Ethics and the St. Louis Cardinals' Hacking Case

As most are now probably aware, the St. Louis Cardinals are under investigation for possibly hacking into the database of the Houston Astros. It has been suggested that this occurred on several occasions. Whatever the outcome of this particular case, it raises some interesting ethical questions.

Here, I'll address one such question: What's wrong with hacking into your opponent's computer system?

• First, it involves breaking a just law designed to protect privacy. The information in this alleged hacking case included data related to players, trades, and scouting reports. The Cardinals have no business trying to access this information. Like any other corporation, they have no right to do this, and are obligated to respect the work and privacy of the Houston Astros.
• Second, such behavior is unsportsmanlike. If the Cardinals are guilty and were able to gain an unfair advantage with this information, it could amount to cheating and as such violates the norms and ethics of sports. We know that sportsmanship is undervalued from the elite level on down to youth sports. But we must not give in; we must protect the integrity of sports at all levels.  All parties in sport should seek to exemplify sportsmanship, whether on the field or via the internet. Sportsmanship is a virtue worth having, and many of its lessons can be adapted to other realms of life.
• Third, this hack, if it happened, places victory over integrity. There are many reasons we participate in and watch baseball (and other sports). At the elite level, we want the victory to go to the team that is able to display excellence and demonstrate superiority on the day. There are cheap and undeserved wins, of course, but one thing that makes this sort of behavior objectionable is that a win based on it has nothing to do with athletic excellence or luck. Hacking, if done to gain some sort of competitive advantage over one's opponents, amounts to putting victory ahead of honor, integrity, and the rules of the game. A win based in part on this behavior would be undeserved.
• Fourth, this shows a lack of faith in the players, manager, and coaches. As a player, I'd be insulted if the organization I played for thought it was necessary to cheat in this (or any other) way to obtain victory. I would want the organization to place its faith in the abilities of the team and coaching staff, rather than trying to gain an unfair advantage in this way.

What do you think? What else might be wrong with this? And if the Cardinals are found guilty, should there be any punishment by MLB in addition to whatever legal punishment is given?

Photo CCL.

FIFA and goal line technology

Following an obvious (to all but the referee and line judges) but disallowed goal by Frank Lampard in England's 4-1 loss to Germany in the Football World Cup, FIFA's president Sepp Blatter has now accepted that there may be a place for goal line technology. The argument given by FIFA in the past is that such technology would unduly disrupt the flow of game and possibly prevent the opposition scoring from a counter-attack. However, as was often seen in other sports that are now using technology to determine outcomes, when replays of events show within seconds whether the officials have made the correct decision, it is the refusal of governing bodies to embrace its use that undermine the authority of officials and not the other way around. However, whether FIFA are serious about reconsidering their position that they so definitively took in March, or whether they are merely trying to sooth the sore feelings of those on the receiving end of an incorrect decision is up for question, as they have also said that instant replays of controversial events should not be shown on the big screen. It follows a goal by Tevez for Argentina against Mexico which stood despite Tevez being considerably off-side before he played the ball. It led to confrontations between opposing players after it was immediately shown on the big screen in the stadium. If technology was used to assist the making of decisions then this ruling would not be necessary.

Interestingly enough, I am always surprised by the way in which my students tend to side with FIFA's position on this. The reason they give for not implementing goal-line technology? That controversial goals and decisions provide something for them to argue about in the pub after a game. If they really want subject to argue about, then I can think of much better ones...

The Tour de France Radio Ban

VeloNews has an article on the growing opposition to the ban on race radios for 2 stages, including tomorrow's stage from Limoges to Issoudon. According to the article, "Two-way radios were first introduced into the peloton by Armstrong’s former Motorola squad in the 1990s and have become a crucial element of team tactics; managers communicate with riders, who race with earpieces, to advise on strategy, approaching hazards and other important information." Critics complain about the predictability that the radios foster regarding race tactics.

On other hand, Lance Armstrong states that “Technology evolves, the bike evolves, the training, the diet, everything evolves… the fabrics that we wear. Look at [reporters’] cameras, the microphones… the transponders on the bike… all of it has evolved. So we are going to go back to a place where directors will have to ride up into the peloton to give orders to riders. That is not a good thing. I remember those days, I have been around long enough to remember them, and that is stupid too. A few of the guys think it is a cute idea, but I don't agree.”
Others who support using the radios argue that it keeps the riders safe, as an oil spot on a treacherous descent can be pointed out and injuries thereby avoided.

In response to these points, consider Matt White's view (White is team director for Garmin-Slipstream):
"I’d rather we banned radios. I don’t mind if we lost radios altogether. We go through the stage everyday in the morning, and what I am telling them on the radio is only what I’ve told them in the morning, just reminding them. The Garmin units have nothing to do with the radios; we have more information on their bikes than in their ear anyways… The only difference (without radios) is that I’m not telling them in the race. We have the same tactics, the same plan before, and the boys have to think and act themselves. That’s like cycling was 10 years ago. Whatever the Tour decides, just go with it. I think it’s a bit strange doing one day. I’d rather do no radios or all radios, but as for safety issues, I don’t really see that as a problem either. The amount of times you actually tell riders there is something dangerous on the road it just creates more stress because everyone knows about it. The guys are riding five or six hours a day, you can’t point out every dangerous bit of the road, so I don’t think it’s a real safety issue. I think some of the younger guys have struggled thinking about it. They are so used to being told what to do, they aren’t used to thinking for themselves, and I think that’s going to hurt some teams more than others."

I tend to agree with White, mainly because I'd like to see the riders demonstrate some of the intellectual aspects of athletic excellence that the radios can at least sometimes prevent. But perhaps this could still occur if the riders are involved in strategy sessions prior to the race, and simply communicating with their directors about which strategy to follow given the particular circumstances that arise in a given stage?

Reith Lecture on Genetic Technology in Sport

The BBC's annual Reith Lectures are presented this year by Harvard Professor Michael Sandel and the third programme in the series covers the ethical dilemmas posed by innovations in genetic technology, including the use of this technology in sport.

(This is an issue in which I have particular interest, having written my PhD thesis, entitled 'Genetic Techology in Sport; Metaphor and Ethical Judgment', on the subject)

Doping and the Double Standard in Professional Sport

People are generally opposed to the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport, and this negative reaction has a number of arguments at its root. For example, critics claim that these drugs affect the purity of the sport, or that they could possibly have unforeseen and negative side-effects on athletes. By far the most prominent claim against performance enhancers is that they give an illegal and undeserved edge to those who use them. I take issue with this view, not necessarily because it is incorrect, but because it masks what I see as a blatant double standard in professional sport. The full version of this argument appears in the latest edition of Think; I would just like to present the main idea here.

I believe that questioning the use of performance enhancers is valuable, as it leads to discussions concerning the legitimacy of rewarding athletes who are using all types of synthetic aids to be better and, ultimately, to win. There are also important ethical questions which occur on the slippery slope between sport in the traditional, amateur, ‘Greek’, understanding of the term, and sport played by super-enhanced, ‘semi-human’, and extremely well-paid athletes. If technology allowed one to alter one’s genes, or to attach robotic arms, legs, etc to become better at a sport (or for that matter, better human beings), should we allow it?

Technological innovations are present in all sports, and at all levels. Companies like Nike, Adidas, Speedo, New Balance and Reebok are constantly striving to manufacture products which give athletes the edge over their opponents. For example, swimmers are now using full-body suits made out of material that minimizes friction with the water. Yes, would come the reply, but how much difference do these suits really make? Well, since it was introduced in February, 19 long-course world swimming records have been set, all but one of those by a swimmer wearing Speedo’s new LZR suit. Coincidence? I think not (see
http://www.mg.co.za/articlepage.aspx?area=/breaking_news/breaking_news__sport/&articleid=337502)

Spiked athletic shoes are also standard issue today. These shoes have been proved to reduce times by full seconds by virtue of the better grip, and therefore propulsion, that they afford the athlete. Simply put, if you don’t wear them, you are going to lose.
The examples above of swimmers and track athletes are particularly good ones as they both involve sports that have been the traditional bastions of those blowing the anti-doping trumpet the loudest. But isn’t this remarkable, as it seems athletes can use any technology (clothes, shoes, heart-rate monitors etc) to help them beat their opponent, as long as this technology is put on the outside of the body. Yes, comes the immediate response, but when you take performance enhancers, you are not competing. It is some super-you; you are performing way beyond your natural capacity. People who use this line of argument are simply (and conveniently) omitting the impact of new technology. Don’t swimming suits and running spikes do exactly the same thing? Anyone arguing from an “all athletes need equal footing” perspective is going to have to go the whole way and have us all passing the baton barefoot and naked.

This then is the double standard present today in professional sport: we allow technological improvements in equipment, like the Speedo LZR above, to help our athletes, but declare using (some) technological improvements in synthetic stimulants for the same ends illegal. This is not an argument for all types of steroids to be made available whole-sale to the public; I feel that this could well endanger many lives. I suggest as well that the best argument against drugs of this nature will come from the harm they may do our athletes. Some athletes might also want to argue (quite fairly) that they don’t want to risk their lives to compete and win, and that others willingness to do this puts them at a disadvantage. The fact is that many safe performance enhancers are banned alongside those that are dangerous – why not just ban the dangerous ones? I am not offering a complete policy on performance enhancers; I am merely asking us to rethink our intuitive reactions towards performance enhancers.