Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by mattie_p on Tuesday February 18 2014, @07:30PM   Printer-friendly
from the and-now-for-sports dept.

CoolHand writes:

"Sci-Tech Today talks about the role of technology in the Olympics from a unique perspective:

Every advance in the ever-accelerating juggernaut of sports technology threatens to widen the divide between Olympic haves and have-nots. Well-sponsored teams and rich governments pay top-end scientists and engineers to shape their skis, perfect their skates, tighten their suits, measure their gravitational pull.

I'm no luddite, but this seems to make these sports more about who can afford the best tech, and less about the true spirit of the games: bringing the best athletes from all countries together to compete. How can it be about the athletes, when some of the best athletes may never win due to lack of funding/tech?"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by guanxi on Tuesday February 18 2014, @07:54PM

    by guanxi (934) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @07:54PM (#1852)

    There's another technology that determines the outcome, performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs). Just like the other technologies mentioned, it reduces athletic competition to who has the best R&D.

    We may not know for years which athletes who win tonight use PEDs; we may never know. Many people know this, but they keep watching.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Tuesday February 18 2014, @08:03PM

    by VLM (445) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @08:03PM (#1863)

    It never fails to amuse me if you substitute in "nutrition" for "drugs" then the freakout disappears although the situation is no different.

    The idea that extreme athlete nutrition is inherently healthy for the body seems as unlikely as extreme athlete drugs are inherently healthy for the body...

    • (Score: 1) by Darth Turbogeek on Tuesday February 18 2014, @10:32PM

      by Darth Turbogeek (1073) on Tuesday February 18 2014, @10:32PM (#1986)

      Plus extreme athlete nutrition sounds like it could be marketed for hundreds of dollars to kids and parents. It probably is already and it probably is as harmful as a vial of Lance Armstrong's best go juice

      Which was also hidden as extreme nutrition and is likely to have caused his original cancer.