6 Framing debates about gene doping

Discussion

The use of ‘fairness’ and ‘protection from harm’ arguments reinforces what you have already read. However, Sandel adds to these with his main argument, about doping distancing us from the human dimension of sport; this is an example of the integrity (morally principled) based perspective. Doping can be said to dehumanise the experience of sport; it becomes unnatural. You may have noticed it is rather similar to elements of the ‘spirit of sport’ response you considered in Activity 4 – with genetic modification it can be viewed that this is not natural or in, Sandel’s terms, ‘not human’.

The title of this section is about framing an issue and you have started to see the different ways framing is achieved. The way an issue is introduced and consistently argued can help define the parts of the argument an author feels are most important. For example, if an author frames the debate by saying that anti-doping can make sport fairer, it frames the issue in relation to equity and would not focus on some of the arguments you have just read about.

Here are some other examples of where how you frame something can influence debate:

• framing concussion in sport from a ‘prevention strategies’ perspective, i.e. effective approaches to prevent its occurrence
• framing the use of role models as the answer to underrepresented groups becoming coaches, i.e. this perhaps ignores wider structural issues that prevent these groups accessing coach education
• framing transgender athletes as having genetic advantages shapes the topic towards male-to-female transitions, and ignores wider social issues and barriers.