Physical Privacy in Many Sports

Physical Privacy

In many sports today, steroids have become a major issue. Particularly in the Olympic sports, drug tests have been implemented on a regular basis to ensure that all athletes perform at their best rather than at the level of a performance-enhancing drug. Illegal performance-enhancing drugs provide users with an unfair opportunity to outperform their fellow-athletes. Hence, in the decision to outlaw these drugs have been made in the interest of fair competition in sports. Yet sports professionals continue to abuse these types of drugs, despite their knowledge of laws to the contrary. The recent case of baseball player Alex Rodriguez is just one example of many, in which sports professionals are using drugs to enhance their performance.

In a recent conference with the press (Inman, 2009), Alex, or a-Rod as he has also been dubbed, attempts to explain his behavior on the grounds of youth and stupidity. However, as the author legitimately states, it is difficult to trust the star's sincerity or indeed the validity of his claims. One might ask the question -- how long can a person remain "young and stupid" when performance-enhancing drug laws are available worldwide and when continuous highlights of abuse and banning in the press make it an everyday issue. Surely even the young and the ignorant are not so unaware that they would simply take what is offered them without investigating the issue. Apparently this is what Mr. Rodriguez did, according to his own claims.

From an ethical viewpoint, sports professionals that engage in drug use, such as Mr. Rodriguez, appear to fail in the understanding that they operate among human beings who are affected by their actions. From a deontological viewpoint, however, the claim is often that Mr. Rodriguez's use of steroids is not harmful in terms of public safety, and that his right to privacy in the matter should therefore be respected. This viewpoint holds that Alex should have the right to use steroids if this is what furthers his own career and performance. And indeed, according to his own assertions, this is precisely what he had been doing. a-Rod has a long career that is littered by instances of steroid use, although he is vague about exactly when and where he began this practice. If the privacy viewpoint is indeed valid, Rodriguez should not have been required to display his wrongdoing in front of the press.

However, from a utilitarian viewpoint, one should acknowledge that the concept of public safety is much wider than simply the physical safety of citizens. It also concerns their psychological well-being, and particularly those of young children. Sports, television, film- and music stars are all role models, particularly to the young. They function within an environment that is highly influential not only to other prominent people, but also to their adoring public. Hence, Rodrigquez's actions indirectly influences young people by indicating that steroid use is acceptable to ensure a good performance in sports and indeed to make a name in the profession.

To name an example, a young boy who is still at school may have particular admiration for Alex Rodriguez, and wish to imitate him in all things. Furthermore, this boy also harbors a dream to become a famous baseball player like Rodriguez. In his preparation for a career in sports, an unethical coach or teammate may present the boy with steroids to enhance his physical performance, with the claim that Rodriguez advocates the use of such substances.

Furthermore, Rodriguez's apparent lack of remorse and his adherence to the claim that he was "young and stupid" creates a poor image for both the sport, its stars, and its followers. It furthermore indicates that being young precludes a person from making wise choices, and that only a maturity in years could bring the wisdom necessary to say no to performance-enhancing drugs.

This also has an effect upon parenting, and the ability of parents to influence children for their best benefit. Stars such as Rodriguez indirectly promote drugs by means of their behavior. Jeopardizing good parenting in this way also influences the stability of the family and hence of society as a whole. It is a danger to public health and safety and should be taken very seriously from a utilitarian perspective. The public health and safety certainly should take precedence over any deontological consideration in terms of privacy rights. Certainly, Rodriguez has the right to jeopardize his own health if he sees fit to do so. However, he is influencing the public within which he functions to the detriment of their own health.

Another point that is highlighted by the utilitarian approach is the fact of professional relationships. By using drugs, Rodriguez is indirectly disadvantaging other players on the field. He has an unfair opportunity to perform better than others in his profession and is hence influencing fair competition to the detriment of baseball players.

Finally, the image of the sport itself suffers by means of such actions. If stars involved in the sport abuse substances, it creates a very detrimental view of baseball in terms of the fact that it encourages such actions. From a wider perspective, this could discourage potentially talented players from entering the sport. Baseball itself will then suffer, as talented and ethical players will seek other outlets for their endeavors.