Over at Science Progress, Art looks at some of the arguments against — and for — the use of performance-enhancing drugs in sports. Here’s a clip:
Professional wrestling has many fans in North America, Mexico, Asia and Europe. Its athletes can do impressive feats involving agility and strength. They are very strong certainly due to steroids. But no one seriously thinks that pro wrestling is a sportdespite having all the external accoutrements. It is a steroid-infused exhibition. [British bioethicist John] Harris might say well redefine the sportthere is nothing intrinsically sacrosanct about effort leading to performance. Except that there is. The definition of sport is human effort based on talent and training leading to performance. This is an activity that need not be preserved but if it is to be preservedand most baseball, track and cycling fans have an exquisite sensitivity to historythen drugs, huge shifts in equipment, and competing in venues that distort the value of effort, e.g., very high altitudes, wont work.
So at least in sports, if not on Wall Street or in the classroom, it is how the performance is achieved and not just the performance that is valued. That link between human effort and agency and output may be contingent. But it is surely definitive of what sport is.