Thursday, August 14, 2008

Buying the Body Suit

There's a studiedly non-committal editorial in The New York Times about technology at the Olympics. The athletes, it says, have become 'techno-probes' and the games are relayed to us by an unprecedented variety of media. The swimmers - well, Phelps - are breaking records with ease thanks to the new body suits and wave-dissipation in the pools. Without getting all luddite about this, I do find the bland tone of the leader remarkable - surely there is something to be said about this phenomenon beyond mere reportage. Of course, it wouldn't be true to say that the science sucks all the sport out of it. Assuming everybody has equal access, the technology itself is sportingly neutral and the outcome continues to be determined by individual, human effort. But, given that some athletes will certainly be doping themselves, the doctrine of sportingly neutral technology should also mean they are all allowed to take drugs. One this was permitted, of course, everybody would have to take them. This would really make them into 'techno-probes'. Furthermore, the technology is definitely not commercially neutral. The Olympics would be equally fair if body suits and wave dissipation were banned. The technology is not necessary, it's only effect is to increase absolute speeds and to shift product. Within weeks, if not days, I expect to see body suits, if not wave dissipators, all over my local pool. Aside from the matter of individual effort and, of course, the Chinese rulers' need to daze their people, the games are overwhelmingly about consumption, about finding new things and new ways for us to consume. And that is their true power.

7 comments:

  1. But, given that some athletes will certainly be doping themselves, the doctrine of sportingly neutral technology should also mean they are all allowed to take drugs. One this was permitted, of course, everybody would have to take them.

    Because the second sentence is true, the first isn't.

    There's a clear moral obligation on the sporting authorities to distinguish between technology and drugs because whereas body suits and whatnot just make the athletes look silly, the authorities can't put themselves in a position where they're effectively forcing kids to take substances that will give them heart-attacks at 30, grow extra limbs, turn into shemales etc.

    The sad result of this is that some of the more extreme physical sports like Tour cycling, weight-lifting etc have been ruined, being now just an endless series of tedious battles between the dopers and the testers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sounds like you're describing cycling rather than swimming.

    Somehow, swimming events are the only ones I've managed to see of the Olympics. I love to swim myself, but man is it boring to watch.

    Please don't let me be the last commenter here again....

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ok Susan, but all I have to say is that I've added what Bryan said about Conrad Black to my next book. It's only in a footnote I'm afraid, but that's start.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Susan, you are one hot scrabble-playing MILF.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Elberry, you devilishly handsome Anglo-Indian, you keep failing to take your turns! And I have another game I want to spring on you: "Scramble." Add the application and we will play later. I think you'll kick my butt at that one.

    right now, I am going to the beach for several hours, but I'll be back tonight, or home tomorrow to check.

    ReplyDelete
  6. is it a nudist beach? can you send us some photos?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The technology required by sport is not for the athletes who go fast enough but the TV coverage. It isn't good at giving an impression of speed. I can remember Jim Rosenthal presenting athletics in the early 90s and commenting, after some very early athletics coverage was shown, that it was hard to see how similar improvements in coverage could be made in the future. I immediately thought of tiny flying cameras. Still waiting. The 'Tornado' super slo-mo camera introduced at Wimbledon a few years ago was a stunning; technology could make so much more of the action.

    ReplyDelete