Topic: Discussion of Mark Kodya's Thesis

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

Mark,

I don't know if you know all of the details of the Australian doping scandal going on right now, but I was wondering if it has changed your position at all in regard to the commodification of athletes as discussed in your thesis. Just to review, Chakhoyan recently was busted along with two other Australians for a banned stimulant. This is Chakhoyan's second offense in like 4 years (2001 Goodwill Games) so he is now banned for life. His first offense occurred also while lifting for Australia but was for the steroid stanazalol.

So, here is an example of a country that seemingly has embraced commodification, hoping that bringing in top lifters would drive their program and local lifters forward. Whether it has or not appears debatable from what I see on the Australian weightlifting forum (Phoenix). It definitely seems that some there are discouraged from it. I also did see concerns that some imported athletes might be living and training outside the country and potentially outside the country's access for drug testing. I do not know for sure that this is a problem. I will tell you that there was a controversy regarding just that here in American not too many years ago.

So, I was wondering, do you still think it is in the interest of Western and/or post industrialized nations, those typically unsuccessful in weightlifting internationally, to seek out and attract foreign lifters? Do you think it might be possible that a country with a lot of depth might pay athletes to go to other countries solely for the purpose of getting busted and getting that country suspended? Do you think it is in the interest of the Olympic Committee?

Thanks, I look forward to hearing about your current views regarding the commodification of athletes.

[Mark Kodya]

Chris,
       I must admit I was not (and am not) up to date as much on current events in weightlifting as I wish I had the time to be. Since they are current, I can not even, for the most part, "rationalize" time spent staying abreast as somehow relevant to my doctoral studies, since "current" and "history" are somewhat at the opposite ends of the spectrum - at least in academia as a collective mindset. Philosophical issues relating to drug testing, on the other hand is more relevant and I have even done a few papers on this. Incidentally if I ever put them together as a paper for submission for presentation or publication, I may try to impose on you to proofread and offer comment  :D . No guarantees on when that may happen though  :wink: , so you are safe for now.  :wink:

OK, now I'll get around to the question you asked. No I was not aware of the situation in Australia that you mentioned, nor the one in this country you alluded to. So, I am using the information you provided as a factual basis and if more facts later become available or there are subtleties your summary did not mention (and no summary will cover all details - thats why its a summary, right?  :wink: ) that are significant or later become significant, that could modify my opinion, of course. How's that for giving myself an escape hatch? Seriously, I just want to give myself some wiggle room because I am commenting on something I am not as up to speed on as I should be.

That having been said, there are answers to your questions on several levels at least in my mind. Sometimes I like to consider what the ideal situation in an issue might be, but I always do so with the belief that we humans are imperfect and seldom attain the ideal. Starting there, the ideal (in my mind) would be no commodification, no drugs, no drug testing (of the last two, I see one as inherently troublesome as the other). Problem solved. Except you and I both know that isn't happening.
     
At the complete opposite end of the spectrum, the cynical and pragmatic me says other athletes in this sport in other countries and other sports are doing it, so we should and failures such as the one you mention and ramifications are just the price of doing business. That doesn't satisfy me anymore than the first, so let's work our way through this. I am literally thinking/reasoning as I type so please bear with my ramblings.
     
I think the problem for me is that the introduction/attachment of drugs and drug testing to this issue brings so much baggage with it and intertwines the two. Whether we like it or not (I don't) Olympic athletes in general (even weightlifters) are professional athletes at that level of competition. Again whether we like it or not (and amazingly again I don't) professional athletes in the USA at least have the "right" of free agency - to participate in the sport of their choice with the team of their choice. Well, if we are to grant this to some athletes it should be granted to all in the interest of fairness. In Olympic sports, we are dealing with international teams and athletes who may hail from parts of the world where fairness and freedom are not as highly valued - another complication.

Law is not a specialty of mine, but it seems that we have some legal "precedent" that if two or more parties entire into a contract and one of the parties makes a material misrepresentation of a fact which is of central importance to the subject of that contract, then they can be held liable for any damages occurring to the other parties of the contract as a result (direct or indirect) of that misrepresentation. Well, if that is correct and my interpretation and the inferences I am about to draw from that interpretation are correct, then I think it becomes an essential piece of the puzzle. Here's how:

I am inherently skeptical, especially of humans, and particularly when it comes to values/ethics/honesty. This is relevant because I do not for even one millisecond buy the excuse that is increasingly being offered (or at least increasingly reported in the media)  that the doping was unintentional, or accidental or whatever. Hogwash. If an athlete at that level has never taken such substances and somehow unknowingly takes them and does not question the performance improvement long before the test failure, then that says something about their  intelligence or honesty. But, in reality, I think believing such fairy tales says more about the intelligence of those doing the believing. Therefore, let's work off the "assumption" ( ) that anyone failing a drug test who deserved to (and this opens up another whole can of worms relative to drug testing issues that is beyond the scope of this post - but certainly potential fodder for future discussions) knew that they were in violation of doping regulations and did so knowingly.

In that case then, the athlete knows that the violation is subject to a program of detection and, if detected, subject to significant penalties. They may or may not know all the procedures and the range of penalties, but they are generally aware there are penalties. Bringing this back to commodification, an "arrangement" for an athlete to be "traded" to another country involves three parties - the athlete and the two countries involved. As I said, I am not a lawyer nor legal expert, so I do not know if all 3 would be considered equal parties to the transaction but for our purposes that really doesn't matter I would think. Regardless of equality or not, all 3 are parties to the contract and all 3 are either offering consideration or accepting it in exchange for performance of an act. Just as when a race horse is sold and the new owner is guaranteed the suitability (I know there is a better word but it escapes me)  of the horse as far as the old owner knows (like a warrantee when selling a car), so too part of a commodification agreement in weightlifting is an understanding that the athlete's career is an accurate reflection of that athlete's ability to continue to perform in the manner that might be expected as far as any of the parties to the contract know.
 
That is not accurate however if an athlete is knowingly using banned substances. Under our "assumption" above that if a drug test failure was accurate, then the athlete knowingly ingested the substance in question, then the athlete deceived at least one if not both of the other parties to the commodification contract in regards to the "understanding" that the athlete's career is an accurate reflection of that athlete's ability to continue to perform in the manner that might be expected as far as any of the parties to the contract now. As such, it seems he then becomes liable for any damages occurring as a result of that deception. The time of the warrantee of "suitability" and the extent of damages are specifics I must leave to lawyers. Likewise, some provision would need to be made if a second party to the contract (most likely the country the lifter originally represented) was an accessory to the deception either contemporaneously or after the fact - like failing to disclose to the other country a failed unofficial drug test. A third scenario of liability would be if the original country also failed to disclose the failed unofficial test to the lifter - knowing perhaps that as an ethical person he would not then proceed with the transaction. In that case, it would be the country totally liable for any damages.

OK, so a similar rule establishing liability for any party to a commodification transaction that intentionally and materially misrepresents a fact or an implied "warranty of suitability" (or the correct wording) to one or more of the other parties to the commodification transaction - such as a lifter not disclosing their use of banned substances - needs to be made part of the official rules of the sport as an international level. As to any question that such a rule might be construed as being in conflict with the laws of one of the member nations or as waiving valuable protections or other such objections, I would respectfully suggest that there is precedent for rules in many sports that already do that through the rules regarding drug testing. Just as countries and athletes accept drug testing and the rules regarding it - despite potential conflict with laws and rights in their home country (such as the "right" against self-incrimination) - but they accept those rules as a condition of their participation, then so too they must accept this new rule.

As far as the "tricky" or problematic assumption that anyone who fails a drug test and actually did ingest the substance in question did so knowingly, well, isn't that already an inherent or implied assumption? We do not exact criminal penalties in civilized countries for those unable to know right from wrong. Thus, there is an implication that they knew right from wrong and knew their action was wrong which is an inherent part of criminal prosecution. It seems it is also an inherent part of assessing penalties for drug test failures. So, too, it must now be an inherent part of proceedings as a result of deception as to commodification transactions.
       
So, back (finally) to the case you posed. Since this change in rules of the sport is instituted the athlete would be liable to Australia and perhaps even his former country may be liable to some extent to Australia. So, Australia is still penalized (after all the athlete does represent them, so they are still taking a risk), the athlete is still subject to the individual penalties of a failure, and additionally, the athlete (and perhaps his former country) are liable to Australia for monetary restitution. So as to remove any appearance of setting up a legal system in opposition to that in any nation, it seems the restitution for which an athlete or country is liable in this case should be fairly set on some type of table or sliding scale and that any appeals to the amount should proceed through the same channels by which drug test failures and penalties are appealed. Such a scale should incorporate actual damages (the monetary equivalent of whatever the new country lost as a result of the failure - putting the economists and statisticians of sport to work, as well as the lawyers) and punitive damages (to punish and to send a warning to others). This would have the added benefit of effectively increasing doping penalties. OK, now that I have solved the world's problems, do I think such an idea will ever be incorporated? NO, but I also would have said twenty five years ago that no, women would never compete in the Olympics in weightlifting, no there would never be real drug testing at the Olympics, and yes a 600 cj and 500 sn were just a matter of time. Well, after the passage of a lot of time, I'm wrong on all counts! So, I'll stick to hypothetically solving the worlds problems and leave the prediction as to implementation to someone else. I know I have been VERY long winded here and I apologize.

[marian33]

I had read the whole thesis of Mark Kodya. It is a thesis which is a speculative case study of the apparent relationship between international sociopolitical events and events within the sport of weightlifting. I just wanted to ask if the success in the sport of weightlifting correlated to the extent to which that nation is industrialized.

[Andy Dick]

I tried following the link to the thesis but it seems to not work.  Chris can you see if something is wrong with it or put up a new one please?  Sounds like a very interesting piece.

[Chris Ⓐ LeRoux]

http://weightliftingexchange.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46&Itemid=60