In 1972 I attended the Pre-Olympic Scientific Congress in Munich. For the first time science and sport were brought together in connection with the Olympic Games. The organizers presented a book Sport in Blickpunkt der Wissenschaften (Sport from a Scientific Point of View) that summarized history and state of the art of the main sport scientific approaches (41). The German philosopher Hans Lenk gave a presentation of a broad array of past and present interpretations of sport from a philosophic viewpoint (...) (49). The congress in Munch and Hans Lenk's presentation of sport as a suitable philosophic topic became decisive for my own lifelong interest in philosophy of sport. Soon after the Munich conference some American philosophers convened to launch the Philosophic Society for the Study of Sport. In 1973 the first issue of Journal of Philosophy of Sport was published (35). In several ways 1972 was a turning point for philosophy of sport as a serious academic discipline and for my own interest in sport philosophy. From here sport philosophy found its way to Norway and through this and along several other roads to other Nordic countries. (shrink)

I denne artikkelen drøfter jeg bruk av biomedisinsk teknologi i prestasjonsfremmende hensikt i konkurranseidrett. Mer presist utforsker jeg mulighetene for å skille mellom etisk akseptabel og etisk uakseptabel bruk. Jeg kritiserer WADAs normative grunnlag for å forby visse biomedisinske midler og metoder, og argumenterer for at eventuelle forbud må bygge på tydeligere verdisyn på idrett. Jeg undersøker to idealtypiske syn og deres teknologiske implikasjoner. Det smale synet er liberalt og avviser begrensninger i bruk av biomedisinske midler og metoder blant voksne (...) idrettsutøvere som dårlig begrunnet paternalisme. Det brede synet innebærer en mer restriktiv holdning og aksepterer en viss regulering av trening og prestasjonsutvikling også utenfor konkurransene. I en avsluttende del veier jeg det smale og det brede synet mot hverandre og reflekterer over hvilket syn som vil dominere framtidens idrett.Nøkkelord: etikk, idrett, biomedisinsk teknologi, dopingEnglish summary: The use of biomedical technology in sport: Are there any limits?In the article I examine the use of biomedical technology to enhance performance in competitive sport. More specifically I examine the possibilities for distinguishing between ethically acceptable and ethically unacceptable use of such technology. I criticize the World Antidoping Agency's normative criterion for banning certain technologies as it is vague and unclear. I argue that any ban by WADA has to build on a clear and operational normative view of sport. Two relevant ideal-typical views are examined together with their technological implications. The narrow view is liberal and rejects restrictions on the use of biomedical technology among professional athletes as unjustifiable paternalism. The wider view implies a more restrictive approach and accepts certain regulations of performance-enhancing means and methods outside of competitions. In the conclusion, I compare the narrow and the wider views and reflect upon their possible status in competitive sport in the future. (shrink)

In this paper, we argue that there are important differences between playing and non-playing roles in sport. The relevance of sex differences poses genuine philosophical and ethical difficulties for feminism in the context of playing sport. In the case of non-playing roles in general, and officiating in particular, we argue that reference to essential differences between men and women is irrelevant. Officiating elite men?s football is not a role for which ?essential? (psychological and biological) differences are causally implicated neither in (...) competence nor excellence. Reference to such purported differences to justify the exclusion of women from roles such as officiating is unfounded and sexist. (shrink)

This paper is an examination of the concept of recognition and its connection with identity and respect. This is related to the question of how women are or are not adequately recognised or respected for their achievements in sport and whether eliminating sex segregation in sport is a solution. This will require an analysis of the concept of excellence in sport, as well as the relationship between fairness and inclusion in an activity that is fundamentally about bodily movement. I argue (...) that attempts to address the problem of women’s recognition in sport need to do so in ways that neither eliminate sport as a fairness regulated system for developing individual excellence in bodily movement nor that prevent women’s achievement of sporting excellence, with the regard that belongs to them. Doing this requires us to decide whether sport is about champions or about individual excellence. (shrink)

This paper argues that the sport of ski jumping possesses the untapped potential to empower women. It also recommends ways in which this potential should be realised. The untapped potential of ski jumping lies in the notion that, under two independent conditions, women are able to jump as far as men. The first condition is that women start from a higher gate than men. The second is that women and men start from the same gate, but compete on a ski (...) flying hill. In order to realise the untapped potential, it is recommendable to take two steps to transform the practice of ski jumping. The first step is to introduce a mixed-pair competition for the 2014–2015 season. The second step is to introduce a sex-integrated individual competition for the 2016–2017 season. The sex-integrated competition can be either compensated or non-compensated. (shrink)

Sporting communities remain entangled in debate over whether and how to include transgender and intersex athletes in competition with cisgender athletes. Of particular concern is that transgender and intersex athletes may have unfair physiological advantages over their cisgender opponents. Arguments for inclusion of transgender and intersex athletes in sport attempt to demonstrate that such inclusion does not threaten the presumed physiological equivalence among competitors and is therefore fair to all. This article argues that the physiological equivalency rationale has significant limitations, (...) including an inordinate emphasis on sport as a comparative test. Instead, this article contends that arguments for narrativity rather than physiological equivalency show that exclusion is not only misguided but also undesirable: it is detrimental not only to the excluded athletes but to sport itself. The article yields several important consequences including calls for revisions to policies on transgender... (shrink)