PopSci on the "League of Performance-Enhanced Athletes"

I've been arguing for the establishment of performance-enhanced leagues for years now, so it's nice to see Ryan Bradley of Popular Science make the same case:

Through this openness the league creates an environment where cutting-edge science is discussed daily, and celebrated, alongside athletic triumph. Better still: legitimizing enhancement would make the enhancements better. More drugs hit the market, more treatments become available, and this would trickle down to non-athletes. Would all this openness and advancement foster a more honest, inviting, even wholesome environment? Maybe. Creating a separate league where drugs are legal would, without a doubt, make competition safer for athletes. Matthew Herper, who has covered science and health (and, by extension, athletes and drugs) for a decade at Forbes, says as much.

Science, Feature, athletes, competition, cycling, doping, drugs, lance armstrong, sports, steroids“To me, the most obvious solution has always been to legalize those drugs that work, and to experimentally monitor new entrants, including dietary supplements, for both efficacy and safety. Biological improvement would be treated much as athletic equipment like baseball bats and running shoes. This could improve both athlete’s performance and their health, and would be a lot better than having everybody trying whatever additive they can sneak, attempting to stay ahead of drug tests, and trusting anecdotes as a way of measuring safety and efficacy.”

But perhaps most importantly, by keeping advances off the field, we’re holding back possibilities. A few years ago I visited Hugh Herr, the director of biomechatronics at MIT’s Media Lab, who had just invented a robotic ankle that would soon revolutionize prosthetics. We ended up discussing the ankle a little bit, but mostly we talked about science in sports. Herr is an athlete. As a young man he was a world-class rock climber. A week before my visit, he had been busy trying to convince the International Association of Athletics Federations to allow South African runner Oscar Pistorius to compete in the Olympics. Pistorius has no legs below his knees and runs using Cheetah Flex-Foot carbon fiber limbs which, arguably, gives him an unfair advantage. Herr is also a double amputee, and walks and climbs using prosthetics. That day in his lab, while he showed me his improved ankle and described his work with veterans, Herr told me that he sees no reason why we can’t make “disabled” people stronger and faster than the rest of us. In fact, we already are: just look at Pistorius. The IAAF agreed and, weeks later, decided to ban the South African from competition.

IOC wants to 'treat' intersex athletes

The New York Times is reporting that a panel of medical experts convened by the International Olympic Committee is recommending that the issue of athletes whose gender seems ambiguous be treated as a medical concern and not one of fairness in competition:

Athletes who identify themselves as females but have medical disorders that give them masculine characteristics should have their disorders diagnosed and treated, the group concluded after two days of meetings in Miami Beach. The experts also said that rules should be put in place for determining an athlete’s eligibility to compete on a case-by-case basis — but they did not indicate what those rules should be.

“We did not address fairness,” said Dr. Joe Leigh Simpson of Florida International University. He is an expert on such disorders and participated in the meeting. “The entire concept was that these individuals should be allowed to compete.”

The decision is in reaction to the recent controversy surrounding Caster Semenya, an intersex athlete who won the 800 meters at the world championships in Berlin last August.

While this clearly solves a problem for the IOC, the decision to "treat" athletes with genetic abnormalities will likely have far reaching repercussions for those with other types of genetic endowments. The IOC is in danger of opening a pandora's box in which virtually every athlete with a biological advantage will be questioned.

Immediate examples include swimmer Michael Phelps with his many advantageous traits (including the possibility of Marfan Syndrome) and those athletes with higher levels of hemoglobin which gives them superior oxygen-carrying capability.

But as any athlete knows, it doesn't even need to be this extreme. There's never been a perfectly level playing field in sports, whether it be the quality of the facilities, coaching, funding, and of course, genetic constitutions. Dedication and heart will only get professional athletes so far; so many winners these day are, for all intents-and-purposes, genetic freaks. To suddenly start 'treating' these sorts of athletes and constrain their physicality within a pre-determined sense of normality is overtly problematic.

Who is the IOC to determine what is physically normal in sport? Why should the attainment of fitness peaks (natural or otherwise) be prevented or constrained? And how could they ever come to describe the perfectly 'normal' human athlete?

The IOC is clearly hoping that this issue will be limited to intersex athletes, but what's to prevent others from crying foul when they feel that they're at a genetic disadvantage? The IOC needs to tread very carefully should they chose to move forward with this recommendation.

Para-athletes 'closing the gap' with sports technologies

The latest issue of Sports Technology (subscription required) spotlights recent developments that seek to close the gap between able-bodied athletes and para-athletes, with two published articles highlighting running prostheses.

The first article, entitled "Biomechanics of double transtibial amputee sprinting using dedicated sprinting prostheses" compares the sprinting mechanics data of able-bodied sprinters with that of a double transtibial amputee by examining the overall kinetics and the kinetics at the joints – while sprinting at maximum speed.

In this article, the authors conclude that the carbon blade used by the amputee sprinter has a significant advantage in both energy storage and return in fast sprinting, in comparison to the healthy human ankle joint. The blade allows the disabled sprinter to deliver the same level of performance as an able-bodied athlete – but at a lower metabolic cost.

If true, this discovery will have implications for those runners like Oscar Pistorius who hope to compete against able-bodied athletes.

The second article, "Lower Extremity Leg Amputation: an advantage in running?" describes the clinical view of fitting an amputee with a prosthetic leg.

The paper provides a general overview on prosthesis technology. It highlights the challenges and disadvantages of a prosthetic fitting – including the difficulties in selection, fitting and the alignment adaptation of the socket; as well as other issues such as the compensatory strategies of the amputee.

Doping scandal hits the chess world

Grandmaster Vassily Ivanchuk, who is ranked third in the world, refused to agree to a urine sample for a drug test at the Chess Olympiad in Dresden and is now considered guilty of doping. He could face a 2-year ban:

Who knows what was going through Ivanchuk's head when, on Nov. 25 in Dresden, the last day of the Chess Olympiad, he lost to Gata Kamsky? What we do know, however, is that when the game against the American ended, a judge asked Ivanchuk to submit to a drug test. Instead, he stormed out of the room in the conference center, kicked a concrete pillar in the lobby, pounded a countertop in the cafeteria with his fists and then vanished into the coatroom. Throughout this performance, he was followed by a handful of officials.

No one could convince Ivanchuk to provide a small amount of urine for the test. And because refusal is treated as a positive test result, he is now considered guilty of doping and could be barred from professional chess for two years.

The incident in Dresden and the possibility of a professional ban for Ivanchuk has caused outrage in the chess world. The players, who fraternize with one another, say that accusing one of them of doping is an insult to their honor and intelligence. Letters of protest were issued, and players are accusing bureaucrats in the world of championship chess of destroying the game, because, as they insist everyone should know, doping provides no benefits in chess.

It is suspected that Ivanchuk may have been taking anabolic steroids. Why would a chess player do such a thing? While steroids would certainly do nothing to improve cognitive performance, it can have a significant impact on helping a player keep his blood pressure down. It is not uncommon for chess players to start hyperventilating and gain a pulse of 200 late in tournaments. The beta-blockers in steroids would help keep a chess player's heart rate down and their head in the game.

So, is this truly an enhancement? What about Ritalin or Modafinil -- substances that increase the ability to concentrate? The rest of the world is using these drugs, including students, so why is it not sanctioned in the chess world? And what about coffee? Chess players are infamous for their caffeine intake habits. Should stimulants like coffee be banned as well?

Or is this just a slippery slope into increasingly nonsensical drug policies?

Like in so many other sports, the international anti-doping regime has gone too far. In the case of chess, it's obvious that the adoption of an anti-doping policy is merely an effort to have chess recognized by the IOC as an Olympic sport. Ivanchuk is being made a scapegoat by the World Chess Federation (FIDE) to prove to the IOC that they're serious about clamping down.

It makes no sense to ban steroids or other substances in chess, but the chess world wants in on the Big Show. And to do so they're going to terrorize some of their best players on rather weak grounds.

As an aside, I've written about enhancement in chess before: "Cheating vs. enhancement in chess."

Michael Phelps: The 'natural' transhuman athlete

Watching Michael Phelps swim you quickly realize that he's not like the others. He's clearly in a league of his own.

Or more accurately, he's swimming in a genetic pool of his own.

Phelps has a number of fortuitous physical endowments that have enabled him to dominate like no other. Simply put, he is the perfect swimmer.

Here's what Phelps has going for him:

• Most people have a wingspan that matches their height. Not Phelps. He may be 6'4" tall, but his arms extend outward to a total of 6'7".
• The average shoe size for a person the size of Phelps is 12; he wears a size 14 which gives him a 10% advantage over the competition.
  
• He also has a larger than average hand size which allows him to move more water.
  
• Phelps is double-jointed in the chest area; this enables him to extend his arms higher above his head and pull down at an angle that increases his efficiency through the water by as much as 20%; this also allows him to have quicker starts and turns.
• He has proportionately short legs relative to his long, powerful trunk; this large upper body is the engine that powers his long arms. Moreover, his unique physique reduces drag through the water and allows for maximum propulsion.
• Phelps has a greater-than-average lung capacity allowing him to execute his underwater dolphin kicks longer than the competition.
• He has a genetic advantage that cause his muscles to produce 50% less lactic acid than other athletes. This means he can work at higher work loads for longer periods.
  
• With a low body fat of 4%, he is better able to convert his effort into speed.
  

Looking at this list it's as if Phelps was designed to swim.

Which leads to an interesting question: Given the potential for genetic modification and gene doping, should it be acceptable for other athletes to acquire the same physiological endowments through artificial means?

If not, what makes it so acceptable to come by these traits 'naturally?' And how could the genetic lottery ever be construed as something that's not arbitrary and unfair?

Read more about Phelps's extraordinary physiology here and here.

Speedo's Vitruvian Man

Great ad.

Read more about Speedo's LZR Racer swim suit.

Q: What is the qualitative difference between this sort of technological enhancement and pharmacologically endowed enhancement?

Of dead race horses and the dead long-ball: Two very different consequences of enhancement in sports

On May 3, 2008, shortly after finishing second at the Kentucky Derby, filly Eight Belles went crashing to the ground, the result of sustained compound fractures to both her front legs. The horse's injuries were so devastating that she had to be euthanized right there on the track, much to the horror of the 157,770 spectators.

Last week, a number of baseball pundits noticed that home run production was significantly down across the Majors. And not by just a little bit. It's being predicted that this season could see a drop of 1,000 home runs compared to the 2006 season. Last year saw a drop of nearly 600 home runs compared to 2006. Home runs, it would appear, are on the decline.

What do these two seemingly unrelated stories have in common?

Performance-enhancing drugs.

The first story showcases the tragic consequences of enhancement overuse in sports, with the second showing the dramatic way in which performance-enhancement can impact on a sport -- particularly if it's taken away.

And love it or hate it, both stories show the extent to which enhancement is impacting on sports today.

Over-medicated horses

Catastrophic injuries like the one experienced by Eight Belles is becoming a disturbingly regular occurrence at racetracks across the United States.

Of the major thoroughbred racing events (the Kentucky Derby, Preakness, Belmont and Breeders' Cup) half of them have seen lethal breakdowns since 2005.

It's gotten so bad that PETA has entered the picture, calling horse racing "cruelty masquerading as sport." They insist that organizers make major changes to horse racing, or face an all-out ban.

Which leads to the question: why are horses increasingly crossing the finish line completely wrecked?

There are a number of factors, but two stand out in particular: breeding and drugs.

Racehorses are bred for speed, not durability. These days, the average number of races run by a horse is 6.37. Back in the 60s a horse could be expected to run 11.31 races. Racing breeds are becoming more brittle with each passing generation.

The only consideration at breeding time is selecting for speed and a horse psychology that says 'run like hell' (or what industry folk call 'precociousness'). As equine surgeon Wayne McIlwraith has said, "We've evolved a super-fast athlete."

More significant, however, is the use of medication. Horses are given drugs to deaden pain, to prevent pulmonary bleeding, to ease joint inflammation, and, of course, to add muscle.

This is all perfectly legal. American racing adopted a policy of "permissive medication" during the 1970s which allowed for drugs banned in other parts of the world (which may also explain why these sorts of injuries aren't happening elsewhere).

There's also the problem of illegal drug use -- horses are given everything from cocaine to cobra venom (used as a numbing agent).

No wonder horses are ending races completely shattered. Medical science has exceeded their biological tolerances, and horses are paying with their lives.

Under-medicated sluggers

Back in 2005, in a survey of 568 MLB players, 79% said they believed steroids played some role in record-breaking performances by high-profile players. And 27% said they believed performance-enhancing drugs were a "major contributor" to recent statistical achievements.

The statistical achievements they were referring to included the astounding home run records set by Mark McGuire and Barry Bonds in 1998 and 2001 respectively. Steroids have changed the sport to such a degree that there have been calls to "asterisk" all records set during this era.

But this era appears to be over. Owing to a Congressional Committee, the ensuing Mitchell Report and tougher drug-testing programs, it appears that players have been scared straight.

And seemingly overnight.

Home run production has dropped dramatically, putting to rest silly notions of juiced balls and corked bats. Steroids has been quite clearly a major force in baseball in recent times.

What does all this mean?

Enhancement changes everything.

But not always for the worse, and not always for the better.

Clearly, in the case of horse racing, there's a significant problem. Until they can engineer cyborg horses who can actually survive a race, there has to be some serious soul-searching done amongst the organizers and owners. What's currently happening is beyond the pale.

As for baseball, one could make the case that the McGuire/Bonds years were some of the most exciting to ever grace the sport. As anyone who follows baseball knows, pitchers have traditionally held a decided advantage over hitters. It's been a very defensive game.

Steroids, for better or worse, altered this balance. Personally, I'm having a hard time getting into the current baseball season, particularly here in Toronto where the Jays can't score runs to save their lives.

I'm likely not alone when I say that I enjoy watching home runs and would like to see more.

Moving forward

I'm not a fan of medication bans. As a transhumanist, I look at the entire issue as a part of the broader trend in performance-enhancement across all spheres, whether it be physical or cognitive aspects.

But I have my limits. Like anything, performance-enhancement has to be monitored and calibrated when things get out of whack. Adjustments and provisions need to be made when enhancement causes undue harm to an athlete (human or otherwise) or when it alters the nature of the sport in a regressive way (which can often be a very personal and philosophic opinion).

Ultimately, enhancement cannot happen inside a vacuum. We have to understand and accept the fact that it's going to change things -- often in non-subtle and unpredictable ways.

The goal shouldn't be to eliminate enhancement, but to help athletes perform at their highest level possible, and to see sports brought to their ultimate potential.

Why I think Pistorius should not be allowed to compete at the Olympics

Shocking, you say.

How could I, an unabashed proponent of human enhancement, be opposed to seeing disabled athlete Oscar Pistorius compete at the Olympic Games?

The short answer is that it's not fair to the able-bodied athletes who don't want to get into the enhancement game.

Moving forward, it sets up a situation where:

(1) able-bodied athletes will increasingly be set at a disadvantage relative to the cyber-athletes, particularly as prostheses improve
and
(2) able-bodied athletes will have no choice but to seek enhancement measures of their own, legal or otherwise, to remain competitive

Despite what the Court of Arbitration for Sport says, Pistorius has an advantage. A 25% advantage to be exact.

And even if we assume the Court is wrong, that the IAAF has not conclusively proven that the Cheetahs go beyond the call of normal human functioning duty, the day is all but upon us when advanced prostheses and other measures will.

Consequently, Pistorius and other disabled athletes should continue to compete against each other. This is not intended as a way to segregate athletes according to their abilities per se, but a way to create leagues in which athletes don't feel coerced into entering arms races with each other. Mirrored leagues should be set up, those in which enhancement is sanctioned, and those in which it is not. Athletes can then choose where they want to compete.

Ultimately, the end result will be to the advantage of Pistorius and those like him. They'll inherit the top echelons of sport and maintain the public's interest, while the unenhanced leagues will whither away as quaint curiosity, a throwback to how things used to be.

But until then, let's not set up a situation where chaos and ambiguity ruins it for everyone.

John Harris: Enhancing Evolution

Enhancing Evolution: The Ethical Case for Making Better People
by John Harris
Book Description:

Decisive biotechnological interventions in the lottery of human life--to enhance our bodies and brains and perhaps irreversibly change our genetic makeup--have been widely rejected as unethical and undesirable, and have often met with extreme hostility. But in Enhancing Evolution, leading bioethicist John Harris dismantles objections to genetic engineering, stem-cell research, designer babies, and cloning to make a forthright, sweeping, and rigorous ethical case for using biotechnology to improve human life.

Human enhancement, Harris argues, is a good thing--good morally, good for individuals, good as social policy, and good for a genetic heritage that needs serious improvement. Enhancing Evolution defends biotechnological interventions that could allow us to live longer, healthier, and even happier lives by, for example, providing us with immunity from cancer and HIV/AIDS. But the book advocates far more than therapies designed to free us from sickness and disability. Harris champions the possibility of influencing the very course of evolution to give us increased mental and physical powers--from reasoning, concentration, and memory to strength, stamina, and reaction speed. Indeed, he supports enhancing ourselves in almost any way we desire. And it's not only morally defensible to enhance ourselves, Harris says. In some cases, it's morally obligatory.

Whether one looks upon biotechnology with hope, fear, or a little of both, Enhancing Evolution makes a case for it that no one can ignore.

John Harris is the Sir David Alliance Professor of Bioethics at the University of Manchester School of Law, joint editor-in-chief of the Journal of Medical Ethics, and a member of Britain's Human Genetics Commission. His many books include On Cloning and A Companion to Genethics. Enhancing Evolution is based on keynote lectures Harris delivered at the James Martin Institute at the University of Oxford in 2006.

Read this review from the Times Online, "Enhancing the species." Excerpt:

Likewise, if pills could make children smarter in a safe way, he thinks we would be dumb not to use them. He says: “You have good moral reasons to advantage your children if you can, and good moral reasons to avoid failing to do so. I see enhancing a child as on a continuum with, say, taking folic acid and avoiding alcohol during pregnancy. These are things that decent, sensible parents do to protect their children.” He points out that we are already enhanced humans – by such advances as vaccination, which prevents us from succumbing to diseases that decimated our forebears. This is now lumped under the label of “medicine”; ditto for Ritalin, which modifies behaviour, and modafinil, a drug used to help people to stay awake. Even opera glasses are an enhancement, helping us to see farther than we can naturally. Genetic-based enhancements are simply another stop on the road to improving the lot of humankind.

Of course, the consequence of banishing the diseases of old age is a dramatic extension of lifespan. So be it, Harris says: “To quote a friend, I’d willingly sample a few million years and see how it goes.”

The idea, he believes, is not that enhancements – such as gene therapy to remove the threat of cancer, or so-called “smart pills” – give some a competitive advantage over others. The technologies should be available to all and should raise the baseline of human welfare just as compulsory schooling and public health policy aim to do.

“Certainly, sometimes we want competitive advantage – but for the enhancements I talk about the competitive advantage is not the prime motive. I didn’t give my son (he has a grown-up son, Jacob, to whom the book is dedicated) a good diet in the hope that others eat a bad diet and die prematurely. I’m happy if everyone has a good diet. The moral imperative should be that enhancements are generally available because they are good for everyone.” The only other route to equality, he says, is to level down so that everyone is as uneducated, unhealthy and unenhanced as the lowest in society – which is unethical. Even though we can’t offer a liver transplant to all who need them, he says, we still carry them out for the lucky few. Much better to try to raise the baseline, even if some are left behind.

Russell Blackford also chimes in.

Is the world ready for cyborg athletes?

Look out professional athletes, here come the cyborgs -- and they're aiming for the Olympics.

Double amputee Oscar Pistorius, a sprinter who uses a pair of carbon fiber prosthetic limbs, is hoping to run the 400 meter dash at the next Olympics. And he has the numbers to prove that he can compete; Pistorius has run the 400 meter dash in 46.56 seconds and the 100 meters in an impressive 10.91 seconds.

But speed is not his problem. As it turns out, his prosthetic limbs have become a matter of great contention. Consequently, Pistorius, or 'Blade Runner' as he's called, has more to contend with than just his disability.

Technical Aid?

The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) recently concluded that Pistorius's artificial legs give him a decided advantage over athletes who run with naturally endowed legs. He is using what they have termed a "technical aid." Subsequently, Pistorius is not eligible to compete at the 2008 Olympics should he qualify.

Pistorius sees this as a form of discrimination. He argues that his sprinting talents are latent and the result of his hard work and dedication to the sport. "There's a fear of change," he says.

That said, the IAAF has a point. Pistorius's artificial legs have been dubbed 'cheetahs' -- and not by accident. They resemble blades more than feet, allowing Pistorius to take long strides as he springs from step to step. Some claim that his strides are as long as three to four meters. This is no attempt to mimic normal human running; it's a new form of locomotion altogether.

Pistorius and his team argue that this is nonsense, that the blades couldn't possibly offer such an advantage.

The end of normal human functioning in sports

This issue is a snap-shot into the future of sports. Governing bodies will have much more to contend with than just performance enhancing drugs. Technological endowments, particularly those that are cybernetic in nature, are poised to upset the apple cart that is professional sports.

The Pistorius issue is a case in point. The IAAF was compelled to created a new rule stating that "the use of any technical device that incorporates, springs, wheels, etc is forbidden." They argue that these endowments change the nature and spirit of sporting events to an unacceptable degree. This is undoubtedly a precursor to future rulings that may ban genetic modifications, cognitive enhancements, and cybernetic implants.

Looking at it from another perspective, established sports like the 100 meter dash assume a specific morphology, namely that of a normal functioning human. Athletes can use subtle methods to improve their performance, whether they be expertly designed running shoes or highly refined techniques.

But there is something inherently unsatisfactory about all of this. A certain arbitrariness exists when it comes to determining which technologies are acceptable and which are not. Moreover, given the strong likelihood that advanced prosthetics will greatly surpass what is natural, at what point do we concede defeat and allow 'cyborgs' to compete alongside 'naturals?' Are groups like the IAAF discriminatory by insisting that para-athletes conform to 'normal' human morphology?

And given the 'arms race' nature of competition, will these positional advantages cause athletes to do something as seemingly radical as having their healthy natural limbs replaced by artificial ones? Is it self-mutilation when you're getting a better limb?

New capacities, new sports

The advent and application of cybernetic technologies will redefine what has typically been regarded as normal human functioning. Future humans, as they adopt novel sensory and physical endowments, will establish new modes of living and being. This will in turn normalize within society and become the dynamic norm.

The long term impact of enhancement in sports, however, is still unclear. There may be schisms within specific sports causing the emergence of rival leagues. There may be leagues for enhanced athletes and those for 'naturals.' Over time, however, the naturals will increasingly appear anachronistic.

Imagine a hockey team that communicates techlepathically, or basketball players with improved peripheral vision. There could be ambidextrous switch pitchers and skeet shooters with enhanced visual fields.

And new capacities will mean new sports altogether.

As for Pistorius and his particular dilemma, I agree with the IAAF. He should not compete with normal humans. Instead, he should continue to race against other para-athletes and keep pushing the envelope of what is physically possible.

Eventually, performances by cyborgs will surpass those of unaugmented humans. It's the disabled, after all, who will inherit the earth.

Here's a video clip of Pistorius in action: