Question:
Downloaders spend more on music

Downloading songs could mean more income for musicians. Concerts (plus merchandise like T-shirts) are becoming a bigger source of income. But suppose a new musician comes to town. How am I supposed to know if I want to go to their concert if I don’t know their music? Previously, I wouldn’t have gone since I didn’t want to spend money on first buying their album and then buying the ticket. Now, I can quickly check out their music by downloading some songs to see if I like it, and then go to their concert. I save money on the albums, and will go more to concerts. Indeed a study by Demos has shown that people who illegally download music spend £30 more on music per year than those who do not. [1]

[1] Demos, ‘Illegal downloaders are one of music industry’s biggest customers’, 1 November 2009, http://www.demos.co.uk/press_releases/illegal-downloaders-are-one-of-mus...

It is a mistake to think that when you’re downloading, there isn’t someone else making a huge profit. Torrent sites and other “pirate” sites gain huge amounts of income from the advertisements on their site. This means that they profit from material which is not theirs. Why should they profit from material they have gotten unfairly and without permission?

Mobile phones may help us keep in touch over long distances which is useful. However some doctors are concerned that keeping in touch by mobile phone comes at the cost of less face to face talking. When communicating by text message we are losing many parts of communication such as facial expression

Moves illegal activity in harder to monitor areas. Those partaking in planning illegal activity will not continue to do so if hiding their identities is not possible. Instead, they will return to using more private means of communication, such as meeting in person, or using any online services that do guarantee anonymity such as TOR. While this may make planning illegal activity more difficult, it also makes it more difficult for law enforcement officials to monitor this behaviour, and come anywhere near stopping it: at least under the status quo they have some idea of where and how it is happening, and can use that as a starting point. Forcing criminals further underground may not be desirable. The authorities in cooperation with websites are usually able to find out who users are despite the veil of anonymity for example in the UK the police have arrested people for rape threats made against a campaigner for there to be a woman on UK banknotes.1

1 Masters, Sam, 'Twitter threats: Man arrested over rape-threat tweets against campaigner Caroline Criado-Perez', The Independent, 28, July, 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/twitter-threats-man-arrested-...

Freedom from consequences is not a necessary component of freedom of speech. If someone is free from legal restraints surrounding their ability to speak, they are free to speak. Freedom of speech does not entitle an individual to absolute freedom of consequences of any kind, including social consequences to their speech. While someone should certainly be free to state their opinion, there is no reason why they should be entitled to not be challenged for holding that opinion.

Banning internet anonymity wouldn’t decrease cyberbullying and trolling

Cyberbullying is bad, but internet anonymity isn’t the cause of rising suicides - cyberbullying is a circumstantial factor that triggers deeper, underlying problems in its victims. [1] Actually, banning internet anonymity can increase cyberbullying: when World of Warcraft announced their intentions to ban anonymity, female gamers voiced concerns of being forced to reveal their gender to other players, thus generating unwanted attention. [2]

As to the problem of trolling causing discussions under newspaper-articles and forums to go ‘bad’: this isn’t necessarily the case. A mediating factor could be the exact system in place for placing comments: comment systems like Disqus allow people to comment anonymously but still be judged for the quality of their contribution to the discussion. [3] If organizations care about the quality of their online discussions, they will implement systems like this by themselves and wouldn’t need any government regulation.

[1] ScienceNew, ‘Cyberbullying Does Not 'Cause' Teen Suicide’, October 20, 2012. URL: http://www.science20.com/news_articles/cyberbullying_does_not_cause_teen_suicide-95444

[2] The Independent, ‘Rhodri Marsden: Online anonymity lets us behave badly’, July 14, 2010. URL: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/rhodri-marsden-online-anonymity-lets-us-behave-badly-2025758.html

[3] Silicon Valley Watcher, ‘Disqus: The Importance Of Trolls And Anonymity In Comments’, February 22, 2013. URL: http://www.siliconvalleywatcher.com/mt/archives/2013/02/disqus_the_impo.php

These are certainly good things but we don’t need mobile phones for them. For example most people already have access to the internet. It is also not a good reason for why everyone should have one. If it is being used for learning phones can be used by more than one person.

Banning internet anonymity doesn’t decrease illegal activities

Full traceability across the entire internet is difficult to implement: it would require a centralized worldwide agency certifying who has access to the internet – we don’t even have this for physical passports. But even if activities would be traceable to an IP-address, it doesn’t stop online illegal activities: criminals can remain anonymous by setting up anonymity servers, which allows them to rout their information through anonymous servers, even when their IP-addresses are known. [1] Even worse, malicious hackers can even recruit other people’s computers into engaging in illegal activities, for example in recruiting innocent people’s computers for collecting and distributing child pornography. [2]

[1] Bruce Schneier, ‘Schneier on security. Anonymity and the internet’, blogpost February 3, 2010. URL: http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2010/02/anonymity_and_t_3.html

[2] Huffington Post, ‘Internet Virus Frames Users for Child Porn’, September 11, 2009. URL: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/09/internet-virus-frames-use_n_350426.html

Self-improvement through an alias or false identity is unlikely to lead to genuine self-improvement. When individuals have multiple identities, they may think of them as distinct from one another, and are thus unlikely to transfer self-improvement from one to another. For example, a recovering addict may only have a renewed attitude in their online identity, and not in real life where it is more important. This is unlikely to be beneficial, and may be actively harmful in terms of limiting the improvement of real life identities.

Regulating the internet doesn’t stop spamming

Restricting internet traffic by blocking ports doesn’t reduce spam at all: spam networks will be able to find another means of sending mass-emails within hours, if not seconds. [1]

But there’s another consequence of regulating internet traffic this way: it makes internet traffic and email slower and more cumbersome, hampering small businesses and companies working mostly through online channels. It thus hinders the smooth functioning of the economy and hampers innovation. [2]

[1] Zdnet, ‘South Korea to block port 25 as anti-spam countermeasure’, November 15, 2011. URL: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/south-korea-to-block-port-25-as-anti-spam-countermeasure/9789

[2] BBC News, ‘Email spam 'Block 25' crackdown readied in South Korea’, 14 november 2011. URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15720599

Phones are certainly a useful tool in helping to keep in contact so can be useful if you get into trouble. But they don’t always help because they don’t always keep us in contact. There are many reasons why a mobile may be useless. There may be no signal. Or the phone may have been turned off. Or the battery may have run low. If any of these things happen then it adds to parents worries as they can’t get in contact when they expected to be able to.

There is a difference between the general public and the government. It is the government that bought the rights to the work not the people even if the people are the ones that originally provided the money to develop the work by paying their taxes. It can be considered to be analogous to a business. Consumers pay for the products they buy and the profits from this enable the business to make the next generation of products. But that the consumers provided the profit that enabled that development does not enable the consumers to either get an upgrade or for the product to be released with a creative commons license

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


Question:
The suffering of those who are treated to harsh training outweighs banning the team

This ban is, admittedly, highly punitive and may be called harsh. It will punish hundreds of athletes and coaches who aren’t implicated in cases of abuse. Yet, on a balance of harms, the disappointment those people feel can’t be compared to the suffering of an athlete who is beaten and starved and conditioned into a mode of thinking where they accept this without putting up a fight.

According to Melanie Lang of Metropolitan University harsh and over intensive training “removes the element of fun that first attracts so many youngsters to sport. It can inhibit bone growth, cause physical and mental burnout and increase the potential for injury and dropout.” [1] And worse the coercion can lead to injury and even death; American gymnast Christy Henrich became anorexic and as a result died weighing only 3st 5lb while Chinese gymnast Sang Lan was paralysed after being cajoled into attempting a vault. [2] It’s more important to ensure all athletes can train in a safe environment free from physical and mental abuse, than it is to safeguard against the disappointment of professional athletes who want to compete. Given that there are major sporting events annually or bi-annually, usually, it’s not as if those forced to miss out can’t compete again soon.

[1] Cassidy, Sarah, ‘Olympic swimming training ‘too hard on young athletes’, The Independent, 4 September 2008, http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/olympic-swimming-training-too-hard-on-young-athletes-918054.html

[2] ‘Beijing Olympics: The Games are not child’s play’, The Telegraph, 16 August 2008, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/2571096/Beijing-Olympics-The-Games-are-not-childs-play.html

Most athletes can only compete at the elite level when they hit their peak. And the ‘big’ competitions, like the Olympics, don’t come around very often.

So because a coach, in a team they’re not part of, used harsh training methods, they now miss their only chance to compete in the highest competition possible and receive the biggest payout (in terms of wage and sponsorship) opportunity of their career.

Now, this may not weigh against the harm suffered by a beaten athlete, but when you multiply that number out and consider how many people you’re taking this opportunity away from, the harms stack up.

Aside from the cost issues, the event is short-lived, a few weeks. An event such as the African Cup of Nations will only be remembered for a while, and then it will just be a footnote in history, fading from the memory quicker than an event like a World Cup. The ACN is focused largely within Africa, when all the PR benefits are best focused towards Europe and higher income countries.

The economic effects are not always beneficial and are only temporary; even the massive building projects have failed to solve the problem with unemployment which is at 27%.

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006 [1] . Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event [2] .

[1] Davenport, 2004

[2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/may/09/athens-2004-olympics-athletes-home

Football is also Brazil’s national sport, and Brazil was similarly placed (22nd) in the medal table in 2012. The Olympics need not be hosted just by the countries that are most competitive in the games.

There are always other things that any sum of money could be spent on. Every nation, even ones with large economies and high development standards have other things to spend money on.

The reason why many nations desire to host prestigious sporting events, giving them varying level of government support, at local or national government levels, is to change perceptions of the nation or region by advertising it. It also leads to regeneration and infrastructure investment in the host areas – all things with good long term benefits that can be applied to the entire nation.

The African Cup of Nations brings very few tourists with it; Ghana vs Guinea had only 4,000 fans while the Zambia vs Sudan Quarter final only had a few hundred spectators. [1] Numbers like this are clearly not going to boost local shops and bars much. Even the investment does not boost local small businesses; the contracts went to big foreign firms. Those firms then make contracts with companies they already know not local ones and often employ foreign workers; the construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise employed a thousand workers, but only a quarter were Gabonese. [2]

[1] Reuters, ‘Fans go it alone at Africa Cup of Nations’, AlJazeera, 6 February 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/2012/02/201226204133460408.html

[2] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011, http://www.theafricareport.com/News-Analysis/the-2012-can-effect.html

Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built.

While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best. [1]

Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries.

[1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4bd52eed5

There were only two host cities in each country, however. This is understandable: the African Cup of Nations does not use as large a number of venues as other tournaments. The 2013 edition in South Africa used a larger, fifth, venue for three matches only, and the 2015 event will revert to four venues.

Few countries in Africa meet with approval on the part of Freedom House.

At any rate, sport and politics are supposed to be separate. Also, human rights concerns could be advanced by placing these countries under the spotlight, rather than the usual position of them being ignored

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


Question:
Athletes are vulnerable to their coaches

Athletes dedicate their lives to their sport and becoming the world’s best at what they do. They are willing to put their body and minds through all sorts of punishment to do this. As such, they’re not in a position to judge what is and isn’t an acceptable training method. If they’re told that starvation makes them more likely to win gold then their intense desire for Olympic glory often clouds their judgment and ability to make rational choices for themselves. Their coaches are authority figures who assumed to have their best interests in mind, and most athletes also assume their coaches know more than them about how to achieve glory. So, if a gymnastics coach tells her athlete that she needs to starve herself to win gold, the athlete will think themselves a bad athlete if they refuse. [1] This is shown by the long history of drug use in the Olympics where both coaches and athletes know it is wrong to use drugs but still do so in the hope it will bring them gold. [2]

Because of this, the IAFF has to make this decision for them. It also means that the chance of whistleblowing is low, since athletes cannot rationally consider whether the training methods are acceptable. So it has to set an incredibly punitive deterrent to make sure coaches aren’t tempted to use a training method they probably won’t be caught for.

[1] Harris, Paul, ‘Secret world of a gymnast: starvation, sex and fear’, The Observer, 27 April 2008, http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2008/apr/27/athletics.usa

[2] ‘Historical Timeline History of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports’, ProCon.org, 28 February 2012, http://sportsanddrugs.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002366

This simply shows that it is the coaches that are to blame and therefore it is unfair to punish the athletes for what their coaches are persuading them to do. Young manipulatable, athletes do not necessarily know what their coaches responsibilities are and what should be considered abuse. Instead this is the responsibility of the coaching team who therefore are the ones who should be penalised.

Aside from the cost issues, the event is short-lived, a few weeks. An event such as the African Cup of Nations will only be remembered for a while, and then it will just be a footnote in history, fading from the memory quicker than an event like a World Cup. The ACN is focused largely within Africa, when all the PR benefits are best focused towards Europe and higher income countries.

The economic effects are not always beneficial and are only temporary; even the massive building projects have failed to solve the problem with unemployment which is at 27%.

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006 [1] . Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event [2] .

[1] Davenport, 2004

[2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/may/09/athens-2004-olympics-athletes-home

Football is also Brazil’s national sport, and Brazil was similarly placed (22nd) in the medal table in 2012. The Olympics need not be hosted just by the countries that are most competitive in the games.

There are always other things that any sum of money could be spent on. Every nation, even ones with large economies and high development standards have other things to spend money on.

The reason why many nations desire to host prestigious sporting events, giving them varying level of government support, at local or national government levels, is to change perceptions of the nation or region by advertising it. It also leads to regeneration and infrastructure investment in the host areas – all things with good long term benefits that can be applied to the entire nation.

The African Cup of Nations brings very few tourists with it; Ghana vs Guinea had only 4,000 fans while the Zambia vs Sudan Quarter final only had a few hundred spectators. [1] Numbers like this are clearly not going to boost local shops and bars much. Even the investment does not boost local small businesses; the contracts went to big foreign firms. Those firms then make contracts with companies they already know not local ones and often employ foreign workers; the construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise employed a thousand workers, but only a quarter were Gabonese. [2]

[1] Reuters, ‘Fans go it alone at Africa Cup of Nations’, AlJazeera, 6 February 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/2012/02/201226204133460408.html

[2] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011, http://www.theafricareport.com/News-Analysis/the-2012-can-effect.html

Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built.

While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best. [1]

Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries.

[1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4bd52eed5

There were only two host cities in each country, however. This is understandable: the African Cup of Nations does not use as large a number of venues as other tournaments. The 2013 edition in South Africa used a larger, fifth, venue for three matches only, and the 2015 event will revert to four venues.

Few countries in Africa meet with approval on the part of Freedom House.

At any rate, sport and politics are supposed to be separate. Also, human rights concerns could be advanced by placing these countries under the spotlight, rather than the usual position of them being ignored

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


Question:
Banning countries with harsh training measures from competing would be a strong deterrent

This measure introduces a strong deterrent against those who allow and facilitate abusive training methods.

Firstly, it incentivises national athletic and sporting bodies to diligently check the background of coaches before their employment and continue to investigate them throughout the year. It is now in the interest of every single member of national sporting bodies and teams to ensure abuse doesn’t continue. In most it is currently in your interest to keep quiet, lest you risk disturbing the national programme or being ostracised by your federation.

As a result coaches are far less likely to think these training methods will help them achieve success. Since it could see their athletes banned from the competition and lose their medals it makes using harsh training methods an immense risk to take. It would also mean they’re unlikely to ever get hired again if caught.

This isn’t necessarily true. Consider that currently coaches already are already disincentivised by the use of these training methods by the threat of losing their job. For example in South Korea fourteen Ice Skating coaches resigned after allegations of beatings. [1] Yet these practices continue.

Deterrents rarely work because people don’t think they’ll be caught, and focus on the short term benefit of what they are doing. For example, even if you explain to someone that smoking kills, they may still take a cigarette because they assume they won’t be the one that gets cancer and so the short term benefit can be taken guilt free.

The kind of coaches who already think like this and risk their job are unlikely to change as a result of this proposal. In this case, coaches are unlikely to think they’ll ever get caught, even if people like them are caught and punished, so they’ll think it is pointless to abandon the training methods they think will guarantee them success.

[1] MacIntyre, Donald, ‘Breaking the Ice’, Time Magazine, 15 November 2004, http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,782168,00.html

Aside from the cost issues, the event is short-lived, a few weeks. An event such as the African Cup of Nations will only be remembered for a while, and then it will just be a footnote in history, fading from the memory quicker than an event like a World Cup. The ACN is focused largely within Africa, when all the PR benefits are best focused towards Europe and higher income countries.

The economic effects are not always beneficial and are only temporary; even the massive building projects have failed to solve the problem with unemployment which is at 27%.

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006 [1] . Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event [2] .

[1] Davenport, 2004

[2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/may/09/athens-2004-olympics-athletes-home

Football is also Brazil’s national sport, and Brazil was similarly placed (22nd) in the medal table in 2012. The Olympics need not be hosted just by the countries that are most competitive in the games.

There are always other things that any sum of money could be spent on. Every nation, even ones with large economies and high development standards have other things to spend money on.

The reason why many nations desire to host prestigious sporting events, giving them varying level of government support, at local or national government levels, is to change perceptions of the nation or region by advertising it. It also leads to regeneration and infrastructure investment in the host areas – all things with good long term benefits that can be applied to the entire nation.

The African Cup of Nations brings very few tourists with it; Ghana vs Guinea had only 4,000 fans while the Zambia vs Sudan Quarter final only had a few hundred spectators. [1] Numbers like this are clearly not going to boost local shops and bars much. Even the investment does not boost local small businesses; the contracts went to big foreign firms. Those firms then make contracts with companies they already know not local ones and often employ foreign workers; the construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise employed a thousand workers, but only a quarter were Gabonese. [2]

[1] Reuters, ‘Fans go it alone at Africa Cup of Nations’, AlJazeera, 6 February 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/2012/02/201226204133460408.html

[2] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011, http://www.theafricareport.com/News-Analysis/the-2012-can-effect.html

Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built.

While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best. [1]

Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries.

[1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4bd52eed5

There were only two host cities in each country, however. This is understandable: the African Cup of Nations does not use as large a number of venues as other tournaments. The 2013 edition in South Africa used a larger, fifth, venue for three matches only, and the 2015 event will revert to four venues.

Few countries in Africa meet with approval on the part of Freedom House.

At any rate, sport and politics are supposed to be separate. Also, human rights concerns could be advanced by placing these countries under the spotlight, rather than the usual position of them being ignored

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


Question:
The IAAF and the Athletics commission have the highest burden to protect their athletes.

Just as an employer has a responsibility to provide a safe working environment for their employees, the IAAF has a duty to provide a safe environment for their athletes. The sports medical team is responsible for ‘preventing illness and injury’, [1] clearly something that is caused by harsh training. As do all those who are involved in sports.

These athletes only exist in a professional capacity because bodies created the positions for the athletes to exist. If the world wants to pay people to perform and compete for them, then once that offer is made they have a moral duty to ensure that work is safe, since they are culpable in creating that work.

Moreover, we give the IAAF power in the promise that by giving up localised power of judgement over sport, they can better protect athletes and creating a fairer sporting environment.

Abusive training methods are a huge failure on the part of the IAAF and as such they must use the most powerful disincentive possible to them.

[1] “Principals and Ethical Guidelines”, IAAF, http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/imported/42039.pdf

First this is not all the responsibility of the IAAF to police; the same guidelines state “Athletes must be instructed in health and safety practices and must bear a large degree of responsibility for their own welfare”. [1] The IAAF has already passed laws about what constitutes ‘proper training methods’. [2] The IAAF has therefore done what it needs to do to protect athletes. This duty of responsibility does not extend to a right to impose collective punishment.

Most people wouldn’t argue with the fact that we should try to reduce the amount of harsh training methods being used, where we can. The debate is about how appropriate and effective this punishment is. This policy may lead to less whistleblowing, while simultaneously punishing lots of athletes unfairly. So no matter how high the IAAF’s moral burden is, this policy should not be enacted.

[1] “Principals and Ethical Guidelines”, IAAF, http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/imported/42039.pdf

[2] ‘Principles of Training’, International Association of Athletics Federations, http://www.iaaf.org/mm/Document/imported/42038.pdf

Aside from the cost issues, the event is short-lived, a few weeks. An event such as the African Cup of Nations will only be remembered for a while, and then it will just be a footnote in history, fading from the memory quicker than an event like a World Cup. The ACN is focused largely within Africa, when all the PR benefits are best focused towards Europe and higher income countries.

The economic effects are not always beneficial and are only temporary; even the massive building projects have failed to solve the problem with unemployment which is at 27%.

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006 [1] . Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event [2] .

[1] Davenport, 2004

[2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/may/09/athens-2004-olympics-athletes-home

Football is also Brazil’s national sport, and Brazil was similarly placed (22nd) in the medal table in 2012. The Olympics need not be hosted just by the countries that are most competitive in the games.

There are always other things that any sum of money could be spent on. Every nation, even ones with large economies and high development standards have other things to spend money on.

The reason why many nations desire to host prestigious sporting events, giving them varying level of government support, at local or national government levels, is to change perceptions of the nation or region by advertising it. It also leads to regeneration and infrastructure investment in the host areas – all things with good long term benefits that can be applied to the entire nation.

The African Cup of Nations brings very few tourists with it; Ghana vs Guinea had only 4,000 fans while the Zambia vs Sudan Quarter final only had a few hundred spectators. [1] Numbers like this are clearly not going to boost local shops and bars much. Even the investment does not boost local small businesses; the contracts went to big foreign firms. Those firms then make contracts with companies they already know not local ones and often employ foreign workers; the construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise employed a thousand workers, but only a quarter were Gabonese. [2]

[1] Reuters, ‘Fans go it alone at Africa Cup of Nations’, AlJazeera, 6 February 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/2012/02/201226204133460408.html

[2] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011, http://www.theafricareport.com/News-Analysis/the-2012-can-effect.html

Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built.

While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best. [1]

Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries.

[1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4bd52eed5

There were only two host cities in each country, however. This is understandable: the African Cup of Nations does not use as large a number of venues as other tournaments. The 2013 edition in South Africa used a larger, fifth, venue for three matches only, and the 2015 event will revert to four venues.

Few countries in Africa meet with approval on the part of Freedom House.

At any rate, sport and politics are supposed to be separate. Also, human rights concerns could be advanced by placing these countries under the spotlight, rather than the usual position of them being ignored

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


Question:
The policy is counter productive

If your goal is, ultimately, to reduce the amount of coaches using this method, this policy is massively counter-productive. For people to get punished, you need athletes to report abuse, this policy makes that less likely to happen.

The athletes being abused won’t want to report their coaches as the abuse is happening, because that means they and their teammates all lose their chance at and competing in the biggest sporting stages which in turn is likely to reduce their chances of ever achieving glory or getting a big payday from sponsorship. It is already the case that sometimes whistleblowers suffer for calling time. In India Dr Sajib Nandi was first removed from his position as a medical officer and then beaten up as a result of whistleblowing about doping. [1] This policy simply makes the stakes and the risks of whistleblowing much higher.

At least now after they’ve been abused athletes come out and report abuse. Why would an athlete do this under this policy? It damages their stock as they become the one responsible for shaming sport in their country. Also, they’re likely to personally know and have training with people still on national programmes, so they’re not going to want to ruin their friends chances of earning more and competing for the top prizes.

[1] NDTV Correspondent, ‘Dope mess: Whistleblower doctor attacked, Sports Minister assures a meeting’, NDTV Sports, 13 July 2011, http://sports.ndtv.com/othersports/athletics/item/175835-dope-mess-whistleblower-doctor-attacked-sports-minister-assures-a-meeting

The reason athletes don’t report the abuses is because they don’t think the abuse is worse than losing their place on the team. This policy changes that by sending a strong message out. Athletes will attach the gravity of the punishment to the crime and might finally begin to understand that this kind of treatment is utterly unacceptable.

It’s also fairly easy to get around the worry of being blamed for the repercussions by having anonymous tip-offs or witness protection.

The IAAF can compensate for lack of earnings too, but ultimately actually this potential makes abuse less likely to happen. If everyone knows what a risk using harsh methods is, then that’s a good thing. Athletes will be less likely to take it and allow it to continue, and coaches won’t want to risk using them.

Currently it’s worth everyone’s while to shut up and let abuse continue, these changes would mean the risk is too high to let that happen.

Aside from the cost issues, the event is short-lived, a few weeks. An event such as the African Cup of Nations will only be remembered for a while, and then it will just be a footnote in history, fading from the memory quicker than an event like a World Cup. The ACN is focused largely within Africa, when all the PR benefits are best focused towards Europe and higher income countries.

The economic effects are not always beneficial and are only temporary; even the massive building projects have failed to solve the problem with unemployment which is at 27%.

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006 [1] . Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event [2] .

[1] Davenport, 2004

[2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/may/09/athens-2004-olympics-athletes-home

Football is also Brazil’s national sport, and Brazil was similarly placed (22nd) in the medal table in 2012. The Olympics need not be hosted just by the countries that are most competitive in the games.

There are always other things that any sum of money could be spent on. Every nation, even ones with large economies and high development standards have other things to spend money on.

The reason why many nations desire to host prestigious sporting events, giving them varying level of government support, at local or national government levels, is to change perceptions of the nation or region by advertising it. It also leads to regeneration and infrastructure investment in the host areas – all things with good long term benefits that can be applied to the entire nation.

The African Cup of Nations brings very few tourists with it; Ghana vs Guinea had only 4,000 fans while the Zambia vs Sudan Quarter final only had a few hundred spectators. [1] Numbers like this are clearly not going to boost local shops and bars much. Even the investment does not boost local small businesses; the contracts went to big foreign firms. Those firms then make contracts with companies they already know not local ones and often employ foreign workers; the construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise employed a thousand workers, but only a quarter were Gabonese. [2]

[1] Reuters, ‘Fans go it alone at Africa Cup of Nations’, AlJazeera, 6 February 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/2012/02/201226204133460408.html

[2] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011, http://www.theafricareport.com/News-Analysis/the-2012-can-effect.html

Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built.

While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best. [1]

Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries.

[1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4bd52eed5

There were only two host cities in each country, however. This is understandable: the African Cup of Nations does not use as large a number of venues as other tournaments. The 2013 edition in South Africa used a larger, fifth, venue for three matches only, and the 2015 event will revert to four venues.

Few countries in Africa meet with approval on the part of Freedom House.

At any rate, sport and politics are supposed to be separate. Also, human rights concerns could be advanced by placing these countries under the spotlight, rather than the usual position of them being ignored

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


Question:
Harsh training methods aren’t necessarily abusive.

Consider that athletes already subject themselves to the kinds of environments that most people actively avoid, and would probably be considered ‘harsh’ by the average person. These routinely involve long days, week after week, often planned out years in advance, practicing special diets and routines [1] and in some countries this may mean being isolated from home and family for years at a time.

Athletes consent to having very harsh training in order to reach the prize, they’re used to putting themselves in extreme discomfort to achieve their goal. To the average person these things may seem abusive but an athlete considers these physical and mental demands differently.

Communist teams used these kinds of training methods frequently and achieved lots of Olympic success, [2] why can’t an athlete choose to emulate these methods in the pursuit of their professional and personal dreams?

[1] Dusen, Allison Van, ‘How To Train Like An Olympian’, Forbes, 8 July 2008, http://www.forbes.com/2008/07/08/training-perfect-athlete-olympics08-forbeslife-cx_avd_0708health.html

[2] ‘Olympics: planned economies and the need to succeed’, euronews, 20 July 2012, http://prod-euronews.euronews.net/2012/07/20/planned-economies-obsessed-by-the-need-to-succeed/

Firstly, this argument assumes consent on the part of the athlete. That’s somewhat unfair as most of these ‘harsh’ training camps are fairly secretive. We know this because even though the Karoyli’s were called out, no punishment could be made due to the difficulty in obtaining conclusive evidence. So it is unlikely athletes really know what they’re getting themselves into.

You can’t consent to abuse, not like this, we wouldn’t let you sign a contract to allow someone to starve you. Moreover, just because athletes would do anything to get gold, doesn’t mean we should let them. Some people would happily sell an organ for money, but we stop them doing that and morally are right to do so. Individuals don’t always know what’s best for them, that’s in-part, why the state exists.

Aside from the cost issues, the event is short-lived, a few weeks. An event such as the African Cup of Nations will only be remembered for a while, and then it will just be a footnote in history, fading from the memory quicker than an event like a World Cup. The ACN is focused largely within Africa, when all the PR benefits are best focused towards Europe and higher income countries.

The economic effects are not always beneficial and are only temporary; even the massive building projects have failed to solve the problem with unemployment which is at 27%.

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006 [1] . Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event [2] .

[1] Davenport, 2004

[2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/may/09/athens-2004-olympics-athletes-home

Football is also Brazil’s national sport, and Brazil was similarly placed (22nd) in the medal table in 2012. The Olympics need not be hosted just by the countries that are most competitive in the games.

There are always other things that any sum of money could be spent on. Every nation, even ones with large economies and high development standards have other things to spend money on.

The reason why many nations desire to host prestigious sporting events, giving them varying level of government support, at local or national government levels, is to change perceptions of the nation or region by advertising it. It also leads to regeneration and infrastructure investment in the host areas – all things with good long term benefits that can be applied to the entire nation.

The African Cup of Nations brings very few tourists with it; Ghana vs Guinea had only 4,000 fans while the Zambia vs Sudan Quarter final only had a few hundred spectators. [1] Numbers like this are clearly not going to boost local shops and bars much. Even the investment does not boost local small businesses; the contracts went to big foreign firms. Those firms then make contracts with companies they already know not local ones and often employ foreign workers; the construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise employed a thousand workers, but only a quarter were Gabonese. [2]

[1] Reuters, ‘Fans go it alone at Africa Cup of Nations’, AlJazeera, 6 February 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/2012/02/201226204133460408.html

[2] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011, http://www.theafricareport.com/News-Analysis/the-2012-can-effect.html

Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built.

While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best. [1]

Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries.

[1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4bd52eed5

There were only two host cities in each country, however. This is understandable: the African Cup of Nations does not use as large a number of venues as other tournaments. The 2013 edition in South Africa used a larger, fifth, venue for three matches only, and the 2015 event will revert to four venues.

Few countries in Africa meet with approval on the part of Freedom House.

At any rate, sport and politics are supposed to be separate. Also, human rights concerns could be advanced by placing these countries under the spotlight, rather than the usual position of them being ignored

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


Question:
Collective punishment is unjust

Under this policy the victim is punished for the crimes of coach. This seems unfair, why should someone have their professional dream denied to them because somebody else did something wrong? Banning an entire nation from a sporting competition expands this, individuals with no or little attachment to cases of abuse will also be punished and suffer, when they have taken no steps that deserve punishment.

Punishments should fit the crime and this means punishing those who are responsible not innocents. It is right that the punishment should be harsh as it needs to deter coaches but this deterrent should be through steep penalties for the coach not for others.

It’s simply untrue to claim that ‘unconnected athletes’ have done nothing wrong. It is the responsibility of every member of the national team to ensure standards are met, because abuses only go tolerated so long as they are allowed by athletes and other coaches to continue. In the case of the victim if they did not whistleblow early then they clearly are responsible for allowing that abusive practice to continue. It is the victim who the harsh regime was supposed to benefit through driving them to glory and if they acquiesced to the treatment then this is likely the reason.

Aside from the cost issues, the event is short-lived, a few weeks. An event such as the African Cup of Nations will only be remembered for a while, and then it will just be a footnote in history, fading from the memory quicker than an event like a World Cup. The ACN is focused largely within Africa, when all the PR benefits are best focused towards Europe and higher income countries.

The economic effects are not always beneficial and are only temporary; even the massive building projects have failed to solve the problem with unemployment which is at 27%.

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006 [1] . Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event [2] .

[1] Davenport, 2004

[2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/may/09/athens-2004-olympics-athletes-home

Football is also Brazil’s national sport, and Brazil was similarly placed (22nd) in the medal table in 2012. The Olympics need not be hosted just by the countries that are most competitive in the games.

There are always other things that any sum of money could be spent on. Every nation, even ones with large economies and high development standards have other things to spend money on.

The reason why many nations desire to host prestigious sporting events, giving them varying level of government support, at local or national government levels, is to change perceptions of the nation or region by advertising it. It also leads to regeneration and infrastructure investment in the host areas – all things with good long term benefits that can be applied to the entire nation.

The African Cup of Nations brings very few tourists with it; Ghana vs Guinea had only 4,000 fans while the Zambia vs Sudan Quarter final only had a few hundred spectators. [1] Numbers like this are clearly not going to boost local shops and bars much. Even the investment does not boost local small businesses; the contracts went to big foreign firms. Those firms then make contracts with companies they already know not local ones and often employ foreign workers; the construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise employed a thousand workers, but only a quarter were Gabonese. [2]

[1] Reuters, ‘Fans go it alone at Africa Cup of Nations’, AlJazeera, 6 February 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/2012/02/201226204133460408.html

[2] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011, http://www.theafricareport.com/News-Analysis/the-2012-can-effect.html

Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built.

While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best. [1]

Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries.

[1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4bd52eed5

There were only two host cities in each country, however. This is understandable: the African Cup of Nations does not use as large a number of venues as other tournaments. The 2013 edition in South Africa used a larger, fifth, venue for three matches only, and the 2015 event will revert to four venues.

Few countries in Africa meet with approval on the part of Freedom House.

At any rate, sport and politics are supposed to be separate. Also, human rights concerns could be advanced by placing these countries under the spotlight, rather than the usual position of them being ignored

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


Question:
Legacy of infrastructure

The benefits of hosting these events for African nations include the ability to concentrate on infrastructure for the event. In addition to sporting infrastructure, which could last well in excess of 50 years, homes, hospitals, roads and schools have been constructed in Gabon’s host cities [1] . The Chinese government assisted funding of some of this; [2] it co-financed and helped construct the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise, the biggest stadium.

[1] Yilmaz, Cetin, “Gabon works hard for 2012 Cup of Nations”, Hurriyet Daily News, http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/gabon-works-hard-for-2012-cup-of-nation...

[2] Murphy, Chris, “African ambition: tiny nations host football feast”, CNN, 2012, http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/20/sport/football/football-africa-cup-nat...

This infrastructure still costs money, whatever event it is around: a state could launch an infrastructure drive without a football tournament that would be much more focused on the real needs of the people. Foreign investment can have significant costs, such as preferential access to natural resources. The work can often wind up being done by foreign contractors so that it creates no local jobs, as happened when Angola hosted the tournament [1] . In the case of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise China does not just get the benefit of the name; the finance provided was a loan, and the construction was done by the Shanghai Construction Group meaning much of the benefit went to China. [2]

[1] Capstick, Alex, “Angola uses football to showcase economy”, BBC News, 2010, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8463972.stm

[2] Ndenguino-Mpira, Hermanno, “The African Cup of Nations 2012 – China’s goals”, Centre for Chinese Studies, 23 January 2012, http://www.ccs.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/China-in-Gabon-23-Jan-12-Hermanno.pdf

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006 [1] . Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event [2] .

[1] Davenport, 2004

[2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/may/09/athens-2004-olympics-athletes-home

Football is also Brazil’s national sport, and Brazil was similarly placed (22nd) in the medal table in 2012. The Olympics need not be hosted just by the countries that are most competitive in the games.

Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built.

While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.

Firstly, this argument assumes consent on the part of the athlete. That’s somewhat unfair as most of these ‘harsh’ training camps are fairly secretive. We know this because even though the Karoyli’s were called out, no punishment could be made due to the difficulty in obtaining conclusive evidence. So it is unlikely athletes really know what they’re getting themselves into.

You can’t consent to abuse, not like this, we wouldn’t let you sign a contract to allow someone to starve you. Moreover, just because athletes would do anything to get gold, doesn’t mean we should let them. Some people would happily sell an organ for money, but we stop them doing that and morally are right to do so. Individuals don’t always know what’s best for them, that’s in-part, why the state exists.

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best. [1]

Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries.

[1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4bd52eed5

It’s simply untrue to claim that ‘unconnected athletes’ have done nothing wrong. It is the responsibility of every member of the national team to ensure standards are met, because abuses only go tolerated so long as they are allowed by athletes and other coaches to continue. In the case of the victim if they did not whistleblow early then they clearly are responsible for allowing that abusive practice to continue. It is the victim who the harsh regime was supposed to benefit through driving them to glory and if they acquiesced to the treatment then this is likely the reason.

The reason athletes don’t report the abuses is because they don’t think the abuse is worse than losing their place on the team. This policy changes that by sending a strong message out. Athletes will attach the gravity of the punishment to the crime and might finally begin to understand that this kind of treatment is utterly unacceptable.

It’s also fairly easy to get around the worry of being blamed for the repercussions by having anonymous tip-offs or witness protection.

The IAAF can compensate for lack of earnings too, but ultimately actually this potential makes abuse less likely to happen. If everyone knows what a risk using harsh methods is, then that’s a good thing. Athletes will be less likely to take it and allow it to continue, and coaches won’t want to risk using them.

Currently it’s worth everyone’s while to shut up and let abuse continue, these changes would mean the risk is too high to let that happen.

Most athletes can only compete at the elite level when they hit their peak. And the ‘big’ competitions, like the Olympics, don’t come around very often.

So because a coach, in a team they’re not part of, used harsh training methods, they now miss their only chance to compete in the highest competition possible and receive the biggest payout (in terms of wage and sponsorship) opportunity of their career.

Now, this may not weigh against the harm suffered by a beaten athlete, but when you multiply that number out and consider how many people you’re taking this opportunity away from, the harms stack up.

This simply shows that it is the coaches that are to blame and therefore it is unfair to punish the athletes for what their coaches are persuading them to do. Young manipulatable, athletes do not necessarily know what their coaches responsibilities are and what should be considered abuse. Instead this is the responsibility of the coaching team who therefore are the ones who should be penalised.

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


Question:
Benefits spread across the country

The benefits of these events, unlike hosting an event such as an Olympic Games (which would be outside the reach of Gabon or Equatorial Guinea, especially with the increasing trend of the IOC to select major world cities in medium or high income countries), is that more than one site in a country can host different parts of the tournament. This provides a platform for a focus on broad based development across the entire nation, rather than one-sideded development focused on one city. In Gabon’s case there was both construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise in the Capital and a rebuild of a stadium in Franceville for €76.2 million [1] .

[1] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011, http://www.theafricareport.com/News-Analysis/the-2012-can-effect.html

There were only two host cities in each country, however. This is understandable: the African Cup of Nations does not use as large a number of venues as other tournaments. The 2013 edition in South Africa used a larger, fifth, venue for three matches only, and the 2015 event will revert to four venues.

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006 [1] . Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event [2] .

[1] Davenport, 2004

[2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/may/09/athens-2004-olympics-athletes-home

Football is also Brazil’s national sport, and Brazil was similarly placed (22nd) in the medal table in 2012. The Olympics need not be hosted just by the countries that are most competitive in the games.

Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built.

While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.

Firstly, this argument assumes consent on the part of the athlete. That’s somewhat unfair as most of these ‘harsh’ training camps are fairly secretive. We know this because even though the Karoyli’s were called out, no punishment could be made due to the difficulty in obtaining conclusive evidence. So it is unlikely athletes really know what they’re getting themselves into.

You can’t consent to abuse, not like this, we wouldn’t let you sign a contract to allow someone to starve you. Moreover, just because athletes would do anything to get gold, doesn’t mean we should let them. Some people would happily sell an organ for money, but we stop them doing that and morally are right to do so. Individuals don’t always know what’s best for them, that’s in-part, why the state exists.

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best. [1]

Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries.

[1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4bd52eed5

It’s simply untrue to claim that ‘unconnected athletes’ have done nothing wrong. It is the responsibility of every member of the national team to ensure standards are met, because abuses only go tolerated so long as they are allowed by athletes and other coaches to continue. In the case of the victim if they did not whistleblow early then they clearly are responsible for allowing that abusive practice to continue. It is the victim who the harsh regime was supposed to benefit through driving them to glory and if they acquiesced to the treatment then this is likely the reason.

The reason athletes don’t report the abuses is because they don’t think the abuse is worse than losing their place on the team. This policy changes that by sending a strong message out. Athletes will attach the gravity of the punishment to the crime and might finally begin to understand that this kind of treatment is utterly unacceptable.

It’s also fairly easy to get around the worry of being blamed for the repercussions by having anonymous tip-offs or witness protection.

The IAAF can compensate for lack of earnings too, but ultimately actually this potential makes abuse less likely to happen. If everyone knows what a risk using harsh methods is, then that’s a good thing. Athletes will be less likely to take it and allow it to continue, and coaches won’t want to risk using them.

Currently it’s worth everyone’s while to shut up and let abuse continue, these changes would mean the risk is too high to let that happen.

Most athletes can only compete at the elite level when they hit their peak. And the ‘big’ competitions, like the Olympics, don’t come around very often.

So because a coach, in a team they’re not part of, used harsh training methods, they now miss their only chance to compete in the highest competition possible and receive the biggest payout (in terms of wage and sponsorship) opportunity of their career.

Now, this may not weigh against the harm suffered by a beaten athlete, but when you multiply that number out and consider how many people you’re taking this opportunity away from, the harms stack up.

This simply shows that it is the coaches that are to blame and therefore it is unfair to punish the athletes for what their coaches are persuading them to do. Young manipulatable, athletes do not necessarily know what their coaches responsibilities are and what should be considered abuse. Instead this is the responsibility of the coaching team who therefore are the ones who should be penalised.

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


Question:
The ACN in Gabon shows what can be done by smaller African nations

A key reason for hosting any big sporting event is that it puts the host in a shop window. Unless the event is a disaster (as, arguably, Angola’s tournament was due to the gun attack on the Togo team), which it was not, it creates an opportunity for the nation to show itself as being an advanced society, capable of big events, “getting things done” and as a place to do business. All of this is positive for the economies of Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. The African Development Bank notes that Economic growth was 7% in 2011 and 5.7% in Gabon in part because of “massive investments undertaken for football’s Africa Cup of Nations 2012”. [1]

[1] African Economic Outlook, ‘Gabon Economic Outlook’, African Development Bank Group, accessed 28/1/2014, http://www.afdb.org/en/countries/central-africa/gabon/gabon-economic-outlook/

Aside from the cost issues, the event is short-lived, a few weeks. An event such as the African Cup of Nations will only be remembered for a while, and then it will just be a footnote in history, fading from the memory quicker than an event like a World Cup. The ACN is focused largely within Africa, when all the PR benefits are best focused towards Europe and higher income countries.

The economic effects are not always beneficial and are only temporary; even the massive building projects have failed to solve the problem with unemployment which is at 27%.

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006 [1] . Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event [2] .

[1] Davenport, 2004

[2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/may/09/athens-2004-olympics-athletes-home

Football is also Brazil’s national sport, and Brazil was similarly placed (22nd) in the medal table in 2012. The Olympics need not be hosted just by the countries that are most competitive in the games.

Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built.

While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.

Firstly, this argument assumes consent on the part of the athlete. That’s somewhat unfair as most of these ‘harsh’ training camps are fairly secretive. We know this because even though the Karoyli’s were called out, no punishment could be made due to the difficulty in obtaining conclusive evidence. So it is unlikely athletes really know what they’re getting themselves into.

You can’t consent to abuse, not like this, we wouldn’t let you sign a contract to allow someone to starve you. Moreover, just because athletes would do anything to get gold, doesn’t mean we should let them. Some people would happily sell an organ for money, but we stop them doing that and morally are right to do so. Individuals don’t always know what’s best for them, that’s in-part, why the state exists.

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best. [1]

Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries.

[1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4bd52eed5

It’s simply untrue to claim that ‘unconnected athletes’ have done nothing wrong. It is the responsibility of every member of the national team to ensure standards are met, because abuses only go tolerated so long as they are allowed by athletes and other coaches to continue. In the case of the victim if they did not whistleblow early then they clearly are responsible for allowing that abusive practice to continue. It is the victim who the harsh regime was supposed to benefit through driving them to glory and if they acquiesced to the treatment then this is likely the reason.

The reason athletes don’t report the abuses is because they don’t think the abuse is worse than losing their place on the team. This policy changes that by sending a strong message out. Athletes will attach the gravity of the punishment to the crime and might finally begin to understand that this kind of treatment is utterly unacceptable.

It’s also fairly easy to get around the worry of being blamed for the repercussions by having anonymous tip-offs or witness protection.

The IAAF can compensate for lack of earnings too, but ultimately actually this potential makes abuse less likely to happen. If everyone knows what a risk using harsh methods is, then that’s a good thing. Athletes will be less likely to take it and allow it to continue, and coaches won’t want to risk using them.

Currently it’s worth everyone’s while to shut up and let abuse continue, these changes would mean the risk is too high to let that happen.

Most athletes can only compete at the elite level when they hit their peak. And the ‘big’ competitions, like the Olympics, don’t come around very often.

So because a coach, in a team they’re not part of, used harsh training methods, they now miss their only chance to compete in the highest competition possible and receive the biggest payout (in terms of wage and sponsorship) opportunity of their career.

Now, this may not weigh against the harm suffered by a beaten athlete, but when you multiply that number out and consider how many people you’re taking this opportunity away from, the harms stack up.

This simply shows that it is the coaches that are to blame and therefore it is unfair to punish the athletes for what their coaches are persuading them to do. Young manipulatable, athletes do not necessarily know what their coaches responsibilities are and what should be considered abuse. Instead this is the responsibility of the coaching team who therefore are the ones who should be penalised.

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


Question:
Helps small businesses

There is a big benefit for small businesses in hosting the large sporting events. The hosting of the tournament in 2012 has been credited by African Economic Outlook with playing a role in the “robust” economic growth in the country in that year turning the country around from negative growth in 2009 [1] . The 2013 Africa Cup of Nations was credited with 10,000 jobs and helping the tourist sectors of the South African economy, [2] Gabon would have received a similar boost.

[1] NN, “Gabon”, African Economic Outlook, no date, http://www.africaneconomicoutlook.org/en/countries/central-africa/gabon/

[2] NN, “Africa Cup of Nations 2013 to boost SMEs in South Africa”, MSME News Network, 2013, http://www.msmenewsnetwork.com/index.php/middle-east-africa/news/item/11...

The African Cup of Nations brings very few tourists with it; Ghana vs Guinea had only 4,000 fans while the Zambia vs Sudan Quarter final only had a few hundred spectators. [1] Numbers like this are clearly not going to boost local shops and bars much. Even the investment does not boost local small businesses; the contracts went to big foreign firms. Those firms then make contracts with companies they already know not local ones and often employ foreign workers; the construction of the Stade de l’Amitié-Sino-Gabonaise employed a thousand workers, but only a quarter were Gabonese. [2]

[1] Reuters, ‘Fans go it alone at Africa Cup of Nations’, AlJazeera, 6 February 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/spotlight/2012/02/201226204133460408.html

[2] Ballong, Stéphane, ‘Gabon’s 2012 CAN effect’, theafricareport, 7 December 2011, http://www.theafricareport.com/News-Analysis/the-2012-can-effect.html

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006 [1] . Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event [2] .

[1] Davenport, 2004

[2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/may/09/athens-2004-olympics-athletes-home

Football is also Brazil’s national sport, and Brazil was similarly placed (22nd) in the medal table in 2012. The Olympics need not be hosted just by the countries that are most competitive in the games.

Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built.

While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.

Firstly, this argument assumes consent on the part of the athlete. That’s somewhat unfair as most of these ‘harsh’ training camps are fairly secretive. We know this because even though the Karoyli’s were called out, no punishment could be made due to the difficulty in obtaining conclusive evidence. So it is unlikely athletes really know what they’re getting themselves into.

You can’t consent to abuse, not like this, we wouldn’t let you sign a contract to allow someone to starve you. Moreover, just because athletes would do anything to get gold, doesn’t mean we should let them. Some people would happily sell an organ for money, but we stop them doing that and morally are right to do so. Individuals don’t always know what’s best for them, that’s in-part, why the state exists.

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best. [1]

Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries.

[1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4bd52eed5

It’s simply untrue to claim that ‘unconnected athletes’ have done nothing wrong. It is the responsibility of every member of the national team to ensure standards are met, because abuses only go tolerated so long as they are allowed by athletes and other coaches to continue. In the case of the victim if they did not whistleblow early then they clearly are responsible for allowing that abusive practice to continue. It is the victim who the harsh regime was supposed to benefit through driving them to glory and if they acquiesced to the treatment then this is likely the reason.

The reason athletes don’t report the abuses is because they don’t think the abuse is worse than losing their place on the team. This policy changes that by sending a strong message out. Athletes will attach the gravity of the punishment to the crime and might finally begin to understand that this kind of treatment is utterly unacceptable.

It’s also fairly easy to get around the worry of being blamed for the repercussions by having anonymous tip-offs or witness protection.

The IAAF can compensate for lack of earnings too, but ultimately actually this potential makes abuse less likely to happen. If everyone knows what a risk using harsh methods is, then that’s a good thing. Athletes will be less likely to take it and allow it to continue, and coaches won’t want to risk using them.

Currently it’s worth everyone’s while to shut up and let abuse continue, these changes would mean the risk is too high to let that happen.

Most athletes can only compete at the elite level when they hit their peak. And the ‘big’ competitions, like the Olympics, don’t come around very often.

So because a coach, in a team they’re not part of, used harsh training methods, they now miss their only chance to compete in the highest competition possible and receive the biggest payout (in terms of wage and sponsorship) opportunity of their career.

Now, this may not weigh against the harm suffered by a beaten athlete, but when you multiply that number out and consider how many people you’re taking this opportunity away from, the harms stack up.

This simply shows that it is the coaches that are to blame and therefore it is unfair to punish the athletes for what their coaches are persuading them to do. Young manipulatable, athletes do not necessarily know what their coaches responsibilities are and what should be considered abuse. Instead this is the responsibility of the coaching team who therefore are the ones who should be penalised.

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


Question:
Empty seats

Organizers in Gabon had to hand out free tickets to fill stadia [1] . This not only makes the tournament appear unpopular to TV viewers, it reduces the revenues of the event.

It would be better for the sport if the Africa Cup of Nations was held in countries that are likely to sell out more of the matches; this means countries with bigger populations than Gabon and Equatorial Guinea that can pull in a domestic audience.

[1] Sport24, “Empty seats plague AFCON”, Sport 24, 2012, http://www.sport24.co.za/Soccer/AFCON/Empty-seats-plague-AFCON-20120203

Ticket sales, while good for revenue, are not crucial. The African Cup of Nations has never been an event with large scale sellout crowds for every match like a World Cup.

Disposable incomes are lower in Africa compared to the rest of the world. This coupled with the vast size of the area covered by the confederation means lower numbers of travelling fans. Expectations should be managed: the higher demand is for matches with the host team involved. In the tournament the following year (held earlier due to CAF changing the years in which the tournament is held to odd years, to avoid clashes with World Cups and Olympics) in South Africa, the bronze medal match got 6,000 spectators [1] .

Even the Olympics, when held in London, did not sell out every ticket for every football match, meaning some sections of seating were covered over [2] .

[1] ESPN, “2013 African Nations Cup Fixtures and Results”, ESPN, 2013, http://espnfc.com/results/_/league/caf.nations/african-nations-cup?cc=5739

[2] Magnay, Jacquelin, “”London 2012 Olympics: 500,000 football tickets removed to ensure full stadiums [sic]”, The Telegraph, 2012, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/news/9405536/London-2012-Olymp...

Hosting can have a significant cost – the 1976 Montreal games left the city vastly in debt which it did not finish paying off until 2006 [1] . Venues may be under-used after the events, with the 2004 Athens games seeing a large number of venues as unused “white elephants” after the event [2] .

[1] Davenport, 2004

[2] Smith, Helena, ‘Athens 2004 Olympics: what happened after the athletes went home’, The Guardian, 9 May 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/may/09/athens-2004-olympics-athletes-home

Football is also Brazil’s national sport, and Brazil was similarly placed (22nd) in the medal table in 2012. The Olympics need not be hosted just by the countries that are most competitive in the games.

Everything costs money. While the costs are significant, the money spent will regenerate parts of cities, create an image of the host country as a place for business, and create a long lasting legacy through the venues and infrastructure built.

While South Africa is not rich as the UK, Greece or Australia, its GDP per capita is around that of Brazil, which is hosting the 2016 Games.

Firstly, this argument assumes consent on the part of the athlete. That’s somewhat unfair as most of these ‘harsh’ training camps are fairly secretive. We know this because even though the Karoyli’s were called out, no punishment could be made due to the difficulty in obtaining conclusive evidence. So it is unlikely athletes really know what they’re getting themselves into.

You can’t consent to abuse, not like this, we wouldn’t let you sign a contract to allow someone to starve you. Moreover, just because athletes would do anything to get gold, doesn’t mean we should let them. Some people would happily sell an organ for money, but we stop them doing that and morally are right to do so. Individuals don’t always know what’s best for them, that’s in-part, why the state exists.

The Athens games did not create such a buzz. Many seats were empty in the games. This was in part a result of the poor performance of the host nation as Greece underperformed for an Olympic host nation, not entering the top ten of the medals table (in a games when South Africa only won one gold medal, that of their men’s 4x100m freestyle relay swimming team). Clearly this is a risk any host nation would take; the feel good factor comes from the national team doing well, not simply hosting the games.

South Africa has held events before, such as the World Cup – did that change perceptions of Africa? A well run games can change perceptions among those who visit but it can also damage perceptions. The South African world cup also involved slum clearance as part of a campaign of “beatification”, such actions hardly showcase a nation at its best. [1]

Due to its unique history, an event in South Africa may not have a halo effect for the entire continent. A games in one city will not affect other countries, or people’s perceptions of other African countries.

[1] McDougall, Dan, ‘Slum clearance, South Africa-style’, The Sunday Times, 25 April 2010, http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4bd52eed5

It’s simply untrue to claim that ‘unconnected athletes’ have done nothing wrong. It is the responsibility of every member of the national team to ensure standards are met, because abuses only go tolerated so long as they are allowed by athletes and other coaches to continue. In the case of the victim if they did not whistleblow early then they clearly are responsible for allowing that abusive practice to continue. It is the victim who the harsh regime was supposed to benefit through driving them to glory and if they acquiesced to the treatment then this is likely the reason.

The reason athletes don’t report the abuses is because they don’t think the abuse is worse than losing their place on the team. This policy changes that by sending a strong message out. Athletes will attach the gravity of the punishment to the crime and might finally begin to understand that this kind of treatment is utterly unacceptable.

It’s also fairly easy to get around the worry of being blamed for the repercussions by having anonymous tip-offs or witness protection.

The IAAF can compensate for lack of earnings too, but ultimately actually this potential makes abuse less likely to happen. If everyone knows what a risk using harsh methods is, then that’s a good thing. Athletes will be less likely to take it and allow it to continue, and coaches won’t want to risk using them.

Currently it’s worth everyone’s while to shut up and let abuse continue, these changes would mean the risk is too high to let that happen.

Most athletes can only compete at the elite level when they hit their peak. And the ‘big’ competitions, like the Olympics, don’t come around very often.

So because a coach, in a team they’re not part of, used harsh training methods, they now miss their only chance to compete in the highest competition possible and receive the biggest payout (in terms of wage and sponsorship) opportunity of their career.

Now, this may not weigh against the harm suffered by a beaten athlete, but when you multiply that number out and consider how many people you’re taking this opportunity away from, the harms stack up.

This simply shows that it is the coaches that are to blame and therefore it is unfair to punish the athletes for what their coaches are persuading them to do. Young manipulatable, athletes do not necessarily know what their coaches responsibilities are and what should be considered abuse. Instead this is the responsibility of the coaching team who therefore are the ones who should be penalised.

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