DRUGS IN SPORT

1. DRUGS IN SPORT Alesha Marnewick, Anita Heffernan, Alex Smith, Julia Breen

2. ‘Critical Evaluation” is the process of making informed and valid judgements or conclusions supported by comprehensive knowledge and evidence. Throughout the process we challenge assumptions and taken for granted points of view through reflecting and examining pros and cons, bias and different perspectives”

3. 2013 Physical Education Scholarship Exam Specs Content/Context Details Questions will draw on candidates’ knowledge from the following areas; • events / trends and / or issues in physical education that impact on New Zealand society. • This year, the topic will involve drugs in sport.

4. Some Key Terms for today: • Hegemony – the power and dominance groups of people have over others. The influence of groups in a society to essentially lead and dominate other groups in society. Within sport hegemony may occur by influencing decision making of groups and individuals, through the encouragement of male and female stereotypes through the dominance of certain sports within the media. • Eg – big nations vs small nations, • stereotypical sports “cycling”,

5. Scientism • – the belief that the only valid and valuable sources of knowledge are those that have been affirmed through strict scientific methods. They view the body as something that be modified or enhanced. Similar to how a Ferrari mechanic may view the race cars they work on. Eg – doctors/physicians and athletes, exercises physiologists, adidas sports centre…

6. Commodification of sportspeople: • – involves placing a certain value on different sports and athletes and transforming the sports/athletes into a commodity; this in turn results in the treatment of athletes and sports as a product that can be exchanged and manipulated.Eg – Lance Armstrong, Tiger Woods (Nike),

7. Drug Video • http://www.abc.net.au/btn/story/s3689496.htm

8. GROUP 1: “DRUGS ARE GOOD”

9. GROUP 2: “DRUGS ARE BAD”

10. GROUP TASK: • FIND YOUR LOLLY FAMILY…. • Lemon & Lime: Social Strawberry: Economic • Banana: Political Milkshake: Historical • Orange: Ethical Wildberry: Cultural • Thinking about who benefits from Drugs and sport… (Hegemony, Scientism & commodification of athletes) use your stance to complete the PMI….Links to NZ?

11. SPEEECH

12. DISCUSS – Before you report to the group you need to be able to: Who benefits? Is there any hegemonic processes, scientism and commodification aspects that you can talk about? Is NZ ones of these? How is NZ affected? Self Critique and Reporting back:

13. Who is then responsible? • What can be done? • Does anything need to be done? • TAKE YOUR STANCE….

14. So where to from here?How do we put all this together? Conclusion

15. What is in the conclusion: • You must take a stand! • Once you have done this justify your personal point of view.

16. Using the info we have discussed how can we argue this as an….

17. Previous Exam Question: • “In many ways, globalisation has been beneficial for sport. … The evidence also includes the increasing opportunities that athletes, coaches, and leaders, have been able to access because of the global nature of sport.” Source (adapted): Thibault, L. (2009). Globalisation of Sport: An Inconvenient Truth. Journal of Sport Management. 23 (1), pp 1–20.“Commentators find evidence of globalisation in international sports media spectacles, geographically mobile sports, advertising, promotion, marketing, and packaging practices. … In the end, none can escape, and each has the same (dirty!) look.”Source (adapted): Miller, T., Lawrence, G., McKay, J., and Rowe, D. (2001). Globalization and Sport: Playing The World. London: Sage. (p 13). • Critically evaluate the issue of the “globalisation of sport” and its impact on New Zealand society. • Support your evaluation with appropriate examples from your own knowledge and experience of examining this issue.

18. Previous Examiners Report • SCHOLARSHIP WITH OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE • Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance typically: • • evaluated the question with a critical lens • • answered the question with valid subject knowledge and were able to look at an • argument from multiple perspectives that reflected the nature of the • context/experience/environment • • showed the ability to write fluently and develop a clear argument that showed depth and • breadth of subject knowledge • • supported their answer with own relevant experience, quotes, references, statistics, key • terminology that enhanced an answer/argument that was pertinent to each question • • linked succinctly to the extracts and constantly referred back to the question. • SCHOLARSHIP • Candidates who were awarded Scholarship but not Scholarship with Outstanding • Performance typically: • • answered the question with valid subject knowledge and were able to look at an • argument from two sides • • demonstrated the ability to plan and develop a logical answer • • used their own relevant experiences, quotes, references, statistics, key terminology to • support their response. • Question 2: • • developed a coherent discussion/argument that was supported by examples • • considered whether or not Globalisation was an issue or not • • used good examples to illustrate a point • • challenged assumptions. • OTHER CANDIDATES • Candidates who were not awarded Scholarship or Scholarship with Outstanding • Performance typically: • • did not answer the question or misinterpreted the question • • answered only part of the question and / or fewer than three questions • • provided a series of paragraphs or points of knowledge that did not relate to each other • • lacked subject knowledge at this level • • provided irrelevant or incorrect knowledge e.g. confused Principles of Training with • biomechanical principles, demonstrated limited or no understanding of the Health • Promotion Process as used in the Health and Physical Education Learning Area.

19. Awesome links: • http://www.scoop.it/t/is-sport-good-for-us?page=1 • NZ Herald • http://nzh.tw/10880349 • http://www.nzherald.co.nz/iphone