5
OPINION
Thursday, August 11, 2016
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
E-mail aaron at asandEl@umich.Edu
AARON SANDEL
DAVID
MERTZ
Carolyn Ayaub, Roland Davidson, Caitlin Heenan,
Elena Hubbell, Jeremy Kaplan, Madeline Nowicki,
Kevin Sweitzer, Brooke White.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
Engineering performance
T
he 31st Games of the
modern
Olympiad
have begun, bringing a
new crop of
interesting
stories to cycle
through
the
media. Every
competition demands the utmost
fitness from athletes: the greatest
speed,
power,
endurance,
accuracy, strength and focus.
Athletes must train to the limits
of their bodies to compete at
the highest level and partake in
physical regimens that the rest
of us can hardly comprehend.
But often training alone is not
enough. Having watched every
edition of the games for as long
as I can remember, I’ve noticed
an interesting recurring motif:
the profound impact of science
on athletics. For athletes to keep
up with their competitors, and
to even dream of setting new
records, they must rely on the
latest products of science and
engineering.
Science
and
athletics
are
inextricably
tied.
Growing
knowledge of human physiology
and
metabolism
enables
nutritionists to prescribe the
most optimal diets for athletes
to fuel their bodies. Lighter
materials like fiberglass and
carbon fiber impart cyclists and
rowers with speed that would
be
unachievable
with
more
primitive alternatives like steel
or wood. Swimmers no longer
need to worry about their times
being mistaken by stopwatches
now with touch-sensitive pads
installed in each lane of an
Olympic pool. Technology has
unequivocally
reduced
many
of the barriers that prevent the
human body from performing at
its full measurable potential.
However, new technologies
have not always been embraced.
The LZR (“laser”) Racer, a full-
body swimsuit engineered by
Speedo, was banned after the
2008 Summer Olympic Games
when athletes wearing the suit
broke dozens of world records,
including 23 in Beijing alone. The
suit provided greater buoyancy
in the water and masked the
hydrodynamic
imperfections
of the body. The international
governing body of swimming,
FINA, explained its decision
with a reminder: “Swimming
is a sport essentially based on
the physical performance of the
athlete.” Swimsuits today still
cover the maximum amount
of skin surface area possible, a
complete reversal in strategy
from decades ago.
But
perhaps
the
greatest
burden
on
athletics
due
to
science is the pervasiveness of
performance enhancing drugs.
This summer’s games in Rio de
Janeiro haven’t been immune to
the PED problem. In the lead-up
to the opening ceremony, a state-
run systematic doping operation
was uncovered in Russia, almost
resulting in the banning of its
entire contingent of athletes.
Not only are new substances
being
synthesized,
but
new
effects
could
be
discovered
in
substances
originally
thought to be “clean.” Some
banned
substances,
like
pseudoephedrine, are remedies
for
everyday
ailments.
The
list of banned substances for
athletic competition has grown
dramatically in recent decades,
but
it’s
nearly
impossible
to
maintain
fairness
when
substances impart performance-
enhancing properties that its
users
and
sports
physicians
aren’t even aware of.
Largely due to scientific and
technological advancement, the
games this summer in Rio look
tremendously
different
than
the original modern games in
Athens 120 years ago. But has the
competition
really
benefited?
Are the performances worthy of
more admiration? Did Michael
Phelps, wearing a LZR suit in
2008 and capturing eight gold
medals, really outperform Mark
Spitz’s seven in 1972, when
swimmers competed in tiny
speedos and didn’t even wear
caps and goggles?
My
firm
answer
is
still
“yes.” Much of the increase in
athlete performance in the past
century has not been due to
technology but evolving training
habits:
longer
preparation,
more strenuous workouts and
optimized diets. The bodies
of
today’s
athletes
without
performance
enhancers
still
operate at a level not thought
possible in years past.
The
doping
issue
will
inevitably continue to haunt
sports. While it seems as if it
has emerged as a more recent
phenomenon
and
included
some high-profile cases, it’s
entirely possible that earlier
athletes may have been prone
to the same inequity. While
athletes of the past didn’t
have the wide pharmaceutical
selection
that
exists
today,
doping police didn’t have such
an array of blood and urine
tests,
or
the
awareness
of
many performance-enhancing
effects derived from common
substances
that
historical
athletes probably used.
Athletes competing before
the widespread notion of doping
may have taken PEDs without
the concern of being tested for
them or even without knowing
of the performance enhancing
effects altogether. Returning to
today, there may be substance-
derived
advantages
being
utilized by athletes today that we
haven’t even discovered. Today’s
new drug for the common cold
may make it onto tomorrow’s
list of banned substances.
Science and technology have
unquestionably influenced the
sphere of athletics, and the
results have been mixed. Of
course, athletics should always
look to human performance as
its core principle and apply the
use of new technology fairly.
Because technology continually
evolves, so sport will and should
evolve with it without sacrificing
its inspiration, work ethic and
perseverance of its participants.
—David Mertz can be reahed
at drmertz@umich.edu.