Slashdot Mirror
Controversy Over High-Tech Brooms Sweeps Through Sport of Curling
HughPickens.com writes: Billy Witz reports at the NYT that the friendly sport of curling suddenly has become roiled in controversy over — what else? — the brooms. The crux of the debate is fabric — specifically, something called directional fabric. The use of this material in broom pads is the latest escalation in an arms race among manufacturers, whereby the world's best curlers can guide the 44-pound stone around a sheet of ice as if it were controlled by a joystick. Many of the sport's top athletes, but not all of them, signed an agreement last month not to use the newest brooms. But with few regulations on the books and Olympic qualifying tournaments underway this month, the World Curling Federation has stepped in and issued new rules that set severe restrictions on the types of brooms that can be used. "There's definitely some anger over it," says Dean Gemmell. "In curling, we're generally known for being pretty friendly with most of your opponents. Even at the big events, you see the top players hanging out. But it's sort of taken that away this year, that's for sure."
It was prototype brooms made by BalancePlus that were the focus of complaints at the Toronto tournament, but Scott Taylor, president of BalancePlus, says they were never intended for sale, and were meant to demonstrate the problems that the reversed fabrics could cause. Players say the brooms allowed sweepers to "steer" the rock much more than they were comfortable with, and even slow them down. The brooms have been compared to high-tech drivers that allow amateur golfers to hit the ball as far as a pro, or the advanced full-body swimsuits that were banned from competition in 2010 for providing an unfair advantage. Of his company's high-tech broom, Taylor says: "This isn't good. It's like hitting a golf ball 500 yards."
It was prototype brooms made by BalancePlus that were the focus of complaints at the Toronto tournament, but Scott Taylor, president of BalancePlus, says they were never intended for sale, and were meant to demonstrate the problems that the reversed fabrics could cause. Players say the brooms allowed sweepers to "steer" the rock much more than they were comfortable with, and even slow them down. The brooms have been compared to high-tech drivers that allow amateur golfers to hit the ball as far as a pro, or the advanced full-body swimsuits that were banned from competition in 2010 for providing an unfair advantage. Of his company's high-tech broom, Taylor says: "This isn't good. It's like hitting a golf ball 500 yards."
One day the average teenager with a toy or the right diet will perform better than the best athlete if we prevent athletes from using assistive technologies.
To some extent that is already true. No cyclist in the world can compete with a teenager using a motorized version.
So what should we do? Expect sportspeople to live outside society and perform "human" sport for our entertainment?
Well, they already are. There is no inherent benefit from sports other than our entertainment and athletes already live a life pretty different from average Joe.
I say we should start a new Olympics. Like we have one for disabled people we should have one for people who can take whatever drugs they like, can use any new fancy dangled tech they want. I would pay to watch that! 100 meter sprint and two people hearts explode. AWESOME!
There are three kinds of falsehood: the first is a 'fib,' the second is a downright lie, and the third is statistics.
Cycling, despite all the drug problems, is kind of in a similar place right now. You can go buy a road bike right now, that weighs just over 10 pounds. But the pros are restricted to using bikes that weigh at least 15 pounds. Some pros have even been known to add lead weight to their bike in order to not run afoul of the minimum weight limit. Note: This is completely within the rules.
I think that at the amateur level, there should definitely be rules about what kind of equipment you can use. Otherwise, many people who might end up being great at the professional level will never get there, as they were discouraged by the fact that they are continually losing to those with more money.
On the other hand, the professionals, with rich sponsors, it makes little reason to try and limit specific technologies. Obviously you want to disallow anything that would make the athletes unsafe. You probably also want to keep the general idea of the sport the same. Such as no recumbent bicycles in bike races meant for upright bikes. But limiting things like the fabric on curling brooms or the shape and material of your swimsuit seems like it's pushing things a little bit too far.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I find it hard to decide whether banning human assistive technology in sport is a good thing.
My issue with this stuff is it's all so arbitrary. Hockey players aren't forced to use sticks improvised from re-used household materials. Tennis rackets aren't reduced to whatever hardcover books the players can find laying around. Swimmers aren't required to don industry-standard street-wear.
No. Organized sports allow their participants and technology to optimize... until suddenly they don't.
The argument is usually "we want a level playing field", but that's still rubbish. Somali kids don't have access to the carbon-fiber gear kids in the US have. Even access to health-care and nutrition isn't balanced world-wide. When athletes are required to be raised from infants on the borderline-sufficient foods that some people live on, then we can call things "fair". Until then, I don't see a meaningful difference between steroid-use and nutritionally-balanced breakfasts, between cutting-edge broom-heads and custom-fit swimsuits.
These gentleman's agreements are bunk, making the very idea of sports competitions a joke. These are not the best of the best, they're the best of what they feel like allowing - for now.
"Oh no... he found the
It is certainly true that they are already leading lives different to the average Joe when they can get a life ban from sport for using an over the counter cold treatment that contains a banned substance. Maybe one day we will be raising children in special camps where modern medicine is banned just so they can compete in sports. We could call the camps "Human Zoos".
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
American footballers are schoolgirls.
And then there's Curling. Real blood sport. My experience with Curling: Went to Ottawa for business, stopped in Vancouver for a connecting flight. In one waiting area bar was a few televisions with people watching Curling. I had two hours to kill so I sat down with a beer and watched Curling. Two hours later I left to get my connecting flight. Two hours of looking at my watch, drinking Molsen's, and watching Curling. Two hours. Seemed like 5. I tried to get into it, honestly. Then I left Vancouver. That was my last experience with Curling. Seriously. It could have been an English documentary on cheese making. I left with the same impression. Woah. Need a sleep-aid? Watch Curling.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Are you in favour of cork-ed bats, then, too? And, yes, I realize that a small part of the issue with corked bats is safety (some of them broke badly). But in general, its perfectly reasonable to limit the equipment that is used for specific sports. Hockey goalies can't wear pads that exceed certain dimensions, NFL QBs can't deflate footballs, and so on, and so on
The only problem that I have with the corked bat is that traditionally in the pros, the bats have always been pure ash, or other hardwoods such as maple or hickory. If you're going to go the route of using corked bats, then that's fine, but you might as well allow any other materials such as aluminum. The simple solid wooden bat is a clear and distinct rule.
If curling was limited to straw brooms, then I could see why they would want to disallow everything but straw. But as soon as you let people start using synthetic fabrics, then disallowing one fabric will just cause the competitors to find a different fabric with the same properties. It basically creates an arms race for who can find the best way to go around the rules without technically breaking them.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
It is certainly true that they are already leading lives different to the average Joe when they can get a life ban from sport for using an over the counter cold treatment that contains a banned substance.
Yeah, and they can get a ban for eating a salad (made of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...). Over simplifying the issues and presenting as an absolute with the intention of deceiving is a lie. You are lying. An athelete with a cold can go to a medical doctor, have their symptoms diagnosed, and be issued a prescription for a banned substance, then compete while on that banned substance and test positive for that banned substance, and not have any sanctions taken against them, even if they win (which, is unlikely if they are competing with a bad cold).
Now, if the athlete is sneaking banned substances and breaking the rules by taking it in secret in unknown doses, the sensitive tests that look for it will get a true positive, and without the pre-disclosure and documented treatment regimen, will be assumed to be an abuser.
The system works as intended, and isn't nearly as bad as the abusers claim it is.
Learn to love Alaska