Question:
Instant replay will take too long

We already see it with boundary calls: The umpires need to go to the review station, then they need to watch the footage of the play several times, then they need to weigh whether the footage is convincing enough to meet the requisite burden of proof, and then they need to return to the field and signal their decision. In the meantime, tens of thousands of fans are sitting in the stands waiting, millions of people are watching at home, the pitcher is becoming less limber, and any momentum to the game is completely lost. It’s often noted that baseball is a slow sport. “Baseball has no clock,” the saying goes. [1] Instant replay will slow down an already-slow game.

[1] William Deresiewicz, “Metaphors We Play By,” American Scholar, June 6, 2011, http://theamericanscholar.org/metaphors-we-play-by/ .

Baseball is indeed a slow sport, but instant replay will simply replace—rather than add to—other aspects that contribute to its snail-like pace.

First, every time there is a controversial play where the umpire might have made a bad call, a player or the manager will come out and argue with the umpire. This arguing takes up about as much time as a video review would. But with a video review, there would be no arguing; everyone would know the umpires got it right.

Second, when an umpire is not certain about his call, he often will confer with the other umpires in a collective attempt for them to arrive at the correct decision. This, too, takes time, and this, too, can be replaced with instant replay, which has the added virtue of being more accurate.

Third, not very many plays will require instant replay, so even if there is a dilatory effect, it will be relatively small.

Finally, if baseball’s pace is such a concern, then MLB should first pursue a host of other steps to speed the game—time limits for pitchers, batters, arguments, seventh-inning stretches, between-inning warm-ups, etc.

There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The FIFA plan is a step towards preventing such exploitation, the fact it doesn’t solve the problem completely does not prevent it from being a good first step.

Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.

If we were to look at the two possible outcomes we would see that allowing both males and females to compete against each other would actively decrease discrimination. This happens as, in this situation, we perceive the two sexes as being equal, able to compete against each other, both beginning the race from the same starting line, whereas the alternative would be to draw an imaginary barrier between the two sexes claiming that they are so far apart that competition between them would be futile. Those women who come on top on several occasions, such as Danica Patrick who has won NASCAR competitions (1) will show that all those stereotypes are wrong and that they should have been long forgotten. Of course there will be a lot of women who won’t be able to win anything, but the entire spotlight and all the media coverage will be on the ones who will, so they’ll be getting the lion’s share of media attention. As a result, successful stories of women defeating men in their leagues will come as a megaphone for promoting gender equality in society.

(1) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports, October 28, 2011 http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/10/28/9-female-athletes-who-competed-against-men/

Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.

An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.

Sport is dangerous. Today’s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.

In the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1).

All about Traumatic Brain Injuries: http://www.allabouttbi.com/sports-related-traumatic-brain-injury/ , accessed 05/15/2011

The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.

The media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.

[1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005.

The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors.

It must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting.

[1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010.

It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.

The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.

Football has operated successfully for over 100 years without GLT. Two assistant referees were introduced in 1891, 28 years after the rules of association football were coined; a fourth official was introduced in 1991; and FIFA recently introduced two additional assistant referees in Europa League games. Football has demonstrated that it is willing and capable to adjust to the demands of wider exposure without having to resort to GLT.

Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8)

It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Tradition demands that this instant replay not be used

One of the beautiful aspects of baseball is how little it has changed over the years. Just as it was a century ago, you have nine players on the field, batters swinging wooden bats, and umpires dressed in dark colors rendering the decisions. Maintaining tradition honors baseball’s long history. It also helps to promote comparability over time; the feats of today can be held side-by-side with those of 80 years ago. Moreover, it protects baseball against fads and other calls for change that might be popular at a particular moment, but could prove to be disastrous if implemented.

Baseball looks a lot like the game played 100 years ago. But it also looks very different in many crucial ways. Minorities can now play. The height of the mound has been changed. Night games are now played, with the help of lights. Technology—from the material of bats to the shape of gloves to the design of cleats—has evolved. Even the composition of baseballs is different. If all these things can change without eliciting much objection, then why would instant replay violate a tradition? And even if it did, it’s not clear that that tradition is a valuable one (as opposed to a neutral one or even a downright undesirable one). [1]

[1] ZombieMonta, “Why baseball purists are dead wrong about instant replay,” Inhistoric, Sept. 5, 2011, http://www.inhistoric.com/2011/9/5/2405135/why-baseball-purists-are-dead-wrong-about-instant-replay .

There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The FIFA plan is a step towards preventing such exploitation, the fact it doesn’t solve the problem completely does not prevent it from being a good first step.

Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.

If we were to look at the two possible outcomes we would see that allowing both males and females to compete against each other would actively decrease discrimination. This happens as, in this situation, we perceive the two sexes as being equal, able to compete against each other, both beginning the race from the same starting line, whereas the alternative would be to draw an imaginary barrier between the two sexes claiming that they are so far apart that competition between them would be futile. Those women who come on top on several occasions, such as Danica Patrick who has won NASCAR competitions (1) will show that all those stereotypes are wrong and that they should have been long forgotten. Of course there will be a lot of women who won’t be able to win anything, but the entire spotlight and all the media coverage will be on the ones who will, so they’ll be getting the lion’s share of media attention. As a result, successful stories of women defeating men in their leagues will come as a megaphone for promoting gender equality in society.

(1) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports, October 28, 2011 http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/10/28/9-female-athletes-who-competed-against-men/

Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.

An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.

Sport is dangerous. Today’s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.

In the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1).

All about Traumatic Brain Injuries: http://www.allabouttbi.com/sports-related-traumatic-brain-injury/ , accessed 05/15/2011

The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.

The media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.

[1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005.

The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors.

It must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting.

[1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010.

It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.

The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.

Football has operated successfully for over 100 years without GLT. Two assistant referees were introduced in 1891, 28 years after the rules of association football were coined; a fourth official was introduced in 1991; and FIFA recently introduced two additional assistant referees in Europa League games. Football has demonstrated that it is willing and capable to adjust to the demands of wider exposure without having to resort to GLT.

Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8)

It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified.

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Technology is available

GLT technology is readily available and could be quickly implemented. Hawkeye, used in tennis and cricket, would serve the GLT purpose very well. Though eventually dismissed, it was suggested that GPS technology could measure whether players are offside or not. Cameras are already set up for television with enough angles to make decisions; it would be simple to set up monitors pitch-side so that officials could watch replayed footage. Currently, viewers watching at home are able to make much more informed decisions than match officials.

It would still require a large initial outlay of cash in order to equip all stadiums with the technology and train officials in using it. Also, the technology would need to be constantly re-designed and re-developed so that it could keep up with technological advances; this would be extremely expensive and endless, but necessary to keep technology up-to-date, relevant and fit for purpose. Some people suggest that the money would be better spent improving existing official options, such as improving refereeing academies.

There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The FIFA plan is a step towards preventing such exploitation, the fact it doesn’t solve the problem completely does not prevent it from being a good first step.

Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.

If we were to look at the two possible outcomes we would see that allowing both males and females to compete against each other would actively decrease discrimination. This happens as, in this situation, we perceive the two sexes as being equal, able to compete against each other, both beginning the race from the same starting line, whereas the alternative would be to draw an imaginary barrier between the two sexes claiming that they are so far apart that competition between them would be futile. Those women who come on top on several occasions, such as Danica Patrick who has won NASCAR competitions (1) will show that all those stereotypes are wrong and that they should have been long forgotten. Of course there will be a lot of women who won’t be able to win anything, but the entire spotlight and all the media coverage will be on the ones who will, so they’ll be getting the lion’s share of media attention. As a result, successful stories of women defeating men in their leagues will come as a megaphone for promoting gender equality in society.

(1) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports, October 28, 2011 http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/10/28/9-female-athletes-who-competed-against-men/

Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.

An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.

Sport is dangerous. Today’s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.

In the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1).

All about Traumatic Brain Injuries: http://www.allabouttbi.com/sports-related-traumatic-brain-injury/ , accessed 05/15/2011

The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.

The media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.

[1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005.

The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors.

It must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting.

[1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010.

It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.

The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.

Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8)

It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified.

The six-plus-five plan is not banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop clubs in Europe from employing as many overseas players as they wish, this is not what the plan proposes. It simply puts a limit of five on how many foreign players can start a game – so clubs can employ as many foreigners as they want, they just can’t play more than five of them at the same time. Given the tactical use of reserves and the squad rotation common in modern football, clubs are likely to keep signing overseas players. But under FIFA’s plan domestic players will still be given more of a chance than they are now. As the head of the Institute of European Affairs states: "The key aim of the six-plus-five rule in the view of the experts is the creation and assurance of sporting competition. The six-plus-five rule does not impinge on the core area of the right to freedom of movement. The rule is merely a rule of the game declared in the general interest of sport in order to improve the sporting balance between clubs and associations" [1]

[1] Times Online. (2009, February 26). Fifa's six-plus-five rule is not illegal, claims report. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article58...

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
GLT is used across a range of other sports

Technology has been proven to work across a wide range of sports from tennis, cricket and rugby. A survey of its implementation in the 2011 Australian Open demonstrates the impact that guaranteeing correct decisions had on several games.1 It has become a natural aid to sport. GLT would only be used on a goal decision, much like tennis uses challenges only once a rally has stopped. Football is no more fluid a sport than any of the others. If a debatable goal were scored, play would stop anyway while one team celebrates and the other protests to the officials. 1 Kelvin Goodchild, Hawk-eye: Big Impact at Crucial Moments, TennisLife Magazine, 29th January 2011, (accessed 25/05/11)

Challenges in tennis and cricket are limited to three per side – here the number of challenges are potentially unlimited and GLT could be invoked whenever a team senses the possibility of gaining an advantage. Without limitations, the game could be endlessly stopped while officials turn to technology to confirm their decisions.

Football is a continuous game, with a natural ebb and flow, which the interruptions caused by GLT would disrupt.

There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The FIFA plan is a step towards preventing such exploitation, the fact it doesn’t solve the problem completely does not prevent it from being a good first step.

Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.

If we were to look at the two possible outcomes we would see that allowing both males and females to compete against each other would actively decrease discrimination. This happens as, in this situation, we perceive the two sexes as being equal, able to compete against each other, both beginning the race from the same starting line, whereas the alternative would be to draw an imaginary barrier between the two sexes claiming that they are so far apart that competition between them would be futile. Those women who come on top on several occasions, such as Danica Patrick who has won NASCAR competitions (1) will show that all those stereotypes are wrong and that they should have been long forgotten. Of course there will be a lot of women who won’t be able to win anything, but the entire spotlight and all the media coverage will be on the ones who will, so they’ll be getting the lion’s share of media attention. As a result, successful stories of women defeating men in their leagues will come as a megaphone for promoting gender equality in society.

(1) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports, October 28, 2011 http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/10/28/9-female-athletes-who-competed-against-men/

Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.

An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.

Sport is dangerous. Today’s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.

In the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1).

All about Traumatic Brain Injuries: http://www.allabouttbi.com/sports-related-traumatic-brain-injury/ , accessed 05/15/2011

The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.

The media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.

[1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005.

The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors.

It must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting.

[1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010.

It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.

The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.

Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8)

It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified.

The six-plus-five plan is not banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop clubs in Europe from employing as many overseas players as they wish, this is not what the plan proposes. It simply puts a limit of five on how many foreign players can start a game – so clubs can employ as many foreigners as they want, they just can’t play more than five of them at the same time. Given the tactical use of reserves and the squad rotation common in modern football, clubs are likely to keep signing overseas players. But under FIFA’s plan domestic players will still be given more of a chance than they are now. As the head of the Institute of European Affairs states: "The key aim of the six-plus-five rule in the view of the experts is the creation and assurance of sporting competition. The six-plus-five rule does not impinge on the core area of the right to freedom of movement. The rule is merely a rule of the game declared in the general interest of sport in order to improve the sporting balance between clubs and associations" [1]

[1] Times Online. (2009, February 26). Fifa's six-plus-five rule is not illegal, claims report. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article58...

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The introduction of technology is inevitable

Football is moving into the twenty-first century, yet the refusal to embrace GLT is completely out-dated. Nowhere in FIFA policy does it state that referees cannot use the influence of technology. In FIFAs disciplinary code (2009), Article 72 states that: 1) "During matches, disciplinary decisions are taken by the referee", and 2) "These decisions are final"1. The referee already "acts on the advice of the assistant referees regarding incidents that he has not seen" and can change decisions based on advice2. All referees also have an earpiece (introduced in 2006) linking the two assistant refs and the fourth official, which already demonstrates technology's successful impact in football. GLT is simply the next step.

1 FIFA Disciplinary Code 2009 edition, FIFA, December 2008, p.41, (accessed 24/05/11)

2 Laws of the Game 2010/11, FIFA, p.22, (accessed 24/05/11)

Football has operated successfully for over 100 years without GLT. Two assistant referees were introduced in 1891, 28 years after the rules of association football were coined; a fourth official was introduced in 1991; and FIFA recently introduced two additional assistant referees in Europa League games. Football has demonstrated that it is willing and capable to adjust to the demands of wider exposure without having to resort to GLT.

There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The FIFA plan is a step towards preventing such exploitation, the fact it doesn’t solve the problem completely does not prevent it from being a good first step.

Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.

If we were to look at the two possible outcomes we would see that allowing both males and females to compete against each other would actively decrease discrimination. This happens as, in this situation, we perceive the two sexes as being equal, able to compete against each other, both beginning the race from the same starting line, whereas the alternative would be to draw an imaginary barrier between the two sexes claiming that they are so far apart that competition between them would be futile. Those women who come on top on several occasions, such as Danica Patrick who has won NASCAR competitions (1) will show that all those stereotypes are wrong and that they should have been long forgotten. Of course there will be a lot of women who won’t be able to win anything, but the entire spotlight and all the media coverage will be on the ones who will, so they’ll be getting the lion’s share of media attention. As a result, successful stories of women defeating men in their leagues will come as a megaphone for promoting gender equality in society.

(1) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports, October 28, 2011 http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/10/28/9-female-athletes-who-competed-against-men/

Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.

An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.

Sport is dangerous. Today’s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.

In the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1).

All about Traumatic Brain Injuries: http://www.allabouttbi.com/sports-related-traumatic-brain-injury/ , accessed 05/15/2011

The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.

The media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.

[1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005.

The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors.

It must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting.

[1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010.

It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.

The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.

Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8)

It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified.

The six-plus-five plan is not banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop clubs in Europe from employing as many overseas players as they wish, this is not what the plan proposes. It simply puts a limit of five on how many foreign players can start a game – so clubs can employ as many foreigners as they want, they just can’t play more than five of them at the same time. Given the tactical use of reserves and the squad rotation common in modern football, clubs are likely to keep signing overseas players. But under FIFA’s plan domestic players will still be given more of a chance than they are now. As the head of the Institute of European Affairs states: "The key aim of the six-plus-five rule in the view of the experts is the creation and assurance of sporting competition. The six-plus-five rule does not impinge on the core area of the right to freedom of movement. The rule is merely a rule of the game declared in the general interest of sport in order to improve the sporting balance between clubs and associations" [1]

[1] Times Online. (2009, February 26). Fifa's six-plus-five rule is not illegal, claims report. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article58...

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
Technology is more reliable than human judgement

Goals are the ultimate measure of success in football; technology would reduce the risk of teams losing matches unfairly due to controversial decisions (see FIFA World Cup Quarter Final 2010 England v Germany). There is no reason to expose referees to criticism, threats and derision when we have the means to help them. GLT is a tool meant to assist referees in their decisions, not undermine them.

Howard Webb has added his voice to the pro-technology debate: "anything that makes my job easier, that makes me more credible, I've an open mind to. We are still using human opinion in those decisions and maybe on a matter of fact like the goal-line some technology might be the way forward. I personally prefer it when there is no debate about the referees. It's a difficult position, [to judge over the line]. It's at speed, and it ain't easy. Sometimes I feel in a less than privileged position by not having the opportunity [to use technology] but that's where we are. It's for other people to decide where that argument goes."1

Currently, referees are condemned for making honest mistakes when they have not done anything deliberately wrong. There will always be human error when subjective decisions must be made; this cannot be eradicated but we have a responsibility to minimise the risk. GLT may not change many games but its focus is about consistency and quality assurance. 1: Ian Ladyman, Howard Webb calls for goalline technology as World Cup final referee returns to Barclays Premier League duty, MailOnline, 10th September 2010, (accessed 24/05/11)

Take, for example, Sunderland’s freak victory at Liverpool in October 2009, the so called ‘Beachball incident’ where a winning goal was deflected off a large red beach ball, it may well have gone in anyway but it undoubtedly distracted the keeper.1 GLT and instant replays would not have resolved the controversy, as the ambiguity was legal; the law did not have a clear position on the incident. GLT would have been useless here; it is only as useful as the laws and humans behind it.

In March 2010 FIFA president Sepp Blatter argued added: "No matter which technology is applied, at the end of the day a decision will have to be taken by a human being. This being the case, why remove the responsibility from the referee to give it to someone else?”2

Decisions would still be at the discretion of the person watching the video (a second referee, of sorts), who must interpret what he or she sees in a limited space of time.

1 ‘Freak goal was wrongly allowed’, BBC Sport, 18th October 2009, accessed 25/05/11

2 Blatter: Goal-line technology would have wrecked football and been too expensive, Mirrorfootball, 11th March 2010, accessed 24/05/11

There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The FIFA plan is a step towards preventing such exploitation, the fact it doesn’t solve the problem completely does not prevent it from being a good first step.

Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.

If we were to look at the two possible outcomes we would see that allowing both males and females to compete against each other would actively decrease discrimination. This happens as, in this situation, we perceive the two sexes as being equal, able to compete against each other, both beginning the race from the same starting line, whereas the alternative would be to draw an imaginary barrier between the two sexes claiming that they are so far apart that competition between them would be futile. Those women who come on top on several occasions, such as Danica Patrick who has won NASCAR competitions (1) will show that all those stereotypes are wrong and that they should have been long forgotten. Of course there will be a lot of women who won’t be able to win anything, but the entire spotlight and all the media coverage will be on the ones who will, so they’ll be getting the lion’s share of media attention. As a result, successful stories of women defeating men in their leagues will come as a megaphone for promoting gender equality in society.

(1) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports, October 28, 2011 http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/10/28/9-female-athletes-who-competed-against-men/

Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.

An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.

Sport is dangerous. Today’s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.

In the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1).

All about Traumatic Brain Injuries: http://www.allabouttbi.com/sports-related-traumatic-brain-injury/ , accessed 05/15/2011

The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.

The media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.

[1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005.

The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors.

It must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting.

[1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010.

It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.

The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.

Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8)

It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified.

The six-plus-five plan is not banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop clubs in Europe from employing as many overseas players as they wish, this is not what the plan proposes. It simply puts a limit of five on how many foreign players can start a game – so clubs can employ as many foreigners as they want, they just can’t play more than five of them at the same time. Given the tactical use of reserves and the squad rotation common in modern football, clubs are likely to keep signing overseas players. But under FIFA’s plan domestic players will still be given more of a chance than they are now. As the head of the Institute of European Affairs states: "The key aim of the six-plus-five rule in the view of the experts is the creation and assurance of sporting competition. The six-plus-five rule does not impinge on the core area of the right to freedom of movement. The rule is merely a rule of the game declared in the general interest of sport in order to improve the sporting balance between clubs and associations" [1]

[1] Times Online. (2009, February 26). Fifa's six-plus-five rule is not illegal, claims report. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article58...

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The cost would not match FIFA's aim of opening football to the world

Only professional clubs and national federations have the resources to install the technology in stadiums. This would further increase the gap that is emerging between local clubs and high-revenue leagues such as the Premier League, La Liga, the Bundesliga and Serie A.

Further, currently amateur teams playing on Sundays play the same game, with the same rules and ethos, as the professionals. With GLT, many argue that this would no longer be the case. In a press conference in March 2010, FIFA president Sepp Blatter wrote: "One of the main objectives of FIFA is to protect the universality of the game of association football... If you are coaching a group of teenagers in any small town around the world, they will be playing with the same rules as the professional players they see on TV."1

For example, the FA Cup has 4 or 5 qualifying rounds consisting of amateur and semi-professional knock-out phases because the Premier League teams with GLT capability are introduced. This could mean that games are run according to different rules at different stages of the same competition (and, indeed, possible even the same round if some clubs draw Premier League teams and others are small-club affairs).

1 Blatter: Goal-line technology would have wrecked football and been too expensive, Mirrorfootball, 11th March 2010, accessed 24/05/11

it is a fallacy to say that if GLT cannot be applied to all levels of football it should not be applied at all. Nobody is suggesting that GLT be set up for all games down to grassroots level. Compromise is necessary in order to encourage reform within in a game whose stance on technology is anachronistic.

Also, other sports have only implemented technology in the professional sphere. They recognise that there is a massive amount of money and emotion invested in the professional game, and fairness is deserved as a reward.

If both teams know the rules, they can both play the game according to the same standard; GLT would not make teams play with different rules, it would just mean that some games are better equipped.

There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The FIFA plan is a step towards preventing such exploitation, the fact it doesn’t solve the problem completely does not prevent it from being a good first step.

Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.

If we were to look at the two possible outcomes we would see that allowing both males and females to compete against each other would actively decrease discrimination. This happens as, in this situation, we perceive the two sexes as being equal, able to compete against each other, both beginning the race from the same starting line, whereas the alternative would be to draw an imaginary barrier between the two sexes claiming that they are so far apart that competition between them would be futile. Those women who come on top on several occasions, such as Danica Patrick who has won NASCAR competitions (1) will show that all those stereotypes are wrong and that they should have been long forgotten. Of course there will be a lot of women who won’t be able to win anything, but the entire spotlight and all the media coverage will be on the ones who will, so they’ll be getting the lion’s share of media attention. As a result, successful stories of women defeating men in their leagues will come as a megaphone for promoting gender equality in society.

(1) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports, October 28, 2011 http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/10/28/9-female-athletes-who-competed-against-men/

Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.

An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.

Sport is dangerous. Today’s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.

In the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1).

All about Traumatic Brain Injuries: http://www.allabouttbi.com/sports-related-traumatic-brain-injury/ , accessed 05/15/2011

The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.

The media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.

[1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005.

The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors.

It must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting.

[1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010.

It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.

The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.

Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8)

It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified.

The six-plus-five plan is not banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop clubs in Europe from employing as many overseas players as they wish, this is not what the plan proposes. It simply puts a limit of five on how many foreign players can start a game – so clubs can employ as many foreigners as they want, they just can’t play more than five of them at the same time. Given the tactical use of reserves and the squad rotation common in modern football, clubs are likely to keep signing overseas players. But under FIFA’s plan domestic players will still be given more of a chance than they are now. As the head of the Institute of European Affairs states: "The key aim of the six-plus-five rule in the view of the experts is the creation and assurance of sporting competition. The six-plus-five rule does not impinge on the core area of the right to freedom of movement. The rule is merely a rule of the game declared in the general interest of sport in order to improve the sporting balance between clubs and associations" [1]

[1] Times Online. (2009, February 26). Fifa's six-plus-five rule is not illegal, claims report. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article58...

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim


Question:
The cost of GLT is unjustified for a relatively rare scenario

In order for a goal to stand, the ball must completely cross the line; to have a situation where this is in doubt is very rare. Introducing GLT would be to completely change the nature of football for the least significant occurrence.

These incidents tend to balance out over the season. Teams do not win leagues or are not relegated because of one isolated incident in one game; they win because of skill, strength and tactics, over the course of 90 minutes for a game, and a whole season for a league.

The frequency of use is not the point of GLT. It is a back-up system, a support infrastructure, whose purpose is to help minimise inconsistencies and serve justice when called upon. The cost is a small price to pay for the transformative effect it could have upon the one game where it matters. Early in the 2009/10 season Crystal Palace had a goal ruled out against Bristol City after it had actually gone in the net and bounced out.1 They lost two points because neither the referee nor the assistant referee saw the ball go in the net, and if Palace had not beaten Sheffield Wednesday on the final day of the season, they would have been relegated because of it. Given Palaces' dire financial situation, this would almost certainly have resulted in the club being liquidated. Just because it is rare, that does not mean it is not valuable.

1 Palace denied replay over ‘goal’, BBC Sport, 27th August 2009, accessed 25/05/11

There is already a problem with talented teenagers from Africa and other poorer countries being recruited by rich European clubs to train at their academies. This takes them far away from family and friends and ties them into long contracts they don’t understand – some have called it a form of slavery. And if they get injured or turn out to be not quite good enough, then they can be thrown out without proper support. At the same time, poorer footballing countries are deprived of many of their most promising players, without even getting the transfer money paid when adult players move to a new club overseas. The FIFA plan is a step towards preventing such exploitation, the fact it doesn’t solve the problem completely does not prevent it from being a good first step.

Rich athletes from wealthier countries will always have access to the latest, highest quality performance enhancers. On the other side, athletes from poorer countries which do not have the same medical and scientific advances will not be able to keep up. They will always be at a disadvantage regardless of whether performance enhancing drugs are legal or not.

If we were to look at the two possible outcomes we would see that allowing both males and females to compete against each other would actively decrease discrimination. This happens as, in this situation, we perceive the two sexes as being equal, able to compete against each other, both beginning the race from the same starting line, whereas the alternative would be to draw an imaginary barrier between the two sexes claiming that they are so far apart that competition between them would be futile. Those women who come on top on several occasions, such as Danica Patrick who has won NASCAR competitions (1) will show that all those stereotypes are wrong and that they should have been long forgotten. Of course there will be a lot of women who won’t be able to win anything, but the entire spotlight and all the media coverage will be on the ones who will, so they’ll be getting the lion’s share of media attention. As a result, successful stories of women defeating men in their leagues will come as a megaphone for promoting gender equality in society.

(1) Esteban “9 Female Athletes Who Competed Against Men”, Total Pros Sports, October 28, 2011 http://www.totalprosports.com/2011/10/28/9-female-athletes-who-competed-against-men/

Simple analogy: If a person were to kill himself for the sake of entertaining the crowd, this act would still be considered illegal by the government and efforts to hinder and discourage it would be created.

An appropriate example is the one of dangers of alcohol and tobacco, which were not known until after they had become normalized in society. Once the dangers were known, the public were so used to it, that they wouldn’t condone a ban by the State. If alcohol were introduced tomorrow it would be banned, as shown by the attitude towards narcotics and steroid use has shown. Governments have tried to reduce sales by having high levels of tax on tobacco and alcohol anyway. Moreover many states are restricting choice in tobacco and alcohol by introducing limited bans, such as on smoking in public places. The proposition cannot use the fact that tobacco and alcohol are legal as a defense of the use of drugs. This should be seen as an equally detrimental act and thus illegal.

Sport is dangerous. Today’s athletes decide to endanger their lives by participating in sports all the time. They decide to participate in sports with the informed decision that they might get hurt as it is part of the sport. Performance enhancing drugs are no different.

In the USA every year there are nearly 300,000 sports-related traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Athletes involved in sports such as football, hockey and boxing are at significant risk of TBI due to the high level of contact inherent in these sports. Head injuries are also extremely common in sports such as cycling, baseball, basketball and skateboarding. Many head injuries acquired, playing these sports, lead to permanent brain damage or worse. Yet we do not impose a law to ban athletes from participating in those sports. We trust their assessment of risk (1).

All about Traumatic Brain Injuries: http://www.allabouttbi.com/sports-related-traumatic-brain-injury/ , accessed 05/15/2011

The media can and often is used as a tool for public policy. Examples of this include the broadcasting of public information campaigns against drink-driving or smoking or else bans on certain advertising such as smoking advertisements or sponsorship appearing on TV.[1] What’s more the government has a huge influence in what it deems to be worthwhile news or television programs and documentaries. This is because of the existence of state controlled media organisations, like the BBC, and on a more subtle level, with the imposition on restrictions as to what can and cannot be published or broadcast.

The media coverage inequality between women and men’s sport is a different issue to that made out by the opposition. Floods in Queensland Australia are more relevant to Australians than Europeans because they are more likely to have been affected by them. Women’s sports, however, are potentially as relevant to people’s lives as men’s sports. The increased participation in women’s sport indicates that media coverage is likely to be relevant to more and more people. Even if this was not the case women’s sport should still get air time; with the internet and digital TV it is wrong to suggest that more coverage of women’s sport will come at the expense of men’s sports as there is enough airspace.

[1] ‘Law ends UK tobacco sponsorship’, BBC News, 31 July 2005.

The government can to a degree cover for any potential drop in funding from private sector sources. Focus can remain on developing grass-roots and sports at schools in order to incentivise new generations of athletes, so the harms mentioned by the opposition will by and large not occur. In time, popularity of women’s sport will increase such that it will once again attract large lucrative TV rights deals and large investments from sponsors.

It must also be mentioned that the opposition to an extent present a false dichotomy with their argument. Increased coverage of women’s sport need not take valuable air time away from more popular men’s sport in the way the opposition claims. Matches can be scheduled so that they do not clash with each other, and more TV channels can be created (such as the BBC’s red button service). Additionally, air-time is often packed trivial stories and programs other than popular men’s sporting events. Examples from American TV include reports ‘on supremely unhealthy hamburgers on sale at a minor league baseball parks or basketball star Shaquille O’Neal’s contest with a 93-year-old woman’ [1]. Such programs could easily and painlessly be replaced with women’s sporting news or live broadcasting.

[1] Deggans, Eric: “Continued apathy by sports media toward women’s sport a bigger problem than first meets the eye”, National Sports Journalism Centre, June 8 2010.

It is true that it is difficult to decide where to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate performance enhancement. However we should continue to draw a line nonetheless. This line should be drawn at protecting athletes from harmful drugs and preserving the spirit of fair play and unaided competition between human beings in their peak of natural fitness.

The special diet and sport training equipment, which may seem very hard and exeptional, have been designed based on serious scientific research proved and tested to fit with long-term training of athletes. Hard practice to achieve the best performance with help of these professional methods is completely a different from taking steroids and growth hormones for immediate result.

Bullfighting is not about torturing for enjoyment; clean and quick kills are what is prized most by the bullfighting community. If a matador fails to deliver such a kill, and the bull suffers needlessly, then he will be jeered and shamed. This dynamic demonstrates a clear sense of decency within the bullfighting community.(8)

It is naïve to pretend that the alternative for bulls and cows is a long, happy life in the meadows and then a natural death. Rather, bulls and cows are kept and bred for their meat and eventual slaughter, a process which can be made to seem just as horrific as bullfighting if the same descriptive language is used. There is no significant moral difference between watching a bull die in a bullfight for enjoyment and having a cow killed to make meat so people can enjoy eating it. Must not it be so, according to Bentham's logic, that eating meat for enjoyment displays as much 'want of humanity' as bullfighting? Indeed, in many ways bullfighting is at least more honest: the violence is clear and there for all to see, whereas the death of the cow is hidden from the consumer of a hamburger. Bullfighting is in no way uniquely cruel or even more cruel than eating meat, and so to ban it would be unjustified.

The six-plus-five plan is not banned under EU law. Although it would be illegal to stop clubs in Europe from employing as many overseas players as they wish, this is not what the plan proposes. It simply puts a limit of five on how many foreign players can start a game – so clubs can employ as many foreigners as they want, they just can’t play more than five of them at the same time. Given the tactical use of reserves and the squad rotation common in modern football, clubs are likely to keep signing overseas players. But under FIFA’s plan domestic players will still be given more of a chance than they are now. As the head of the Institute of European Affairs states: "The key aim of the six-plus-five rule in the view of the experts is the creation and assurance of sporting competition. The six-plus-five rule does not impinge on the core area of the right to freedom of movement. The rule is merely a rule of the game declared in the general interest of sport in order to improve the sporting balance between clubs and associations" [1]

[1] Times Online. (2009, February 26). Fifa's six-plus-five rule is not illegal, claims report. Retrieved May 10, 2011, from Times Online: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article58...

Instruction: Given a claim, retrieve documents that refute the claim