Re: IQ AND RACE. The taboo subject.

Lennart Regebro (
27 Feb 1995 10:39:27 GMT

In article <3ihtj7$>, (J Lopez) writes:
>The race is fair so long as the starting line and the finish line are the
>same. By definition that's fair.

Nope. If the starting line and the finish line are the same, and there are the same type and amount of obstacles on the whole course, then the _track_ is fair. Not the _race_. If Carl Lewsi is on Steroids, and gets a head start, the race definitely is _not_ fair.

Fairness could be defined as 'equal rules'. If Carl Lewis is on steroids, then the others should be allowed to use steroids, and so on.

What can make a race unfair even if all have the same rules are if the rules are made to promote or demote somthing that shouldn't be a part of the race.
One example can be the swedish skier, Mr Stenmark. He was very much better at slalom skiig, so he on the world cup (or something like that). Since he was so much better than everybody else, there was changes made in the rules, stating that to win, you had to get a certain amount of points in each different type of race. Since Mr Stenmark wasn't good at all types ( he was very bad in those really fast races were you don't turn much, you just go fast) he then didn't win this world cup any more.

_This_ is on line of being unjust. On the other hand, it can be justified with the argument that the winner should be allround. Not just exceptional at some parts.

That's *still* true even if some of the
>lanes have obstacles, if the track is curved, if some are carrying
>weights or have leg shackles, if Carl Lewis is on steroids, etc.
>jlopez :: "How the hell can you write an essay on E. M. Forster with almost
> total reference to Harold Robbins?" --Willy Russell