Ethics Case Study Part 2

You are a young athlete representing India at an international-level competition. During the competition, you witness a few senior athletes injecting something using a syringe, in private. When you approach them, they explain that it is a performance enhancing drug, which is very common in such competitions and you should take the same as well. You are in fear and decide to approach the coach to discuss the event you witnessed. However, you get to know that the athletes are taking the drug at the advice of the coach himself.

(a) What would you do in this scenario? Discuss the options available to you and chart your course of action.

(b) Why do you think use of unfair means to enhance performance is common in competitive sporting event? How can this practice be minimized?

Answer

The above case study represents the classic case of means (unethical) vs ends (winning) ethical dilemma. Use of performance enhancing drugs makes a mockery of a competition.

Issues with the case-

• Legality of the use of the performance enhancing drug, which is listed in the WADA/NADA’s list of banned substances or not.
• India’s image may get tarnished further, as it has consistently been listed in the top 10 violators of WADA’s anti-doping guidelines in the last few years.
• Lack of awareness or lackadaisical attitude of the athletes regarding punishments for using such drugs.
• Unethical practices propagated by the coach, who is supposed to ensure sports ethical values of honesty, hard work and dedication without shortcuts.

(a) In such a scenario, I will first clear my conscience regarding any doubts about following the advice of the athletes/coach. This might be against my value system imbibed in me by my parents as well as my coach.

So, following in the footsteps of senior athletes is not an option for me. Other options are:

Option #1

Warn the athletes/coach against using such drugs in the future.

Merits

• Gives a choice to the fellow athletes before complaining.
• Resolution of the issue at the team-level.

Demerits

• Warning may not be taken seriously.
• Coach may punish me on disciplinary grounds to silence me.
• Doping may get detected if they participate in the competition.
• Unfair competition.

Option #2

Complaint directly to the higher authorities accompanying the contingent

Merits

• Fair competition Higher authorities may appreciate the swiftness of my complaint.

Demerits

• No chance to the athletes/coach to explain their actions.
• Innocent athletes may get framed as well.
• Higher officials may also be involved along with the coach.

Option #3

Complaint after the competition is over

Merits

• Performance of the team will not be affected in the competition.
• Provides ample time for assessment of my options.

Demerits

• Athletes/coach may deny the wrongdoings.
• Non-resolution of my fear and conscience crisis during the competition.
• Doping may get detected, which will tarnish India’s image globally.

My final course of action would be guided by my belief in Gandhian ethics i.e. “Be the change you wish to see in the world”.

• Firstly, I’d try clear a few doubts by obtaining the firsthand information i.e. whether the drug being used is banned or not as well as affirming the role of the coach and other members in it.
• Then, I would try to persuade the fellow athletes to stop the drug’s use, as it is illegal and goes against sports ethics. I would try to convince them that it can be detrimental to both their careers and India’s image.
• In case they disagree, I would warn the coach of about possible punitive actions against the ongoing malpractices.
• If the coach ignores my warning, I would be left with no choice but to write a written complaint mentioning the use of illegal drugs to- o Team managers and SAI officials accompanying the contingent. o Minister and MoS of Ministry of Youth Affairs and Sports.

Question 2

(b) Reasons for common use of unfair means in sports:

Individual factors– desire for winning, improvement, pain management, recovery, career longevity and economic gains.

Legal factors– weak implementation of anti-doping laws/rules by domestic sports bodies and lack of awareness about the rules.

Systemic factors– historical prevalence of doping in sports, weak anti-doping infrastructure, sport governance systems i.e. organised systematic doping in some countries, role of coaches etc. for ex. controversy regarding disqualification of Russian athletes from Rio Olympics.

Socio-cultural factors– social background and experiences, team/club/sport culture, perceived efficacy of anti-doping system, and so on.

Cut throat competition.

Steps to minimize this practice :

Preventive steps

• Spread awareness regarding side effects and related punishments for doping violations, especially at the grassroots level.
• Simplify rules, laws and list of prohibited substances.
• Cultural change at both domestic level and sports level. E.g. High use of doping in athletics and cycling must be addressed
• Support and protection for whistleblowers.
• Improve drug testing technology and increased reliance on investigation.
• Invest more resources in Anti-doping agencies.

Punitive steps

• Strict enforcement of Anti-doping laws at domestic levels. E.g.- strict testing policy with random but frequent tests of athletes.
• Ban countries accused of corruption to cover up anti-doping violations.
• Banishment of coaches involved in it.

Promotive steps

• Advocating best practices and encourage countries to adopt them.
• Factor in ethical conduct and doping rankings in funding mechanisms.

Other steps

• Easier and cheaper appeals to protect innocent athletes.
• Therapeutic Use Exemption (TEU) certificate to protect those athletes who have a genuine medical condition with no alternative drugs/treatment.
• Universalize the application of athletes’ ‘biological passport’.

All Case Studies Materials for UPSC exam are being collected here > Ethics Case Study