Technology and Sports

Technology plays a pivotal role in the sports we play today. From the training to the equipment, from the advertising to the refereeing, technology has changed the face of the almost all the games played today. Some changes have been for the better and yet other changes are debatable. However, it must be agreed upon one thing that change is good. Without technology, things would've remained the same as they were during the time of the invention of the game and one of the laws of human nature is that something that is constant is never exciting because it is always expected. Advancements in technology have led to more athletes becoming interested in the game, games being played in a better environment and with athletes having access to better training equipment, it has led to better performances and more interesting games being played. Referees have better technology to ensure that lesser number of incorrect calls are made. At the same time, adavancement in technology has led to more commercialization of the game, causing stress on athletes and an atmosphere of consumer culturebecause of the magnitude of advertisements shown. With every new technology, there will always be ups and downs. It is only by wieghing the pros against the cons in the practical world that a technology can be defined to be good or bad. Hence we must decide what is for keeps and what must be rejected and also to have an open mind about everything.

The advertising industry is a major player as far as sports are concerned. Televised versions of the game have most big companies sponsoring the event and hence, during the game or event, the maximum number of ads are of that company. I found it unbelievable when someone told me that during the superbowl, a 10 second ad costs about a million dollars. Commercials during the game aren't the only form of advertisement. In some sports, there are advertisements on players' clothing, their personal articles (like water bottles, bags) and even their sports equipment. The better a player performs, the more endorsements he gets. With such kind of money involved, it is easy to get distracted. If a player performs badly, he stops getting offers from companies and it keeps playing on their minds. An athlete has to be careful not only on the field, but also off the field because each of his actions are given the spotlight by the media and if a person makes one small mistake, even that is given so much hype that leading a normal life becomes a struggle. Besides, even a small mistake stays on record and the media makes sure of that. This mistake might also lead to an athlete's contract being cancelled. The pressure and responsibilties on a player are tremendous because of this. This is one aspect of technology in sports in which the only gainers are the television channel broadcasting the game, companies which advertise their products and the advertising firms. Perhaps there is a better way of handling the whole advertising issue. Perhaps if a company made a contract with the team as a whole no matter whether they won or lost, maybe it would be different.

The use of specialized clubs made of lightweight material is similar to the discussion of the FastSkin swimsuit. As mentioned by Young-Jun, if clubs made with new technology can mask the ability of a player, then it just becomes a competition of clubs. This fact however applies to al sports. The use of technology has always been to help man and make his tasks easier. However. when it comes to a competition, the aim is to reward the best person who can play that sport. I stress again on the word reward because in games like golf, the stakes are very high with each tournament winner receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars. When such kind of money is involved, there will definately be some unscrupulous people who will use technology to cover up their lack in skills just to have a chance at winning that money. Then again, victory cannot be attributed to only technology. While it would aid any athlete, it cannot be said that technology is the only thing that matters between a win and a loss. For example, if we take the F-1 racing cars, we can understand that its the skill of the driver combined with the technology that makes the difference. Almost each car has a similar engine layout and hence technology plays a lesser role than the skill of the driver in handling that technology. Driving at 250 mph, one wrong turn or even a turn of the wheel by 1 centimetre extra could land the driver in hospital or even dead. Hence the topic about technology undermining player skills is debatable when considered with different kinds of sports. However, it is still a concern and should be dealt with by the respective head organzitions of each sport.

New and better designs for a sports equipment are inevitable in any sport, and must be embraced in some way or another because they become part of the game. However, this is unfair to previous record holders because they cannot fairly compete with the modern players. In golf, the clubs are designed to improve driving distance and putting length. New titanium golf balls are also designed, but not used in the professional level. These improvements will make existing golf courses obsolete, because they are not long enough. However, as Froes points out in his article, this affects the game significantly.
In a broader context, equipment improvement is bound to be unfair, because it will break previous hard-earned records by compensating player skill. For instance, the javelin throw world record was reduced by twenty meters when the Olympic comittee placed a material restriction on the javelin construction. In the Olympics, where world records are pursued religiously, this is a significant shock, because it undermines the athlete by placing more value on the equipment he or she uses.

Fantasy sports are an interesting concept. They are akin to gambling, with some level of educated guessing to guide players. It is a very profitable business; each year, over fifteen million Americans love to guess and win in games offered by companies such as CBS SportsLine's Fantasy Football. "People love demonstrating their knowledge of football, even arguing about it,'' says SportsLine CEO Michael Levy. "There's not a better way than by owning a fantasy team.'' (1) However, some people are so addicted to this sense of winning, to a level comparable to addictive gamblers. They are obsessed with the blind belief that they can run a better baseball team than the managers. They live almost as recluses, trying to "fear women and put a price on a man's head," Says Sports Illustrated author Rick Reilly. "You realize that the real fantasy is that you have a life. You root for numbers, not teams. You have depersonalized baseball, sucked the life out of it."(2)

Again, people begin to substitute the virtual for the real; they live the life of a manager in no reality (and no $700 million franchise). For many, sports themselves are intended to take away from reality; the rules of a game are set up to put some control and a sense of logic and reason to life. If someone's trying to simulate the simulation, and actually enjoy doing it, there is much to say about the human mind's potential for imagination, and self-deception.


1. Hyman, Mark and Sheridan Prasso "Fantasy Teams, Real Sports." Business Week. 11/4/2002 Issue 3806,14, 1/4p, 1c
2. Reilly, Rick. "Rotisserie Roast." Sports Illustrated 4/22/2002, Vol. 96 Issue 17, p92, 1p, 1c

-Nakul Reddy

Sports games have come a long way, from X's and O's and text messages to life-size, amazingly realistic players, and realistic physics. Games have gon inasfar as to simulate almost every aspect of the real game, to create a feeling so real, that many people are reulctant to go outside and play sports. I agree that this may be an advantage for the young and the disabled, who can only dream of playing sports. However, once people become more accustomed to the simulation than the real, the physical act of playing sports may be lost to the general public and reserved only for the professional athletes. More critically, however, as we get more accustomed to virtual reality, we may create microcosms of our own that completely avoid real life. This has already happened with virtual chatrooms and fantasy sports, where one can live a whole life socially without any physical interaction with anyone else. Consumers of these video games often forget that there is much more to real aspect of the game than any substitute can ever offer, because that's all a substitute can do. As long as people understand that video games do not offer the educational and physically stimulating experience that real life does, we will not be ignorant of these sports.

-Nakul Reddy

The video game industry has really made a huge profit by making games that emulate sports. The more popular ones are basketball, american football, soccer, ice hockey and cricket. Each new game is better than the previous one, with better graphics, better look and feel and an overall better handling. Such games are a good pass of time and at the same time less violent than the all out shooting ones. It increases the interest in those sports and also may give a better understanding of the rules and tactics involved. The actual sport has its wizards and the video game version has its own champion. This way, it helps people live their dream of being a big sportstar. Such kind of games give people confidence and a feeling that they can achieve in the game what they aspire to do in real life. Physical disabilities are put aside and the skill and mastery of a person to work in tandem with the rules of the game is what matters. If weather conditions are unsuited for outdoor play, one can always play the same game indoors on perhaps an Xbox or Playstation or such. It purely the skill of the game programmer that makes the whole experience enjoyable and realistic. Hence these kind of games should be encouraged. This does not however mean that we stop playing the actual game and be satisfied with a simulation of it. Like the fingers on the buttons, the eyes and the brain, the rest of the body also needs excercise. Thus it is important to realize that videogames are only a substitute.

Firstly, to better ground my stance on steroids, I believe that most people do not approve the use of steroids or performance-enhancing drugs in sports because they give players an unfair advantage over others, violating the sense of equality America has been founded upon. Players are expected to compete with their hearts, not with pills and needles.

I am quite surprised at the facts cited in Wetzel's article on Yahoo! sports. That blatant use of steroids have been overlooked or even condoned is definitely not a good example to set for young athletes. What's even more appaling is the lack of public outcry at the BALCO case findings. In fact, most people could care less that their favorite baseball player uses steroids.

They could care less even after Mark McGwire publicly admitted that he uses the prohormone Androstenedione, which creates testostorone. They still don't care; he still admits to using it. When Sammy Sosa said he'd accidentally picked up his corked practice bat, used to impress fans during the warm-up by hitting balls out of the stadium, people did not think twice to doubt him and just wanted to " get past this"(1) incident. After all, who would hit the home runs that make the baseball fans nationwide go crazy?
I think professional baseball is on the verge of losing its sportsmanship and chivalry. If all it takes is a steroid-pumping batter to liven up fans and stick to the game, it is no more than simply an exhibition for another sports-enhancing drug. I guess John is absolutely correct; in this sense, watching baseball would be like taking enjoyment in watching any professional wrestling at all.

(1) see: Mark Kreidler "Who's got the real juice?". http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kreidler_mark&id=1646038

--Nakul Reddy

Drug usage is an important issue plauging not only baseball, but almost all sports played in the world. Since I'm not familiar with baseball, I wanted to mention an incident of apparent drug usage in the game of cricket. The player accused of using drugs was Shane Warne, and Australian bowler. Apparantely the bowler who was overweight was given a pill by his mother for losing weight before appearing on television. This pill contained a diuretic (things that increase urination) and diuretics are banned by the Australian cricket board because they may be used to mask other substances like anabolic steroids. The doctor testified that Warne was tested thoroughly for steroids and the tests were negative and also that he would not be benefitted by using steroids at that time. In fact, the steroids would prove to be a disadvantage for him. Warne, who openly admitted using a pill, said he was unaware that the pill contained banned substances. Yet, he was given a 12 month ban which prevented him from representing Australia in any international competition.
Such kind of incidents are extremely harmful to an athlete's credibility and career, especially when the athlete is approaching his retirement age. He is one of the best bowlers in the world and is very close to breaking the world record for maximum number of wickets in one day cricket matches by any bowler. If such great athletes are banned during the ending days of the careers because of imperfect anti-drug laws, it is a shame on whole game. It questions all of his achievements because such hi-tech tests were not available perhaps 10 years ago. The credibility of a player is not only impaired among people associated with the game, but also when the athlete tries to look for work elsewhere because each small mistake by an important athlete is given so much publicity.
This is why anti doping laws and drug usage in sports should be made compulsory in all sports as well as the laws should be so designed that athletes are not punished for reasons such as mentioned above.

--Ankit Hemani

Instant replays cannot wholly guarantee the fairness of a call. Even with instant replays, there are some calls which can be called either way. This does not however mean that the instant replays should be banned. For every athlete, it is very important to know his own abilities and shortcomings. Most of the times, by using an instant replay, the right decision can be made. Thus, it would help an athlete to realize that either he needs to improve on some aspect of the game or that he did well and should keep up the good work. A wrong call can shatter an athlete's confidence and sometimes, his/her career. As mentioned in previous entires, the losing team is hardly looked at for athletes to perform at higher levels of the game. A contreversial decision can also cause a lot of resentment and sometimes, even violence on the part of the public. Although, this can happen with the use of replays too, it is usually a rare instance. Winning because of a bad decision also questions an athlete's skills and is also a confidence breaker. After the game, an athlete would think, "if the decision had gone the other way, we might have lost; does that mean that I am not good enough?" Every game has a set of rules and if these are to be enforced to the extent they were meant to, instant replays are an important aid. Technology is improving every day, so why not use it? Why should there be a contreversy when it could be avoided? If bad calls and contreversies are "tradition" it is important to understand and decide whether we need traditions which may lead to violence and distrust or should we implement something which can promote a more friendly environment.

-- Ankit Hemani

I must agree with the fact that college football loses its drama without tradition, disputed calls, and computerization. Most sports bring with them a tradition. Colleges battle it out in the arena to uphold a sense of belonging. Crowds are riled up to shout out the name of the team because they feel they belong to it. Without drama, football loses its viewability.
However, we must consider for a moment the perspective of the players. Granted all players practice for hours on end, play through sprains and injuries, and win games in the name of the team. However, within those few, there are some who are hopelessly depending on sponsorship for a future career in professional sports. In today's society, winning becomes everything. The team who loses is hardly looked at for good players. Granted, this may be a slight exaggeration, but if the difference between leading a prosperous life and a mediocre one meant one more win, and if one more win meant an accurate call, it is necessary that we find the plain truth. Now, if the recruiting system ignored wins and losses and focused solely on player performance, this system is completely unnecessary. The way we link success to winning should be relooked upon, or we will have to become technical about it.

- Nakul Reddy

Competitions are held in order to find out who is the best. In such situations, if an aid is used by any of the competitiors, the raw talent of the person cannot be measured. Swimming aids like FastSkin reduce friction between the body and water and so, the swimming ability of a person cannot be acurately measured. The whole point of a swimming competition is supposed to be able to judge who can swim the fastest. The size and shape of the human body varies from person to person. THus by having a swimming aid like FastSkin, this disparity is greatly reduced and so, it is not the natural ability of a swimmer, but the ability and design of the swimsuit that makes the difference between victory and defeat. Such aids would be useful in exploration and other such fields where there is no competition; but wherever there is a contest, the goals of that contest must be kept in mind before allowing any assists to any of the competing parties. As to the financial part, it must not be forgotten that assists can also be used in interschool competitions and so a wider picture has to be taken into account. Also, it must not be forgotten that the people who compete on the world level started their careers on a lower scale and were once high school or maybe even elementary school students participating in such competitions. What then would become of a person who had no money to afford a coach or an expensive swimming suit. His/Her talent would be wasted and his/her place would be taken by someone who could afford a FastSkin swimsuit. If the former person was a better swimmer in a FastSkin than the latter person, then this better swimmer would not be able to even make it to a national swimming competition, let alone a world class one. The only morally correct usage of aids would perhaps be in cases where swimmers have a heart problem and use a pacemaker to steady their heartbeat. The point I'm trying to make is, that any assists which give an athlete an advantage over others (who are without that assist) should not be allowed during a competition.

-- Ankit

In this instance of sports technology and performance enhancement, there is no real issue here with regards to ethical unfairness. Unless cost is a factor, more streamlined swimsuits do not interefere with the essence of the sport. Modern sport, for a most part, is an attempt to exhibit and indulge in physical activity at its purest. In a sport such as swimming, the best way to achieve this would be to allow the natural streamlining shape of the human body. However, swimming in one's birthday suit compromises today's sense of decency.
It is important that all athletes get an exactly equal opportunity to show their physical skill to the rest of the world and compete with their peers. If money were an issue, and some athletes were not able to afford this, the suits should not be allowed. However, at the level of competition as the olympics, and considering the relatively low cost of the swimsuits (250 GBP = 457.5 USD ) and the willingness of coorporate sponsorship for olympic and national level events, it is likely that all competitors will be able to afford the FastSkin.

-Nakul Reddy.