Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

What exactly is the purpose of sports, beyond mere spectacle? Is it right to commend someone merely because they possess the ideal genetics? These genetics might make them naturally responsive to training or, controversially, to performance-enhancing drugs. But does it really matter? It's noticeable that sports are often pursued disproportionately by those from less privileged socio-economic backgrounds. Yet, paradoxically, these individuals can end up being treated as mere entertainers or subjected to doping. Additionally, the prevalence of sexual abuse in certain sports is alarmingly high.

While I am a firm advocate for sports and physical activity at a personal level, my perspective shifts when it comes to high-level sports competitions. They often leave me feeling perplexed and disheartened, making me question whether I'm missing something that others see in them. More often than not, instead of inspiration or entertainment, I perceive underlying horror and abuse.




> It's noticeable that sports are often pursued disproportionately by those from less privileged socio-economic backgrounds

Are you sure about that? That goes completely against everything I've seen, and I come from an area known for high performance athletes. So much so that I used to eat lunch in highschool with someone who would go on to compete in the Olympics.

I associate sports, and especially their pursuit at a high level, with a high socio-economic background. Only the rich can afford the gym memberships, travel, gear(heh), time and energy to pursue sports. Every single Millennial I know who is serious about sports came from an upper-middle class or better background. 0 exceptions. I laugh hard about sports scholarships being really just a kickback for the rich. Every person who got one in my highschool class came from a family rich enough to put them through multiple camps a year, private trainers, fancy equipment. They were going to college either way.

Meanwhile, I like running and lifting weights and almost every older person in my blue collar network thinks it's stupid and I should work outside if I want to get exercise.


So I think there are many layers and levels to sport engagement, and also there are clear studies that wealthier societies pump more into sport. Studies do show that more well off societies get more super athletes etc. However there is also other data: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/olympics/2020/02/24/sur... Yes their parents do need to be well off enough to support them, but these are people that still struggle and I certainly think there is a lot of data of poor people trying to get out of poverty via sport, and those will also be the most vulnerable to be pushed into destroying their bodies for it too. TLDR I don’t think you will find many tech CEO sons doping to be the next Armstrong.


> I don’t think you will find many tech CEO sons doping to be the next Armstrong.

Counterpoint: Rich people still end up with Heroin addictions.

From what I've seen, doping is almost irresistible if you start down the path of high performance and have the cash to support it. People who are doping don't think they are destroying their body, they think they are unlocking their true potential. This is doubly true if you have enough money to hire a professional team to monitor/regulate your PEDs.


Fair but under that worldview which I admit is likely in athletes, one is more likely to have sound advice and a medical team trying to do their best for them, the other less so. I’d speculate a US medical team keen on a gold metal is less likely to have the same morals as a privately paid one. However one caveat, at this point I am far outside what I can substantiate via direct experience or data.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: