In my first week back on the training track, things such as DNA testing, Ice Baths, and special computer software programs, as well as rehabilitation tools, have all been handed out to the girls to provide players with an insight into their genetic makeup, as well as aid them in the process of becoming the best netballers that they can be.
All of this is thanks to Sports Science and Sports Technology.
But is this a bunch of hocus pocus or does it really benefit athletes? And does this impact on sport in more than one way?
Both sports science and sports technology is a multimillion dollar industry which attempts to apply scientific principles and techniques in order to improve the sporting performances of teams and athletes to achieve the best results possible.
Whilst some of these principles are warranted, I wonder if other principles could be questioned as to whether they actually do benefit an athlete in the way that it is supposed to or if it just ends up changing an athlete’s mindset so that they believe something is of benefit, when in fact nothing has actually changed?
Suppose a swimmer was handed a swimsuit and was told by their coach that is was the Speedo LZR Racer suit, when in fact it wasn’t, and ended up resulting in an improved split time, would it instead allow you to look at an athlete’s state of mind rather than the so called science and technology behind a particular racing garment?
Or is something such as this swimsuit, which resulted in 108 World Records being broken in 2008, truly the result of sports science and technology having a big impact on an athlete’s performance?
As science and technology start to have a greater impact on sports, it also creates debate as to whether or not it is creating an unfair advantage to those countries and teams who are able to access these particular resources.
The costs involved in using and having access to sports technology is becoming extremely high and as a result is disadvantaging those who do not have the funds to access the resources and therefore bringing about an uneven playing field.
By the end of the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, spectators were almost questioning the credibility of swimmers and their World Record times due to the suits that they were wearing, despite the fact that these athletes were spending hours a day slogging it out in the pool and in the gym in the lead up to the Games.
When these athletes break world records or win an event, people should not have to question whether they won due to the particular garment that was being worn.
When performance enhancing drugs are already a major issue across several sporting codes, is there really a need to create performance enhancing garments or special sporting venues that benefit athletes in a so called ‘legal’ manner?
And because of this, are we at risk of losing the raw competitiveness of athletes against each other and the elements all due to science and technology?
Pippinu
Roar Guru
Yeh - good article. I think there is a difference between the technology that allows some athletes to get better performances with the same effort (e.g. swimsuite, bikes, etc), and technology that is used as an anlytical tool in allowing athletes to train better (when to work hard, when to rest, what to focus on, etc). I have zero problem with the latter, and completely loathe the former (because it basically creates an bigger uneven playing field than even drugs can manage).
Redb
Roar Guru
The use of GPS tracking is becoming commonplace in the AFL and other codes. I don't think it is producing better athletes but maybe better performances to suit the individual. As long as it is accessbile to you all I dont see the problem with it. Same goes for the swim suits. From a spectators' perspective I like the GPS tracker as it enhances the information we receive about the game and the player stats, eg: Buddy Franklin ran 9.7km in that game, his average is over 14km, perhaps he's not working hard enough to get to contests, etc. Redb
davido
Guest
I think sports science is the last frontier of sport. I cant see how it takes away from any raw talent or competitive spirit. Rather it adds a further dimension. I must however agree that developments in equipment are probably the exception here. They rarely enhance the entertainment factor of the game but do allow unfair advantages to well equipped athletes. The other 'dodgy' sport science is the sports psychologist. This is generally hocus pocus and a waste of money. Although it must be said that it has been demonstrated that athletes with optimistic outlooks take a defeat and respond to it better than athletes with pessimistic mindsets. So there is something to be tapped into there... I just question that sports psychologists can actually do it. By the way do they still have the 'pig farm' for you netballers up at the AIS? (Not that I am suggesting anything! I am sure you are in great shape)
Spiro Zavos
Expert
Natalie, This is most provocative. My feeling is that the technological advances in equipment (swimsuits, golf clubs, cricket bats, running shoes, bikes etc) have had a huge effect on performance. But I'm doubtful about the mind games stuff that many athletes are subjected to. Most sports are essentially quite simple in terms of tactics and strategies, even methods. The modern tendency is to over-complicate things so that the athletes have too much in their head when they are trying to perform. The ideal is to train and think out methods and tactics and then let instinct take over on the field. One of the reasons why I really like to see Roger Federer win is because he coaches himself most of the time. However, having said that, young Murray last year showed (or his coach worked it out) how to beat Nadal, something that was beyond Federer.
Benjamin Conkey
Editor
Great article Natalie. I think when you get to the elite level sports science is more about psychology than anything. I liked your placebo effect example with the swimsuit. Surely it's just in their minds that they can swim faster because the suit makes them feel more comfortable through the water. It would be an interesting study.
Brett McKay
Expert
Good questions, Natalie, and if by 'better' athletes, you mean 'lazy', then a simple answer to your heading line is 'probably'..