The trouble with Ostarine: Jimmy Wallhead’s
16th March 2018
Features
This article provides a theoretical set of circumstances where drones could provide a credible risk to the integrity of sporting events and competitions across the globe. This potential threat could affect all sports and in broadly similar respects. In many areas, these ideas have moved beyond the theoretical and toward the actual.
Over the last decade, drone technology has developed from military devices to a merger of kinds with an older hobby of radio controlled planes and helicopters. The minimisation of camera technology, including infrared, has allowed drones to take up an important role within sporting events. These can be positive if frameworks are set up by sporting bodies, but they can also provide a wide range of causes for concern for the integrity of the sports we love to play and watch.
Firstly, it is worth mentioning the positive aspects of drone use in sports, because these can also lead to reasons to be concerned. The primary use of drones in sport is creating new ways of viewing sporting events. These can include the recording of events for live broadcast on television networks, but also allow sports of all sizes to create promotional materials to be uploaded to social video sites such as YouTube and AirVuz. Furthermore, they can provide a flexible mode for recording events with greater intimacy than other types of camera currently available.
Recently, The Rugby Championship (formerly the Tri Nations rugby union competition) between New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and Argentina hit a controversial tone when the New Zealand team, then in Australia for a match, found bugging devices at their training camp. The accusation was that the opposition were trying to gain an unfair advantage through discovery of tactics.
Drones theoretically make it possible for opposition teams and players to monitor the training activities of rivals in order to gain an unfair advantage over them. Furthermore, drones could be used in track-based racing to scout out the route ahead of schedule. If this is done only by one or two teams as opposed to all, this would provide an unfair advantage for those teams that can afford extensive drone use over those who cannot.
The British Horseracing Authority (BHA) has approved the use of drones for horse racing events within Great Britain. However, this usage is subject to conditions and rules, jointly agreed upon by all stakeholders. Horse racing, like many other sports, has a long association with gambling. It is famous as a sport where people bet on the outcome of races and any knowledge of conditions, horses, jockeys etc. is key to reducing the risk involved in any bet.
If drones, along similar lines to the spying mentioned above, can provide further information to betting syndicates, then the better for them. However, it could also be argued that this compromises the integrity of sports by giving a key advantage to bettors wishing to skew outcomes in their favour. This may, in the future, necessitate banning of unapproved drones from all sporting grounds, including training areas.
The qualifying campaign for the Euro 2016 football tournament looked certain to spark controversy when Albania and Serbia were drawn in the same group. However, a drone was utilised by fans in a manner which further sparked tensions between the two countries.
The drone pulled a banner above the pitch promoting Albanian claims over Kosovo, thus sparking a riot among both Serbian players and fans, which led to the match being abandoned and Albania being awarded the match 3-0. This highlights the of damage that can be caused when drones are used to bring political contentions into the sporting arena, where they do not belong.
However, the ability to interrupt sporting events is not limited to political gestures and certainly not to drones. All sports coverage has the potential to disrupt events. Examples range from camera operatives on the back of motorbikes unwittingly getting in the way of runners and cyclists or to provide them aerodynamic assistance, to footballs hitting cameras above a pitch and changing the nature of where the ball would land when gravity takes control of it again.
Historically, sport has tended to fear that new technology will crack the ‘golden egg’ that is broadcast revenue. For example, in 2013, a US District Court threw out a claim brought by a number of sporing organisations against YouTube, where it was argued that fans uploading clips of coverage constituted a copyright infringement. Sporting organisers have already sought to place restrictions on media coverage of live sporting events in order to protect broadcast revenue.
New technology tends to breed innovation. The use of drones within sport is still in its relative infancy. As can be seen, issues involving spying have already materialised and further issues, such as drone use in conjunction with betting, can already be envisioned. It remains to be seen how drones will be embraced by sport – watch this space.
• Twenty three athletes from 14 countries, competing in 11 sports, were involved in anti-doping...
• Twelve athletes from nine countries, competing in seven sports, were involved in anti-doping proceedings...
• 36 athletes from 12 countries, competing in 12 sports, were involved in anti-doping proceedings...