If the car has greater mass, it requires a greater force to accelerate and decelerate.
Basketball imposed a special equalizing rule against tall players: goaltending.
I would just like to point out that anybody arguing against this new rule change has to really bring their A game, since all major racing leagues now weigh the drivers. You aren’t arguing against me or the other proponents in this thread; you are arguing against every authority there is.
If you think women should be given a special advantage, at least recognize that aside from a few posters in this thread, you are the only ones in the world to think so.
No.
That’s a non-sequitur. What about this makes it unfair?
Seems more like the men are being given a special advantage now. It’s the women that are being given a handicap.
You’ll need to show me a cite backing up this assertion before I take you seriously.
Hey, no one is saying that weighing the drivers is wrong, or that motorsports can’t choose to do it. We’re merely saying that there was nothing unfair about the rules that existed before. All rules are completely arbitrary. Whatever the various governing bodies want to do is fine. Just don’t claim that Danica Patrick had an unfair advantage. She was racing within the rules, and therefore ‘fair’ did not enter into it.
In your estimation, is there any (even theoretical) rule in any sport that could ever be considered unfair?
With hot chicks in the race, the erect penises of the straight male drivers may interfere with steering and possibly shifting, should they grab the wrong stick. And of course with hot male drivers, in the race, gay male grivers maybe similarly handicapped.
E-Sabbath has one solution: make women wear strap-ons.
Another solution is perhaps more drastic, but it will save a bit of weight. Remove all the penises from the men.
This was posed to Sam Stone, but I’ll answer as well:
Only to the extent that the players might consider it unfair. But that is of course subjective. It’s not that I don’t think there is any coherent notion of fairness; I just object to the idea that there is some logically mandated objective notion of it. Some might think it more fair to change baseball so it’s four strikes before you’re out, some to two strikes, and of course, most are happy to keep it at the traditional but arbitrary three; there’s nothing objectively right or wrong with any of those preferences. Everyone has their own opinions on what sorts of things they’d agree to play and what they wouldn’t; “fairness” only enters into it as opinion of that sort. There’s nothing intrinsically, objectively wrong with any particular contrived rules for a game; all that matters is people’s willingness to participate.
Then explain what reasoning you think was behind IRL’s decision to join the rest of the racing world by adopting this new rule.
And while you’re at it, maybe you could explain why all major racing weighs drivers to begin with.
ETA: I’m ignoring for the moment the ridiculously insane idea that there is no such thing as an unfair rule, or lack thereof. Your lone “# of strikes” example is less than compelling. Sure, that rule has no overtones of fairness, but that in no way means that no rules ever could.
I think IRL felt it would make for more compelling sport. That was their decision to make; I’m supportive of their free choice in the matter. Had they chosen oppositely, that would’ve been fine too. Had they chosen oppositely and half their racers grumbled and left to form their own league, that would’ve been fine too. Different strokes for different folks, to put it banally.
If you think there is such a thing as an objectively unfair rule, why not posit one? And then tell me how exactly it is that willing athletes who voluntarily sign up for playing by such a rule are necessarily being cheated? Seems to me, people are ethically free to set up their competitions however they want to.
You did, actually, when you said that women should get the benefit of being lighter so the men would have to work harder, like the women do in all other sports.
When I asked for examples of these super-secret “other” sports where women compete against men, you never replied.
Yet another completely unsupported pulled-from-your-ass position that has no basis in reality.
Not having a steroid policy would be unfair, much like not weighing the cars as raced is unfair.
Before anyone gets hung up on steroids being illegal, the same holds for perfectly legal supplements banned by most leagues, like creatine. (sp?)
How would it become more compelling?
By “not having a steroid policy would be unfair”, do you mean “Allowing the use of steroids would be objectively unfair”? If so, I can only respond: “Why? What if I want to allow players to use certain substances in the competitions I arrange, because I think this would make for an enjoyable sport for them, the spectators, and many others? And what if they all think it’s a jolly good idea as well? Who’s being swindled then, if they all agree to this?”. You may personally not care to play, watch, or otherwise participate in the Steroid Leagues, but I don’t see how that makes their rules objectively unfair; it just means they’re not to your taste.
Why are you being deliberately obtuse? The stated puprose of banning performance-enhancing drugs is to maintain a level playing field. In other words, it is an issue of fairness.
All rules that promote a level playing field, ensure competitive balance, or enforce parity are examples of rules that promote objective fairness.
There is no law that says that sports have to be fair. I happen to think they should, but I recognize from the days of debate about the NFL’s salary cap that reasonable people can disagree. But you’re coming at this from a completely different angle: fairness does not objectively exist. There is a mountain of evidence supporting the concept of objective fairness in sports.
The latest addition to this long list is IRL’s new rule weighing drivers. You say that this rule’s purpose is to make the races “more compelling.” I submit that the only possible way it could achieve that is by promoting a level playing field. In other words, fairness.
Quick, terse responses, till I have time to put out a better post:
I don’t feel I was being deliberately obtuse. Nor that there’s anything particularly un-level about a steroid-enabled playing field; after all, all players would be equally allowed to use them. Everyone would be playing by the same rules.
It’s easy to enforce parity: legislate that all competitions end in a perfect tie (or, perhaps more sophisticatedly, that all competition outcomes are determined by uniform random number generation). It’s not quite parity you’re after. What you’re after is something more subjective.
That’s not parity at all. I no longer think you’re being deliberately obtuse. I now think that you truly do not understand what the term “fairness” means in the context of sports.
This might be an interesting discussion in the Game Room. Does fairness exist in sports? I would be happy to engage in (much more) civil discussion with if you wanted to open a thread.
Note that parity has absolutely nothing to do with results, no matter how many baseball guys think it does. Parity is all about opportunity.
If EVERYONE uses performance enhancing drugs, the playing field is still level.
That’s one way to look at it. You could also say that skinny drivers, by virtue of their physical attributes, do not slow down the car as much as beefy drivers, similar to how good driving technique doesn’t slow down the car as much as bad technique. Is there something inherently wrong with a persons physical attributes assisting them in being better at a sport?