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.

