Feature: Sports organisations need to be proactive in creating and regulating policy - July 2004  

As the Olympic Games approach, debate is heating up regarding sport technology - which new innovations should be allowed and which ones compromise the integrity of sport, writes Nadine Gelberg PhD, founder and president of GetCharged. Technology continues to impact our sports and yet we wait until these new technologies have dramatically changed our games before we even begin the discussion of what is acceptable.

Think back to the 2000 Olympics in Sydney and the introduction of the fastskin swimsuit. Even though debate is still occurring over its legality, Speedo is planning to introduce a newer, sleeker model in time for Athens. With this is mind, isn't now the time to debate technology? Let's not wait till two weeks prior to the games or for years after. Sports organisations need to develop coherent proactive policies based on performance standards that allow for technological innovation while protecting the core challenge and tradition of their sports.
We cheer technological innovations that make our lives easier. Sport, however, provides the antithesis to the approach that easier is better and we sometimes limit innovation in order to protect the core challenge. It would be more efficient to place a motor on the back of a rowing shell or cut across the infield to get from the starting line to the finish line. In sport we set up artificial inefficiencies simply for the sake of the activity they make possible. In sport, we make it more difficult to reach the goal because overcoming those difficulties is the sport - the challenge, the fun, the activity.
Sports governing bodies create the rules of the game to protect the core challenge and tradition that defines the activity. Sports organisations have banned gels on the bottom of rowing shells that minimize drag, dimple patterns on golf balls that reduce hooks and slices, stringing systems on tennis racquets that increase top spin, recumbent bikes in cycling, and more. These regulations are frequently responses to crises of innovation and not proactive standards that athletes and manufacturers can anticipate.

The need for consistent policies

Governing bodies have historically implemented ad hoc rules retroactively in response to a crisis. If a particular technology appears on the field and disrupts the traditional balance of power, the governing body will most likely ban it from the game. The problem with this approach is athletes, manufacturers, coaches, and teams have no way of knowing in advance if a technological introduction will later be forbidden. All governing bodies need to provide consistent policies for evaluating these technologies as they are being introduced and offer guidelines for new development.
The United States Golf Association has been diligent in setting a distance standard for golf balls. It serves as a paradigm that allows manufacturers maximum flexibility in design and materials, while protecting the core challenge of the game - driving distance. Manufacturers know regardless of the golf ball they make, it cannot exceed the defined distance when hit with the defined force. This proactive performance standard protects the challenge and tradition of the sport while providing specific guidelines for manufacturers.
Contrast this with the response to the spaghetti strung tennis racket that hit the professional courts in the 1970s. Average players were suddenly able to hit Borg caliber top spin strokes and as 100th ranked players started to emerge victorious over top seeds, the International Tennis Federation convened to develop a rule to prohibit the technology. This rule may have effectively banned that particular stringing design, but the organisation neglected to present any policy or model for addressing the next innovation to impact tennis.

Scruitinising integrity

Despite the fact that some rules do exist banning certain technologies from competition, the use of performance enhancing technologies forces the integrity of sport to be under close scrutiny, Sports governing bodies have authority over the field of competition but no rules exist to dictate how you practice; how athletes or teams train, is simply not regulated. Even though nothing prevents athletes from using corked bats, asymmetrical golf balls or performance enhancing substances during training, more specific rules need to apply to eliminate them from the field of play. Test athletes on the field, the day of competition, and if found using any forbidden technology, the athlete or team should be held accountable and forfeit.
The logistics of creating, regulating, and enforcing sport technology policy based on a proactive design standard will not be easy to implement. It requires philosophical understanding of the sport and the skills the sport tests; it requires a level of cooperation and communication among individuals and organisations; it requires manufacturing and designing testing procedures and equipment; and it requires implementing and adhering to a strict enforcement procedure.
Setting these new policies will ultimately be better for protecting the integrity of our sports. Fewer decisions will be left to arbitrary interpretation and whim; athletes will have a clearer understanding of what is, or is not, acceptable. While these rules and enforcement procedures will be challenging to facilitate, creation of this new standard just further corroborates the philosophy that in sport, easier is not always better.

For further information, visit: www.getcharged.org

This article was seen first by people who receive the monthly newsletter, join them.