Man vs. Machine: the role of technology in sport

Technology has always been present in sport to a certain extent, but over the past few decades, its role has changed. It is interesting to consider the various ways in which technology applies to sport, and the effects this has. Several ethical issues arise, including what is the difference between legitimate use of technology and cheating.


In a paper published in the European Journal of Sport Science, Andy Miah separates technology into categories, according to the effect it has on sport:

1 – The first category is those technologies that make sport possible.
Examples of this are ice skates, swimming pools and other equipment without which the sport would not be possible

2 – The second type is those that improve safety.
Examples of this are helmets, and other protective clothing.

Both of these types of technology are fairly uncontroversial, with limited performance enhancing capabilities.

3 – The third type of technologies are those that de-skill or re-skill sport.

A good example of this is when thick mats replaced sandpits/ sawdust in high jump, and suddenly the scissor/ straddle technique was completely replaced by the flop (which would have resulted in a broken neck on the old landing surfaces). Technologies of this type tend to be quite controversial, as they can shake up the world rankings and/or cause a step-change in world records.

Scissors technique:
image from: http://reference.findtarget.com/search/high%20jump/

Flop technique:image from: news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/athletics/6974694.stm

4 – The fourth type that Miah designates are technologies that dehumanise performance.

Car racing is probably the best example here, where the technology is (arguably) more important to the competition outcome than the diver’s skill.


The most important role that sports technology regulations must perform is to ensure the safety of those involved in sport. Just like medical technology, sports technology ought not to increase risks to athletes’ or spectators’ health or safety. Many forms of doping should be banned according to this criteria, and some types of equipment should also be affected.

Apart from ensuring safety, the second aim of most sports is to reduce or eliminate the effect of technology of the fourth type (those that dehumanise performance). The idea is that sporting competition should be between 'men' rather than 'machines.' Even in the extreme example of Formula 1, attempts are made to reduce the technological aspect of the competition in order to allow the drivers' skills to have a greater effect on the outcome.

On the low end of the technological spectrum are sports such as running, where equipment is minimal and cheap. Of course even running has had technology controversies, notably Cathy Freeman's aerodynamic suit at the Sydney Olympics.

Image from www.catherinefreemanfoundation.com

On the other end of the technlogical spectrum are sports like cycling, or even Formula 1 (whether or not motor sports count as a sport is a question for another post).

Image from www.bikesportmichigan.com

It is clear that technology plays a role in all sports. Where then should the line be drawn to determine which technologies are allowed, and which are not? Technologies that deskill or dehumanise the sport are typically seen as undesirable. Recent controversies include the 'swimsuit debacle' in swimming (e.g.), and the use of radios in the Tour de France, or my recent favourite skinsuit ban in downhill mountain biking. All of these topics deserve a post of their own, and I will link to them when they are added. In my opinion, most of these type of comtroversies overestimate the effect that the relevant technology will have on the sport. In these technologically advanced times, efficiency gains of more than a couple of percent are few and far between. This is the difference between an extremely good athlete and a ridiculously good athlete (to put it technically!), not the difference between a weekend athlete and a world champion, which is how it is often portrayed.

In my opinon, most technilogical advancements that do not compromise health and safety could play a positive role in sport, provided that they are potentially available to anyone, in order not to exaggerate “artificial” advantages that one athlete might have over the competition. The Olympic Games, for example, has regulations of this nature. The controversy surrounding the recent swimming world championships could presumably have been mitigated by a similar regulation.

In conclusion, provided that sports technology is regulated to ensure that:

1. Health and safety for athletes, spectators, etc is protected
2. Technology that deskills and/or dehumanises sport is regulated or banned
3. Technology and equipment is available to everyone,

there does not seem to me to be any ethical reason why properly regulated technological advances should not be able to play a legitimate role in sport.