DISCUSSION 7.2

PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THE ATTACHMENT

USE SCHOLARLY SOURCES

PLEASE USE APA FORMAT 7TH EDITION BOOK

PLEASE SEE RUBRIC

DISCUSSION 7.2 CASE STUDY PRESENTATION

So I think anytime you come to an ethical situation…make sure you follow your
process, make sure you understand all the ramifications and at the end of the day,
you do the right thing. —Jennifer Strawley, Deputy Director of Athletics, University

of Miami

Theorists Lawrence Kohlberg and James Rest were each well-known for their
theories of moral development. Where Lawrence Kohlberg espoused a step-by-step
model, Rest believed that individuals were capable of shifting between stages
depending on their awareness and interpretation of events. Rest believed that this
interpretive framework is built on four components:

1. Moral sensitivity
2. Moral judgment
3. Moral motivation
4. Moral character

Moreover, according to Rest, these four processes all need to occur simultaneously
for moral behavior to occur. Rest emphasized interpretation because he believed
that an individual’s stage of moral development influences the individual’s
interpretive framework, which in turn, influences the decision making. According to
Goodwin (2007, p. 11), “A person’s stage of moral development provides an
indication of the interpretive framework that she/he brings to a moral problem. In
other words, the way in which a person interprets a problem impacts their decision
making.” Rest also advocated a series of steps for solving problems that included
the following:

1. Deciding what the dilemma is
2. Figuring out what is right
3. Identifying motivations
4. Persevering until it is solved

It is imperative for sport administrators to have an interpretive framework in order
to make ethical decisions. An interpretive framework will help you recognize and
communicate the problem in the situation before you can begin to solve it.

This week, you will produce a video presentation of your selected case study from
your Week 5 Assignment. Your video presentation will focus on what you interpret
is the main ethical issue within the case and why.

Review the videos in the learning materials and the following materials to help you
with this presentation.

Instructions

For this Discussion, write a 4-page paper.

Post a 4-page synopsis of your selected Case Study. Then, do the following:

• Provide a brief analysis of the broader or other ethical issues in this case
study.

• Explain which of these issues is the most relevant (i.e., the biggest problem)
and why.

• Explain how you, in a leadership position, would have prevented this
problem from happening in the first place. In other words, are there
“preventative” measures that could have assisted in a successful resolution
to this issue?

PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS IN THIS ATTACHMENT.
PLEASE VIEW CASE STUDY ATTACHMENTS AS GUIDE.

Instructor Name: Point Value: 30

Student Name:

CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points

Content Quality

40% of total Discussion

grade

Student participated in the

Discussion about the presented

topic with detailed, relevant,

supported initial posts and

responses. Student enhanced

points with examples and

questions that helped further

discussion. Discussion is well

organized, uses scholarly tone,

follows APA style, uses original

writing and proper paraphrasing,

contains very few or no writing

and/or spelling errors, and is fully

consistent with graduate-level

writing style. Discussion contains

multiple, appropriate and

exemplary sources

expected/required for the

assignment.

Student participated in the

Discussion about the presented

topic with detailed, relevant,

supported initial posts and

responses. Discussion is mostly

consistent with graduate level

writing style. Discussion may have

some small or infrequent

organization, scholarly tone, or

APA style issues, and/or may

contain a few writing and spelling

errors, and/or somewhat less than

the expected number of or type of

sources.

Student participated in the

Discussion about the presented

topic with adequate content but

the content lacked either detail,

relevancy, or support. Discussion

is somewhat below graduate level

writing style, with multiple smaller

or a few major problems.

Discussion may be lacking in

organization, scholarly tone, APA

style, and/or contain many writing

and/or spelling errors, or shows

moderate reliance on quoting vs.

original writing and paraphrasing.

Discussion may contain inferior

resources (number or quality).

Content of student’s post and

responses was not clear, relevant,

or supported. Discussion is well

below graduate level writing style

expectations for organization,

scholarly tone, APA style, and

writing, or relies excessively on

quoting. Discussion may contain

few or no quality resources.

Student did not submit a post or

response.

CATEGORY Excellent (12–11 points) Good (10–9 points) Fair (8–7 points) Poor (6–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points

Engagement

40% of total Discussion

grade

Student participated actively as

evidenced by strong reflective

thought in both the initial post and

in responses to classmates’ posts.

Student response participation

exceeded the stated minimum

requirements.

Student participated actively as

evidenced by strong reflective

thought in both the initial post and

in responses to classmates’

posts.Student responses

contributed to classmates’

experience.

Student participated somewhat

actively as evidenced by posts

and responses that were adequate

but lacking strong reflective

thought.

Student did not participate actively

as evidenced by little reflective

thought in initial posts and

responses.

Student did not submit a post or

response.

CATEGORY Excellent (6 points) Good (5 points) Fair (4 points) Poor (3–1 points) Did Not Complete (0 points) # of points

Timeliness

20% of total Discussion

grade

All postings were made in time for

others to read and

respond.

Almost all postings were made in

time for others to read and

respond.

Most postings were made in time

for others to read and respond.

Few postings were made in time

for others to read and respond.

Student did not submit a post or

response.

Final Point Total: 0

Feedback

KIN 606: Ethical Decision Making in Sport – Discussion Rubric Weeks 1–7

Weeks 4 and 5

Case Study Analysis

Instructions

Instructions

Paper: 6–8 pages

Select one of the three case studies provided. Using this outline as a guide, analyze the
ethical dilemma/case study you have chosen.

Using double-spaced, Times New Roman font in 12-point type, complete a narrative-
style paper using the headings provided in this outline for each section.

I. Information Gathering
a. What is the problem? (i.e., Why is this a dilemma and, specifically, an

ethical dilemma?)
b. What is the origin of the problem or the history behind it?
c. Who are the stakeholders (i.e., those affected by the ultimate

decision/outcome of the problem)
d. Which stakeholders need to be considered the most, and why?
e. What is my goal in solving the problem? (This is not the same as your

ultimate decision.)
f. Do I have all of the facts necessary to analyze the case properly? If not,

what relevant facts are missing?

II. Values and Ethics
a. List all values involved and a brief explanation of why each is a pertinent

value.
b. Which values are in conflict? Note that there may be several pairs of

conflicting values. If so, explain why each pair is in conflict.
c. If there is an order in terms of relevancy of values, include that and an

explanation of why you chose that order.

III. Alternatives and Consequences
a. Generate a list of potential alternative solutions.
b. Explain the potential ethical issues related to each alternative.
c. Explain the consequences of each alternative.
d. What is your intention in making these decisions?
e. What are the viable alternatives left after steps A–D? What were you able

to eliminate and still solve the problem?

IV. Solutions
a. Choose the one alternative(s) that maximize essential values and

minimizes as few as possible.
b. To whom and how will I defend or justify my position?

c. Is my decision consistent with everything outlined in Sections II and III?

V. Evaluation
a. What ethical theory (theories) were used in your decision-making

process?
b. When and how will I evaluate the decision?
c. Provide a strategy to prevent this dilemma from occurring in the future.

VI. Conclusion
a. What lessons did you learn from this exercise that will help you

be a more ethical leader?

Weeks 4 and 5
• Case Study Analysis Instructions

Instructions

Case Study 4: The Ethics of Horse Racing

Horse racing is a big industry and is a hugely popular sport with fans around the world. Nearly $12 billion is bet annually at North American racetracks, and the Dubai World

Cup has a winner’s purse of $12 million.

However the popularity of

horse

racing has declined in recent years. Despite its overall popularity, 
horse racing is a dangerous sport for both horse and jockey. In the U.S. in 2018, 

493 Thoroughbred racehorses died

, according to the Jockey Club’s Equine Injury Database. Most of these 

deaths are the result of limb injuries

, followed by by respiratory, digestive, and multiorgan system disorders. In fact, most of the 23 horse deaths at the Arcadia, California racetrack 

Santa Anita Park

were due to limb injuries.

The recent spike in racehorse fatalities, notably at Santa Anita, led to the publication of numerous articles criticizing the horse racing industry fundamentally for being unethically destructive of horses. This sort of press endangers the future of horse racing. For horse racing to survive, it has to face its ethical hurdles and defend the fundamental morality of the sport.

The basic question is this: Is it unethical for humans to race horses? Are those who love horse racing just using these noble animals for our own entertainment, and is the cost to them too great given the value to us?

Consider the story of filly Eight Belles in 2008. “She went out in glory. She went out as a champion.” Those were the words of Larry Jones, her trainer after an accident claimed the life of the 3-year old filly a quarter of a mile past the finish line at the Kentucky Derby, when she simultaneously broke both her front ankles seconds after finishing second to winner Big Brown. The veterinarian called to the scene, Dr. Larry Bramiage, said the snapping of both ankles as the horse was galloping out after the race, was an incident he had never seen in decades of his work with animals. Eight Belles was euthanized by lethal injection after the doctors discovered the catastrophic injury to the champion filly. Her jockey, Gabriel Saez, who was riding in his first Kentucky Derby, said later that he noticed that she was galloping funny, and when he tried to pull her up, she went down. The quick decision to put her down was made because a horse needs the use of at least three legs to survive more than 24 hours.

After the incident, many noted that although it was tragic, it happens all the time. Many said that it is simply part of racing. They agreed that it was sad and unfortunate, but part of the race, nevertheless. The fact that it “happens all the time” is part of the central issue. In a series of articles following the Derby, sports columnist Sally Jenkins pointed out that Eight Belles wasn’t even the only horse hurt that day: nine other race horses at tracks across the country had to be carried away from their races in ambulances on Derby Day 2008. American horses average 1.5 career-ending injuries for every 100 races, or about two a day, a much greater rate than abroad. Is this really ethical?

Some compare it to dog-fighting, since it involves animals. In that “sport,” however, life threatening injuries to the animals are the point of the contest. Fans don’t look away from a bleeding animal in horror as they did at the Derby; they cheer. Causing unreasoning, unconsenting animals to inflict vicious wounds on each other for entertainment represents a whole different level of depravity and cruelty that horse racing lacks. People go to bull fights for entertainment and would be disappointed if the bull didn’t die in front of them. There is also the analogy to dog (usually Greyhound) racing, which has come under fire recently and eliminated or made illegal in most states. It is generally considered cruel and inhumane.

Another issue is the use of drugs in horse racing, which is extremely common. With so much at stake, trainers will do almost anything to give their horse an advantage without considering the welfare of the horse.

Stimulants are used to give a horse extra temporary energy. Pain relieving drugs are used to mask pain that may result from disease or injury. Certain drugs can also be used to control pulmonary bleeding (EIPH) resulting from over-exertion in racing. Certain drugs are even used to make the horse run slower thereby manipulating the form of the horse.

While using certain drugs under the rules of racing is permitted, the question which needs to be asked is, ‘is this in the best interest of the horse?’ In most cases the answer is no. While some animal activists feel such drugs should be banned, others in the horse racing industry believe better self-regulation is the answer.

Many say horse racing endangers and exploits animals for human entertainment. The injury and fatality rates are unacceptably high. Unsuccessful horses with no breeding value are often destroyed. Also, the activity supports gambling on a wide scale, along with all the financial and personal devastation that come with gambling. These are major ethical issues for a non essential human activity, some say.

The recent spike in fatalities is a problem and should be taken seriously.  But it is also uncharacteristic of the racing industry as a whole.  Moreover, the racing of horses is not merely an instance of humans using horses for our own selfish ends; it is a partnership that benefits both humans and horses.

Much has been written about the economic benefits of the horse-racing industry. It provides jobs for farm workers, feed companies, grooms, trainers, and more. It can also be defended as more environmentally friendly than many alternative uses of the land. Therefore one can make the case that it is a fundamentally ethical activity.

World Horse Welfare does not accept the claim that horses are unwilling participants in sport. Horses bred to compete will rise to the challenge, as anyone who has ever taken part in equestrian sport knows. This notion that sport is bad for horses needs to be challenged – and challenged forcefully.  Yes, sport horses are well cared for, but that is no more than one should expect. However, the sheer amount of investment that flows into the horse industry and the resulting research that is conducted on horse health and welfare has done an enormous amount for horses everywhere.

Yes, horse racing supports the breeding and racing industries and its employees. It is a sport with a long tradition. It is exciting, the animals are beautiful, and the horses love to run. What about the welfare and fate of the horses? Horses are put in peril. PETA says horse racing must stop.

There is no doubt that public support for horse racing, and horse sport in general, is increasingly contingent upon their confidence in a sport’s care and protection of the horse. This is a welcome development, for horses, humans, and for sport. However, animal rights groups and others are attracting more attention for their view that it is inherently wrong to use horses for entertainment. So, is it ethical to use horses in sport? 

Case Study 3:

Transgender

Athletes

First brought to the forefront in the 1970’s by tennis athlete, Renée Richards, transgender athletes have been an ongoing controversy ever since. Many people argue that such athletes should be barred from competing due to their competitive advantage, specifically those who convert from male to female. However, science provides that hormone therapy typically involves a testosterone-blocking drug plus an estrogen supplement which in-turn decreases muscle mass, bone density, and the proportion of oxygen carrying red cells in the blood. Collectively, these changes lead to a loss of speed, strength and endurance – all major components that quantify athleticism.

Joanna Harper, a long distance runner who started hormone therapy in 2004, found the differences to be quite dramatic. Only a year following her sex change, her 10 kilometer race time was almost a full five minutes slower than the time she posted two years previously as a man. Over the next several years, Harper collected 200 race times from eight different transgender women to verify if her experience was typical. Her study, published in the
Journal of Sporting Cultures and Identities, “found that collectively, the eight subjects got much slower after their gender transitions and put up nearly identical age-graded scores as men and as women, meaning they were equally – but no more – competitive in their new gender category.”

These results are supported by the IAAF, which allow anyone who is legally and hormonally female to compete in women’s events. Since 2011, the NCAA requires female athletes to wait a full year after beginning testosterone suppression before they can compete. The International Olympic committee may modify its rules to require an additional year of hormone treatment before the transgender athlete can become eligible.

The controversy whether transgender athletes should be able to compete in the opposite sexes sport, is further discussed in the article:

Allowing Transgender Olympians is Unfair to Women

.

Tamikka Brents

, a martial arts fighter, states: “I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not, because I’m not a doctor. I can only say I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female.” Brents also states that the woman Brents was referring to isn’t a woman at all, but transgender MMA fighter Fallon Fox, who fights as a woman against women. “What Brents reportedly experienced at Fox’s hands was a concussion and a broken orbital bone that required staples. In other words, this woman was savaged by an opponent that was genetically advantaged with a thicker bone structure, longer reach, and denser musculature—or, put more simply, was a man. This is one of many accounts that are out there, however, science rules over personal experiences and opinions.

Recently,
The Guardian posted an article explaining how during the Rio Olympics, transgender athletes were allowed “without restriction” to compete in any sport during the event without the need of surgery. “
Transgender athletes should be allowed to compete in the Olympics and other international events without undergoing sex reassignment surgery, according to new guidelines adopted by the IO.”

The regulation establishes that any female to male has without any restriction the right to compete, in the other hand male to female needs to provide the accurate levels of testosterone according to the IOC. “To require surgical anatomical changes as a precondition to participation is not necessary to preserve fair competition and may be inconsistent with developing legislation and notions of human rights,” said the IOC.

According to Arne Ljungqvist, a former IOC medical commission chairman, the nonstop social and political changes had a lot to do with these regulations. Ljungqvist further states: “We had to review and look into this from a new angle. We needed to adapt to the modern legislation around the world. We felt we cannot impose a surgery if that is no longer a legal requirement. It is an adaptation to a human rights issue. This is an important matter. It’s a trend of being more flexible and more liberal,” according to Ljungqvist.

These issues came into place when South Africa’s Caster Semenya underwent tests to demonstrate her gender after winning the 800M race in London during the 2012 Olympics. She was eventually cleared to compete, but the scandal created a large amount of discussion among the public.

It is official; Nike is the athletic wear company making history by signing the first transgender athlete. Chris Mosier has made the United States national team in events such as triathlons and also helping with the aid of Nike to break the fourth wall and forcing the conversation on the issues surrounding transgender athletes (SBJ, 2016). The commercial appeared during Rio’s final night of NBC’s primetime coverage.

The Women’s Sports Foundation, founded by Billie Jean King also supports the inclusion of transgender participation in sports. The Women’s Sports Foundation supports the right of all athletes, including transgender athletes, and believes that schools must be prepared to fairly accommodate these students and their families in athletics as well as other school programs. The Foundation created the position paper to help equip schools and transgender student-athletes with the information they need to ensure fair access and integration into sports and physical activity. The foundation poses five questions that schools and transgender athletes should assess about the program they want to integrate:

· Are schools obligated to accommodate transgender athletes?

· What types of physical accommodations must sport governing bodies make to ensure the inclusion of transgender athletes is fair and appropriate?

· Do male-to-female transgender athletes have a physical advantage in competition against non-transgender females?

· What obligations do sport governing bodies have to educate their members about the rights of transgender athletes?

· What are the elements of sound school policy on transgender athletes?

· What about issues in youth and high school sports related to transgender athletes? They are separate and specific.

The aforementioned instances lead us to ask many other questions related to this topic: What should be the deciding factor to decide if one plays on a male or female team? Should there be a hormone level that must be met? Should transgender athletes who choose not to go through surgery and/or hormonal therapy still be allowed to compete? Must everyone on the team have the same anatomy? What’s the off-field dynamic if they still have the opposite genders anatomy? Should they be placed into a separate locker room? What possible advantages are there for transgender males playing female sports and what potential setbacks could there be? What type of punishment would one receive if these gender-specific rules were broken? The answers to many of these questions may surface in the near future.

Case Study 1: Genetic Enhancement in Sport

The science of genetics is advancing faster than our moral intuitions can cope. No longer called “designer babies, “just a figment of the imagination, restricted to the realm of sci-fi movies (Sandel). With an emerging science called gene modification, these “designer babies” could be artificially programmed genetically to become potentially great athletes. Using it, an athlete could be injected with the DNA of an animal, for example, and quickly become much faster and stronger The implications are huge- and not just for babies and reproduction. We can modify our genetic make-up as adults too. Stonger muscles and bones, enhanced pain tolerance, faster recovery from exercise, and increased oxygen efficiency are just a few of the ways athletes can use gene enhancement for a competitive advantage

“You don’t need to lift weights, and you don’t need to go on 10-mile runs to train for endurance” explains Peter Weyand, a kinesiology professor at Rice University. “It would replace training; it would make training seem trivial and obsolete. Somebody who’s not athletic at all could be transformed into something superhuman.” Today’s world class athletes in many cases are already genetic oddities, many times through the aid of illegal drugs. But with genetic engineering, anyone might enhance his or her abilities “100, 200, 500, 1,000 percent,” Dr. Weyand says. He gives the example of using the fast twitch muscles of a mouse to create superfast sprinters.

For clarity purposes, it is important to identify key concepts and terms that are used in research on genetic technology.  In sport, doping has traditionally been the term that describes the process of using illegal performance enhancement substances.  Most sports governing bodies, as well as the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), have some type of written policy that identifies which substances are not acceptable for the purpose of performance enhancement in sport.  Gene doping is a relatively new term. WADA defines gene doping as “the non-therapeutic use of cells, genes, genetic elements, or of the modulation of gene expression, having the capacity to enhance athletic performance.” It has been known (and still is by some) as genetic enhancement, gene modification, and gene therapy.

Distinguished Harvard philosopher, Michael Sandel, believes that we should be extremely cautious in our attempts to shape and master nature, and indeed to master our shape. Dick Pound, former chairman of WADA, said “Gene therapy has enormous potential to revolutionize medicine’s approach to curing disease and improving the quality of life. Unfortunately, this same technology, like many others, can be abused to enhance athletic performance…The same kinds of people who cheat in sport today will probably try to find ways to misuse genetics tomorrow.” He advises a proactive approach rather than the reactive one characteristic of past cases of performance enhancement in sport.

All of the various gene therapies hold great potential for treating people with serious illnesses like muscular dystrophy or crippling injuries. Through non medical enhancement, diseases might be cured and prevented, making the case for genetic enhancement a strong one in terms of science and medicine. But there are health and safety issues on the other side of the argument as well. Misuse by athletes trying to gain a competitive advantage has serious long term implications.

In theory we can now manipulate genes to make athletes run faster, jump higher, throw further. Does that mean sport will evolve into a form of competition between quasi-robots? And if so, would it matter? What makes something natural? Could great training versus ingesting drugs corrupt the purpose of sport? Where should the ethical lines be drawn for this new technology of genetic enhancement in sport?

Genetic modification in sport has created large scale discussion on ethical implications.  Research has been published with normative arguments that are against this relatively new technology.  

Research also exists that promotes the idea of genetic modification in sport.  One such argument is that genetically modified athletes would perform at higher, unimagined levels, thereby adding more excitement to sport. As a result, fan base and attendance at sporting events could potentially grow. These are but a few of the arguments.

The ability to test for genetically doped athletes creates another ethical and practical dilemma. The International Olympic Committee has already begun the search for a viable test for gene doping that does not involve muscle biopsies. If a test is found, we must consider the ethics associated with privacy, as genetic information could be given to third parties, leading to genetic discrimination.

When does therapy for an injury or an illness cross over to performance enhancement? What constitutes misuse? What codes of conduct should guide researchers and doctors? How can rules against genetic enhancement be enforced?

New technologies are currently being developed that will enable medical professionals to modify genes for medicinal purposes.  As the process continues to be refined, the emergence of a controversial new use for this technology has ignited some serious debate.  Scientists have submitted that genetic modification could potentially be used as a method of performance enhancement in sport. There are different schools of thought on this type of performance enhancement, and researchers and theorists have argued the advantages and disadvantages of using such a technology. Though the ethical debate on this matter is in its infancy, a general consensus is that the allowance of genetic modification for the purpose of enhancing performance in sport will most certainly create a new look, along with new concerns, for sport in the future.