport, but so is cooperation.  I wish I could end with a morally uplifting personal story similar to Eitzen’s tale of the three athletes in the Special Olympics, where one fell down and the other two stopped, picked him up, and ran together to the finish line holding hands.  Such a story is the epitome of sportsmanship and cooperation.  Alas, I have no such memory, so I shall use an example from the popular Pixar film “Cars.”

The main character, Lightning McQueen, was at first a severely competitive racecar but over time learned to enjoy the ride and worry less about the finish line.  The day comes when he must compete in the biggest race of nation.  Having learned a few tricks to help him out, but it eventually comes down to three cars; the reining champ, the”villain” who is willing to win “at all costs,” and the “hero” McQueen.  On the last lap the villain purposely “fouls” the reining champ, causing him to crash spectacularly.  This put McQueen in the lead on in the perfect position to win.  So what did he do?  As if you don’t already know, he slammed on his brakes mere inches from the finish line, allowing the “villain” to zoom pass him and win.  McQueen then throws himself into reverse to go and help the crashed car finish the race.  By pushing him across the finish line, he forced himself to come in third, but in no way was he turd for doing so.  This time, first was really the worst.  Although the “villain” won, given his trophy, no one celebrated him.  Instead, everyone saw McQueen as the true victor for helping out the reining champ (who was retiring after that race).  It was his demonstration of cooperation, of knowing that there is more to sport than winning, especially winning at all cost, that made him everyone’s favorite, in essence, the hero.  Like Eitzen’s example, it is extreme–and unlike Eitzen, imaginary–but serves to illustrate the value of cooperation, and in Eitzen’s story how natural it should be.  If we work harder at working together, maybe we can recapture the play spirit of sport and possibly influence society.

Pixar’s Cars; Final Lap